Congregational church government: Yes or no?

This is not a post about Brexit. But I am going to use the 2016 Brexit referendum in the UK as an analogy. 

To refresh your memory, in 2016 a referendum was held in the UK on whether or not to stay in the European Union (EU). This had been a longstanding issue for debate ever since the UK first joined the EU in 1971.

In the event - to the surprise of most pundits - the vote was 52 per cent to leave the EU. This led to the immediate resignation of the Prime Minister, David Cameron, and later to the resignation of his successor, Theresa May, in 2019.

For months and years, the British parliament, the House of Commons, was "blocked" - unable either to implement the referendum or to vote to hold a second referendum (effectively, to reject the result of the first).

Finally, under Boris Johnson, a deal was reached and the UK left the EU in 2020. This was followed by years of wrangling over issues such as goods crossing the land border between Northern Ireland (part of the UK) and the Republic of Ireland (part of the EU). To this day, there are issues still being resolved. 

Congregational church government: Theory, practice

Now, here is the reason I used this analogy: this looks pretty similar to the way congregational church government works most of the time.

In theory

By "congregational church government," I mean churches which consider the members' meeting to be the main decision-making body of the church. This is based on a reading of Matthew 18, where Christ describes a three-stage process for reconciling wayward "brothers." After meeting one-to-one, and then remonstrating the erring brother as a group of "two or three," the final stage is for the matter to be taken to the "church." "If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector" (Matthew 18v17).

Now, for the record, to a degree, I do accept the logic of this reading of Matthew 18. Matters such as church discipline are the prerogative of the entire membership of the church as a collective body. Likewise, when it comes to appointing leaders for the church, there is good Biblical and historical precedent for this to be based on the support of the congregation, not imposed on the church by the current leader(s) or imposed from outside. In that sense, I hold to congregational church government. 

In practice

However, here is how this works out in practice: almost all ministers of churches governed congregationally live in constant fear of the church meeting. Only in the rarest of cases have I heard a pastor admit to enjoying or being grateful for church meetings. At best, they are a necessary evil.

Too often, the church meeting can be what is holding the church back from facing its challenges and moving forward.

The church meeting can become a forum for individual members to "have their say" or "be difficult" or "see things differently."

I have experienced cases where hours of pastoral work are dismissed in an instant by someone who needs to be personally convinced that it was all done properly or feels the need to "go over it all again."

Those wanting to join as new members are prevented from doing so, or their admission is delayed unnecessarily.

Well thought out plans to move forward with the work require so much "convincing" that sometimes it feels easier just to cave and not do it, or else to find some pathway to do it outside the normal structures of the church.

While the members' meeting sits, those called and ordained to lead God's people (of which I am one!) can feel as if they have temporarily lost all authority and clout and have to bow to the views of the vociferous and out-of-sorts. They are glad when it is all over, and they can get back to the work.  

The way forward

So, what is the solution?

Is congregational church government simply a flawed and unbiblical model that ultimately will have to be jettisoned or else one that we cannot escape and will, in the end, be our downfall? 

No, I think that is too gloomy. But here are some things that need to happen. 

• First of all, it has to be recognised that the church meeting, like any "power" under any constitution, is not absolute, and is balanced by other "powers."
  
  Crucially, that same church meeting has elected certain men to be the ordained leaders (pastors/elders of the church). Having elected them, the church meeting needs to let those leaders lead - unless the pastor is overbearing or abusive in some way, or the meeting decides to revoke their appointment. Those elected to pastoral office need to be free to make decisions, show initiative, make calls, find solutions and so on. 
  
  
• Secondly, the role of the church meeting should not be understood as usurping the role of the pastors/elders or micromanaging the pastor down to every detail with a tendency to say "no," "just in case."
  
  Rather, having duly thought it through and consulted with the members in the process, the pastor(s) should present major decisions for the church to approve.
  
  This is not just "rubber stamping." On occasion the church may not approve or may ask for more time. However, the initiative lies with the pastor(s), and the default position is to approve the lead that they give. In some cases, decisions may need to be made by pastors "on the spot" with no time to call a members' meeting. Post factum, the church business meeting may need to offer feedback on what happened. However, a healthy church meeting will give the pastor(s) the benefit of the doubt, rather than looking for something to object to. (That being said, we also need to be on the lookout for cases of pastoral overreach and abuse - that is wrong, too.) 
  
  
• Thirdly, the church meeting should be understood, not as a parliament of individuals each with their own scruples and consciences, but rather as the collective "household of God."
  
  The church meeting can only work if the members have unity of perspective and purpose. Jesus commanded us to take the matter of an erring brother to the "church" - a collective. As He said elsewhere: "A house divided cannot stand."
  
  Now, there may be issues of disagreement, and these need to be worked through. However, if a given member (or group of members) exhibits chronic and fundamental disagreement, the best thing may be to find another church where that is not the case - or to engage in a little self-examination and maybe revise some of the views that separate them from everyone else. I think we all know cases where churches are "held to ransom" by a small number of people who think they hold a veto. I recently heard of a church where new people are admitted to baptism or membership by a vote. In the usual course of things at that church, when voting to admit new members, there is always a small number of "no" votes. Those voting "no" are the same people each time.  

Coming back to my opening analogy, you cannot govern a country by referendum. And you cannot govern a church the same way either.

Whatever you happen to think about the Brexit vote, the fact is that Britain is still reeling from it ten years on. And that was just one referendum.

Imagine governing by referendum all the time! Surely the Saviour cannot have left His church on earth to be stymied by such inept ways of managing the household of God and organising His Great Commission. A thousand times no.

The Lord has given a role to pastors, a role to each local "household of God," a role to Christian families, and a role to each individual Christian believer. And His Kingdom is best served as we each get on with our own job.

To Him be the glory forever!   

This piece was originally published on Russell's blog (see here) and has been republished by en with permission.