;)
Is Congregational Polity a Baptist Distinctive?
Posted by Les Puryear in Baptist Life
One of the speakers at the 2008 Pastors Conference in Indy stated that his church had not had a business meeting in two years. When someone asked him about it, he asked “Is the church still here? Are the lights still on? Do we still have baptisms?” This megachurch pastor seemed proud that his church did not exercise congregational polity.
In section VI of BFM2K, it states:
“A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous local congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel; observing the two ordinances of Christ, governed by His laws, exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by His Word, and seeking to extend the gospel to the ends of the earth. Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes. In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord. Its scriptural officers are pastors and deacons. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.” (emphasis mine)
It seems to me that more and more SBC churches are moving away from a congregational polity toward other polity models such as pastor-led, staff-led, and elder-led.
How would you describe the polity in your church? When do you bring things before the church for vote and when do you not bring things before the church for a vote? Where do you draw the line between the church voting on something and the pastor, staff, or elders making the decision?
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
Hey Les,
I noticed that you didn’t include Jesus-Led. I know it doesn’t seem as pragmatic as man-led, but don’t you think we should change our focus on what man votes on (or decides) and what Jesus is already telling us to do? Then again, I highly doubt Jesus cares about the color of our carpet.
One time, a bunch of leaders started to hear complaints. Apparently some people felt like certain widows were being ignored. Talking to these people the leaders said, “We’re busy, you’ll have to deal with it. Go pick a bunch of men who you trust and get them to handle it.”
Some people see that as Elder-Led – some see it as Congregation-Led. I think it was Jesus-led.
God’s Glory,
Lew
Les,
I remember that statement being made. It struck me as being odd because where I pastor we have a monthly business meeting and everything goes to the congregation for a vote.
Because we are a small church, it keeps everything above board and the people know what is going on with the ministry and finances; all questions are answered and it gives everyone ownership of their responsiblity.
If the end result is that the people have decided they want the church run without business meetings etc… then it still is Congregational Polity.
It may BE a Baptist distinctive, but I don’t think it should be. How a church is governed is a function of the church’s by-laws.
Chuck – often, church planters who create the founding by-laws never give the “congregation” any say at all in how the church is governed. At least that’s how it appears to me.
Les,
Elder led congregations and congregational government are not incongruous. We have elders and deacons who are chosen by the church body and entrusted with particular responsibilities. We have church member meetings with financial statements and minute readings and other issues just like every other church. Like many other congregations we don’t vote on every issue, but no major decision (binding contracts; major expenditures; personnel decisions) is ever made without congregational approval even though there may be details which are not publicly stated. (Even those are not secret nor treated as such) I am a congregationalist in that I believe that the congregation itself must accept ultimate responsibility before God for its life and work and that the congregation is the ultimate authority under Christ. (Matt 18:16-17) However, the office of spiritual overseer is also clearly described in Scripture and elder in particular is almost always plural. It is also evident that those elders were given authority in the church. When the congregation chooses that form of leadership is it not “congregational”? Is it a defense of congregationalism to attempt to dictate to congregations what form of polity the congregation itself may choose? The shots that some are taking at those who move toward “elder-led” as moving toward Presbyterianism obviously don’t know what a Presbyterian model is actually like and equating leadership with dictatorship is, of course, ridiculous. There are, in my experience (35+ years), far more problems in Baptist churches with pastors and/or deacons assuming authority over congregations and stifling questions or dissent than in any elder-led congregation I ever heard of. I have never heard of an elder-led church where the leadership announced they had received direct Divine revelation (apart from Scripture) regarding some issue (and without the qualification for prophets that being wrong disqualifies you from leadership). It is certainly not uncommon to hear it in some churches which reject elders as “unbiblical.” Congregations which move toward such models based on their convictions from Scripture are also very rarely troubled with inactive church members suddenly showing up at business meeting. Which is most dangerous to the churches and which is actually outside the bounds of Scripture?
Les,
The church in which I serve empowers it’s ministers and pastors to lead. We have business sessions every couple of months but it is primarily a time for sharing reports of God’s activity among us. We elect leaders, hear about the finances and buildings, and make major decisions in our business sessions. Most of the ministry of the church however occurs without direct congregational supervision. We typically choose a leader by congregational vote and then empower them to do their job without having to come back to the congregation. Also, I’ve found that our business sessions only represent about 1/10th of our church. Most of our folks like what the elected leadership is doing and have no interest in scrutinizing their work. The philosophy seems to be that if we can’t trust someone to do their work appropriately under the direction of the Holy Spirit, then we most likely have elected the wrong person. So…I guess it’s congregational in that the congregation chooses the leaders but after choosing, the congregation chooses to leave them alone to do their work.
Denocratic processes have a myriad of forms. Our US government, for example is not a democracy, but a democratic republic. We have the power to elect who we want as leaders, and then our elected leaders govern. We still vote on some other things, but mostly our represented officials make decisions based on what they think will be best for us. This is the way many elder boards or pastoral staffs work in our churches. And I agree that this can be a good form. But we have to listen to folks, ask questions and communicate well so that folks have ownership in the process.
Bernard,
Most church plants I work with have a process for engaging people to have ownership in ministry. But most church planters also create founding by-laws or organizational structures before they have any people! And then these by-laws or structures change over time with input from lots of folks. This has been my experience with church plants, and I might add, most of these congregations seem very glad about their churches. Again, I think the key is communicating as much and as often and in as many ways as you can.
That’s just my two cents worth!
Lew,
I’m assuming (and that may be a huge mistake) that all forms of polity are Jesus-led. That is my own personal presupposition to all polity models.
Martin,
We do the same thing in our church. We have committees to oversee the development and implementation of the congregations’ decisions. The committees will always take major changes, like adding a playground, to the congregation for their approval before they do it.
Chuck,
I suppose that’s one way of looking at it. To me, if the congregation decides not to be a part of the decisions and direction of the church, they have voted to move away from congregational polity to some other polity such as staff-led, elder-led, elder-ruled, etc.
Bernard,
True, the by-laws specify the form of church government, but hopefully its biblically based.
Scot,
Thanks for your extended comment on this topic. I’m not sure I can address everything you bring up in your comment.
You said, “There are, in my experience (35+ years), far more problems in Baptist churches with pastors and/or deacons assuming authority over congregations and stifling questions or dissent than in any elder-led congregation I ever heard of.” I don’t have personal experience with elder-led congregations, however I have observed the problem you mentioned (highlighted by me) time and time again.
My understanding of congregational polity is that it is based primarily on the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers (1 Pet. 2:9-10). The belief is that all followers of Christ have equal access to the Holy Spirit, not just the Pastor and staff, and not just deacons or elders. Of course it is possible that my understanding is flawed, but it’s based upon my own personal experience of being a Southern Baptist for 57 years as well as what I was taught at SWBTS.
To me, congregational polity is the key to having an regenerate church membership. If we allow unregenerate people to join the church, they may carnally influence the direction of the church and thus sully the foundational presupposition of the priesthood of all believers. I think that may be where we go wrong in our business meetings when we have a church full of unregenerate members.
Les
Dave,
Your church is autonomous and can choose its govenment as it sees fit. However, I don’t agree that your church is congregational polity because they have chosen to change the polity to pastor-led, staff-led. etc. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong. I’m just saying it’s not congregational polity.
Roger,
Excellent point about democratic processes taking many forms.
Les
Les, your topic is one with which I have wrangled for the last ten years of ministry. The looming question we deal with in staff meetings, in council meetings, and in team meetings is which groups have the authority to make which decisions. One earlier post spoke of everything going to the church for action. Even those who make these statements will likely have to admit some level of committee or staff discretion. Oh I know, there are churches where the brand of toilet paper and the kind of light bulbs to be used are highlighted in the monthly business meeting. Our church is currently functioning with a few committees and a few teams. As our church has grown we have found it necessary to delegate more responsibilities to staff, committees, and teams. Discussions of every expenditure and every decision at a business meeting grows quiet lengthy as ministries multiply. As we multiply LIFE Groups (Sunday School Classes) we are giving more and more liberty to perform ministries without church approval or discussion on each .