What are biblical arguments for congregationalist church polity?

What are biblical arguments for congregationalist church polity?

Within ecclesiastical polity, the congregational churches means that the local congregation rules itself, elects its own leaders, both clergy and laity, ordains its own clergy, and is a "self-governed voluntary institution".

Congregational churches dispense with titled positions such as bishop as a requirement of church structure. The local congregation rules itself, elects its own leaders, both clergy and laity, ordains its own clergy, and as a "self-governed voluntary institution", is a type of religious anarchism. Appointment of local leaders and councils by external authorities derives from a separate bureaucratic or associational polity.

Members may be sent from the congregation to associations that are sometimes identified with the church bodies formed by Presbyterians, Lutherans, Anglicans, and other non-congregational Protestants. Neither the congregations nor the associations exercise any control over each other, other than having the ability to terminate membership in the association. Many congregationalist churches are completely independent in principle. One major exception is ordination of clergy, where even congregationalist churches often invite members of the vicinage or association to ordain their pastors.

It is a principle of congregationalism that ministers do not govern congregations by themselves. They may preside over the congregation, but it is the congregation which exerts its authority in the end.

Churches that traditionally practice congregational polity include congregationalists, Baptists, and many forms of nondenominational Christianity. Because of its prevalence among Baptists, and the prominence of Baptists among Protestant denominations, congregational polity is sometimes called Baptist polity. - Ecclesiastical polity

The clearest answer I find comes from Pastor Bobby Jamieson, an associate pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, DC. He gives many New Testament biblical arguments in favour of ecclesiastical polity for Congregationalist Churches.

Why New Testament Polity Is Prescriptive

Today many evangelicals assume that the Bible does not prescribe a normative pattern of church polity. This is a natural—and convenient—assumption for a generation of church leaders who have been trained to value innovation, creativity, efficiency, and productivity on the model of a successful corporation. On the other hand, there are also a variety of common exegetical and theological views which support this position.

One caveat up front: my argument for a normative New Testament polity is explicitly congregational. That’s because I understand the New Testament to prescriptively model a congregational polity. However, the argument as a whole still applies—some details excepted, of course—whether you see local elders, or a Presbyterian structure, as holding final authority in matters of discipline and doctrine.

I. THE ARGUMENT AGAINST A PRESCRIPTIVE NEW TESTAMENT POLITY

The most common argument against a normative New Testament polity is twofold: First, there is no consistent pattern of church polity in the New Testament. This means that it is impossible to argue that a single structure is “the” “biblical” pattern. Second, even if there were a consistent pattern of polity in the New Testament, that pattern might simply be descriptive, not prescriptive.

To take just one example, evangelical theologian Millard Erickson first points out the lack of explicit “didactic material” regarding church polity, then asserts, “When we turn to examine the descriptive passages, we find a second problem: there is no unitary pattern.” Further, Erickson writes, “Even if it were clear that there is one exclusive pattern of organization in the New Testament, that pattern would not necessarily be normative for us today. It might be merely the pattern which was, not the pattern which must be.”

II. MAPPING THE EVIDENCE REGARDING NEW TESTAMENT POLITY

I’ll examine the main contours of the New Testament’s evidence regarding church polity under four main headings:

1. The role of the apostles

2. Local church leaders

3. Deacons and their predecessors, and

4. Congregational authority over who is included and excluded from the church.

1. The Apostles

First, the role of the apostles. Andrew F. Walls rightly notes that, because of Jesus’ promise that the Holy Spirit would come and guide them into all truth, the apostles “are the norm of doctrine and fellowship in the NT church (Acts 2:42, cf. 1 Jn 2:19).” In other words, because of their unique role as authorized, Spirit-endowed witnesses to Christ, the apostles’ teaching was to be accepted and obeyed by all Christians. So, for example, Paul could say to the Thessalonians, “If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed” (2 Thess 3:14). Yet given this universal normative authority,

…the NT has less to say than might be expected of the apostles as ruling the church. They are the touchstones of doctrine, the purveyors of the authentic tradition about Christ: apostolic delegates visit congregations which reflect new departures for the church (Acts 8:14ff.; 11:22ff.). But the Twelve did not appoint the Seven; the crucial Jerusalem Council consisted of a large number of elders as well as the apostles (Acts 15:6; cf. 12, 22): and two apostles served among the ‘prophets and teachers’ of the church at Antioch (Acts 13:1). Government was a distinct gift (1 Cor 12:28), normally exercised by local elders: apostles were, by virtue of their commission, mobile. Nor are they even prominent in the administration of the sacraments (cf. 1 Cor 1:14).

Thus, despite their role as the norm of doctrine and fellowship for the whole New Testament church, the apostles clearly made room for the exercise of other kinds of authority by other individuals—or whole congregations (as in Acts 6:1-6, 1 Cor. 5:1-13, and 2 Cor. 2:6).

2. Local Church Leaders

The second main category to consider is local church leadership. Leaders in local churches in the New Testament are called by a variety of names: leader, elder, overseer, and pastor. In addition, while the following designations may fall short of titles, we also read of “those who are over you” (Gk. hoi proistamenoi; Rom. 12:8; 1 Thess. 5:12) and of those who have the gift of “administration” (Gk. kuberneseis; 1 Cor. 12:28), which both seem to indicate a leadership role. Contra those who see “irreconcilable diversity” in the New Testament evidence, I would argue that the following points demonstrate consistency and clarity in the leadership of New Testament churches.

First, it is commonly recognized that the terms elder, overseer, and pastor are all used interchangeably in the New Testament. Thus it would be a distortion of the textual evidence to read any distinctions in office or function into these different terms.

Second, Paul consistently appointed a number of elders in each local church he planted and he instructed his apostolic delegate Titus to do the same. In Acts 14:23 we read, “And when they [that is, Paul and Barnabas] had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed.” At least on his so-called first missionary journey, it was Paul’s consistent practice to appoint a number of leaders who were called elders in each local church.

3. Deacons and Their Predecessors

Third, more briefly, we turn to deacons and their predecessors. Our English word “deacon” is simply a transliteration of the Greek word diakonos. The term and its cognates occur frequently throughout the New Testament, but in only two contexts does diakonos unambiguously refer to a local church office: Philippians 1:1 and 1 Timothy 3:8-13. In 1 Timothy 3:8, after listing the qualifications for elders, Paul says, “Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double tongued, not addicted to much wine,” and then enumerates the rest of the qualifications for deacons. And in Philippians 1:1 Paul greets “all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the overseers and deacons.”

4. Congregational Authority Over Inclusion and Exclusion

A final aspect of New Testament polity which will prove critical to our discussion is the issue of authority over who is included in and excluded from the church.

Since polity deals with structures which govern and legitimate the exercise of authority, there is no more basic question of church polity than who ultimately decides who does and does not belong to the church. And, however much certain evangelicals want to point toward a “centered set” model for conceiving of the local church, the New Testament indicates that there is to be a clear, definite border between the church and the world (see, e.g., 1 Cor. 5:9-13). Thus in a number of places local assemblies of Christians are instructed to exclude from their fellowship anyone whose life decisively contradicts their claim to have faith in Christ.

The question naturally arises, then: who decides who is in and who is out? In keeping with the desire to be as inductive and descriptive as possible at this stage, I will briefly canvass relevant New Testament passages before considering whether these passages, along with the rest of what we’ve seen of New Testament patterns of polity, should function normatively for the church today.