The Role of Congregationalism in Church Life
As confessional Baptist churches in the Pillar Network, we affirm the biblical foundations of both congregationalism and elder authority. These have both historical and biblical roots in our Baptist tradition. Passages like 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 and Matthew 18:15-20 remind us that the members of our churches have been granted an authority to exercise within the congregation that should not be withdrawn and exercised by the elders. Conversely, Hebrews 13:17 is clear that the members should “obey [their] leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over [their] souls, as those who will have to give an account.” And so, both the members and the elders of a church are granted authority to exercise within the congregation.
But doesn’t this set us up for a wrestling match between the elders and the congregation? If the elders’ exercise of their authority necessitates the “obedience and submission” (Heb. 13:17) of the congregation, then how can the congregation faithfully exercise its authority? Where does the authority of the elders end and the authority of the congregation begin, and do the two ever overlap? And if they do overlap, then under what circumstances could a member vote against the elders without violating Hebrews 13:17?
While this tension cannot (and should not) be completely removed, it can be mediated by understanding the general framework for the congregation’s authority versus that of the elders’ authority. The passages listed above (1 Cor. 5:9-13 and Matt. 18:15-20), along with Galatians 1:6-9, 2 Corinthians 2:6-7 (and others) are addressing the ekklesia (the gathered members of a church) and instructing them to exercise authority to make decisions regarding both the content of faithful belief and who is a faithful believer. Jonathan Leeman writes that a congregation’s authority is primarily concerned with guarding and preserving the “what” and the “who” of the gospel.[1] The “what” of the gospel comprises those decisions regarding the right confession of the faith, while the “who” of the gospel comprises those decisions regarding the right confessors of the faith. So, the general framework for the exercise of the congregation’s authority are decisions about guarding and preserving the gospel by deciding “what” right belief is and “who” is a right confessor of that belief. Conversely, the Hebrews 13:17 exhortation to “obey your leaders and submit to them” seems to have more to do with the ongoing life and posture of the congregation toward the elders, being characterized by obedience and submission.
With this general framework in place, we can piece together some principles regarding best practices for the exercise of a congregation’s authority under the faithful leadership of her elders.
WHEN SHOULD A CONGREGATION VOTE?
As noted above, the exercise of a congregation’s authority should be primarily reserved for those decisions regarding the “what” and the “who” of the gospel. This will help elders determine what matters they should bring before the members for a congregational vote. These will include:
Membership
A congregation should exercise its authority to determine “who” is a right confessor of the gospel. This includes both “in” and “out”; voting on whom to accept into the membership as well as voting on whom to vote out of the membership (transfer, church discipline, etc.).
Church offices
A congregation should exercise its authority to decide whom the Lord has chosen as the elders and deacons of a church. This should not be a popularity contest or anything akin to a political election, but rather a sober-minded and prayerful consideration of the biblical qualifications of a particular elder or deacon candidate.
Beliefs
A congregation should exercise its authority to decide the “what” of the gospel. This means that the membership of a local church (and not the elders themselves) should vote on what constitutes their church’s statement of faith or what confessions a church will adopt. Any changes to these documents should likewise be brought to a church vote.
“Some” financial decisions
A congregation should exercise its authority in financial decisions that are closely related to a church’s fidelity to the gospel. If the elders make a financial decision that is not in alignment with biblical priorities or that endangers the viability of a church’s future, these decisions should have been brought to a church vote. Normally, financial decisions requiring congregational vote should be things like the annual budget and other major expenditures.
Furthermore, it is wise to spell out in the church’s governing documents which financial decisions should be brought to congregational vote. This leads to our final category of what a congregation should vote on.
Constitution and Bylaws
A congregation should exercise its authority in adopting or amending a church’s governing documents. These governing documents should include the church’s constitution and/or bylaws but does not need include all policies or procedures. A church’s constitution and bylaws spell out why a church exists and how it is governed. Because these governing documents closely relate to a church’s ability to preserve the gospel for future generations, any changes to them should be determined by the congregation. Conversely, policies and procedures are usually more related to the operation of a church. However, if the elders determine that a church policy is closely related to the church’s ability to guard and preserve the gospel, then it would be wise to consider bringing that decision to a church vote.
WHEN SHOULD A CONGREGATION NOT VOTE?
Put simply, any matters outside of the categories listed above should be considered under the authority of the elders alone. But deciding when a congregation should vote is sometimes not a simple matter. Consider these examples:
Adopting a new missionary partner
Accepting the theological convictions of a pastor (beyond the church’s statement of faith)
Beginning a new off-budget fund for retiring the debt on the church’s mortgage
Purchasing a new HVAC system for the church building
Hiring a new Director of Student Ministries (assuming it’s not a pastoral hire)
Some of these examples don’t fit neatly into the categories listed above. In these cases, the elders should decide how closely related the decision is to the church’s ability to guard and preserve the gospel both now and in the future. The more closely related it is, the more likely the elders should bring a matter to a church vote. The less closely related, the more likely the elders should make the decision themselves.
Making this determination and sticking by these principles is very important in the life of the church. If elders bring operational (perhaps even trivial) matters to the congregation for a vote (i.e. the color of the carpet, the purchase a copier, etc.) then other matters of true congregational significance (the “who” and the “what” of the gospel) will seem less important.
HOW SHOULD ELDERS LEAD IN A CONGREGATIONAL POLITY?
A congregational polity presumes that the “keys of the kingdom” (Matt. 16:13-20) were passed from the apostles to the gathered church as a whole (it’s membership). This means that we affirm congregational rule as opposed to elder rule. However, this doesn’t mean that the elders don’t exercise authority and it certainly doesn’t mean that they don’t lead. As noted earlier, the elders exercise authority (without the approval of the congregation) on all matters that are not closely related to the “what” and the “who” of the gospel. Additionally, a congregation is dependent on the elders guiding and directing the church in how and when to use the “keys” entrusted to her. This guidance is provided to the church by the elders “teaching” and “leading” the flock.
Teaching
Many of the people who come to our churches will be coming from churches that either did not practice a congregational polity or practiced it in a way that was unhelpful and perhaps harmful. It is incumbent upon the elders to teach their flock (thru membership classes, resources, classes, sermons, etc.) regarding:
biblical rationale for congregationalism
importance and value of congregational involvement in decision-making
responsibility of the individual member in a congregational polity
categories for congregational voting (see above)
preserving unity even when there is disagreement
when members should vote against the elders (see below)
accepting the outcome of a congregational vote, even if it didn’t go my way
Leading
Any decision that is brought before the congregation for a vote should have been prayed over, discussed, and decided on previously by the elders. Elder leadership within congregational polity does not mean we simply offer a variety of options to the members and ask them to choose. Instead, it is incumbent on the elders to have spent considerable time and effort on a decision and then bring a recommendation to the members asking them to approve it. A congregational vote should be a decision about whether to vote in favor of what the elders are recommending or to reject what the elders are recommending.
Additionally, in each of the categories listed above, the congregation is dependent on the elders providing leadership to them as they exercise their use of the “keys.” Consider these three examples:
Membership - While ultimately the final say of “who” is a right confessor lies with the congregation, the elders must show leadership in this process by conducting membership classes, reviewing applications, interviewing candidates for membership, etc. When the elders lead the church to vote on new members, they are asking the church to trust that they have done due diligence in discerning that the candidates have met the needed qualifications for membership (genuine conversion, knowledge of the gospel, affirmation of beliefs, not under discipline from a previous church, etc.). While some churches may invite the congregation into this discernment process to a degree, all churches will need to rely on the leadership of the elders to have done their job to prepare member candidates for membership. The same is true for voting members “out.” The process of church discipline (Matt. 18:15-20) should be navigated carefully under the oversight of the elders, long before a vote for excommunication is brought before the congregation.
Offices of the church - The elders should lead the effort to identify, evaluate, and train new elders and deacons. Bringing candidates for these offices before the church for a vote of affirmation without the elders having carefully vetted them beforehand is a recipe for disaster. Additionally, in preparing a church to elect its elders and deacons, the elders should demonstrate leadership by teaching about the Biblical qualifications for these offices.
Financial decisions – Before the congregation votes on an annual budget, the elders should lead in the process of putting a budget together. While this process can include members of the congregation (deacons, committee members, etc.), the elders should provide oversight and direction.
WHAT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE MEMBERS IN THE PRACTICE OF CONGREGATIONALISM?
The general posture of the congregation should be “obedience and submission” to the elders (Heb. 13:17), which requires that the members have a fundamental trust in the elders. Trust is the collateral of leadership. This means the elders must conduct themselves in a trustworthy manner (1 Tim. 3, Titus 1), but it also means that if a member is unable to trust his elders then he probably needs to resign his membership and find a new church.
This does not mean that a member should never vote against the elders. But it does mean that this should be rare. So, under what circumstances should a member vote “no” on something the elders are recommending? Generally, the closer a matter is to going over the cliff of losing the gospel, the more willing a member should be to reject the elders’ recommendation if they disagree. Usually these will involve objective rather than subjective matters. For example, if the elders put forward a candidate for the office elder who is known by a member to be a drunkard (1 Tim. 3:3) then that member should vote against the elders’ recommendation.
However, if the elders put forward a candidate for elder who (in the opinion of a church member), does not manage his household well (1 Tim. 3:4), that member should consider that the elders might know something that the member does not know and consider trusting the elders in their estimation of the candidate’s qualification of this subjective criteria. Nevertheless, in both of these examples, the member who is considering voting against the elders should bring their concern to the elders in advance of the congregational vote. It is possible that the elders are unaware of something of which the member has knowledge.
The elders should use extreme care in giving direction to the membership regarding how they should vote. While the members should have a posture of trust toward their elders, this should not be used by the elders to bind the conscience of the members in a congregational vote.
A FEW PRACTICAL MATTERS…
Membership votes should usually be conducted when only members are present. This provides an environment that will be more conducive to transparent discussion.
The method used to collect votes should fit the situation. There is freedom for a church to determine the means it will use to conduct congregational votes (voice, show of hands, or written ballot), but the elders should select a method that allows members to vote their conscience.
While some decisions will not be voted on by the congregation, this doesn’t mean they have no part to play in helping the elders to make a good decision. A wise elder team will use discernment in informing the congregation of matters under their deliberation and invite questions and feedback regardless of whether they will be voting on a matter or not.
Should children who are members vote? This is a matter for each church to decide. Some Pillar churches allow all church members to vote regardless of age, while others restrict voting privileges to members who have reached a particular age (e.g., 16, 18). Regardless, this is something that should be clearly spelled out in a church’s governing documents.
There is much more that could be said regarding the role of congregationalism in the church. However, it is our hope that this general framework and the best practices listed above will help to equip your elder team to faithfully lead their congregation to use of the “keys of the kingdom” in a manner which guards the gospel, preserves unity, and brings glory to the church’s Bridegroom.
[1] Jonathan Leeman, Don’t Fire Your Church Members (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2016), 67