Congregational Church Government
What is a Baptist? What is it about our “faith and practice” that distinguishes us from believers in other denominations?
Chester Tulga served in years past as the research secretary for the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship. This outstanding Baptist thinker and spokesman affirmed the principle with which we rightly begin our discussion. He said, “The basic tenet of the historic Baptist faith is that the Bible is the Word of God and the sole authority of faith and practice.”1
We must further sharpen this distinction. Our brothers in Christ in some other groups would gladly make the same affirmation. But we Baptists insist on applying the sole authority of Scripture in one area that distinguishes us. We apply the sole authority of Scripture to the doctrine of the church.
British Baptist pastor and historian Jack Hoad has clearly articulated our emphasis, stating, “It is the Biblical doctrine of the church, with an unqualified submission to scripture as the Word of God, which becomes the test of what is a Baptist church.”2
We believe in believer’s baptism rather than infant baptism because we find the principle and practice in Scripture (Matt. 28:18–20; Mark 16:15, 16; Acts 2:41; 16:14, 15).
We believe in a regenerate church membership because we find it taught in Scripture (Acts 2:41, 42, 47). We do not admit unsaved, sprinkled infants to church membership, nor do we admit adults to church membership without a credible testimony of salvation followed by believer’s baptism.
We believe in the autonomy of the local church because Scripture sets the precedent for this practice (Acts 15:3, 22, 30).
We embrace a congregational form of church government because Scripture teaches it. The Bible is clear that certain church decisions are to be made by the congregation. These include: disciplining its own members (Matt. 18:15–17; 1 Cor. 5:1–5), electing its own officers (Acts 6:1–6), commissioning its missionaries (Acts 13:1–3), and providing accountability in ministry efforts (Acts 14:27). The entire churches of Antioch and Jerusalem functioned holistically in resolving a doctrinal dispute and responding with advice (Acts 15: 1–3, 22, 23). Paul instructed the churches to give the offering, and the churches chose their messengers to convey that offering to Jerusalem (1 Cor. 16:3; 2 Cor. 19, 23). Scripture demonstrates the practice of congregational church government in the account of the first missionary journey and the events that surrounded it.
Congregational Authority
The church at Antioch came into existence as the result of missionary activity (Acts 11:19–26). The Jerusalem assembly sent Barnabas to encourage, ground, and disciple the new believers. He immediately saw the need for help and went to Tarsus to find Saul. The two of them labored for a year with that body of believers.
The church grew, and when we see it again in Acts 13:1– 3 there are five men who are serving on what we would today call the “pastoral staff.” They are called “prophets and teachers.” We understand those terms in the light of Paul’s words to the Ephesian church when he says, “And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ” (Eph. 4:11, 12). These five men were gifted and called as prophets and teachers for the local church in Antioch. As they served the Lord in the church, the Holy Spirit called Barnabas and Saul to take the gospel to “the uttermost part of the earth” (Acts 1:8). From this group of leaders, the Holy Spirit called Barnabas and Saul. We do well to note the circumstances in which this decision was reached.
The Spirit’s call came in a time of ministry and fasting (v. 1). Barnabas and Saul did not immediately leave, but deliberately fasted and prayed more to make sure of divine leading. Then the church laid hands on them and sent them away.
From this account we learn several important truths. First, local churches are the “incubators” in which missionaries are prepared and called to service. Our colleges and seminaries can do a valuable work in training, but it is service in the local church that prepares missionaries for ministry. Second, God the Holy Spirit must call missionaries. That calling will come in an atmosphere of service and sensitivity to the Lord. Churches must be places where people walk with God, serve Him, and are open to the Spirit’s work in lives.
Third, local churches recognize the call of the Holy Spirit to service. The people in the Antioch church recognized God’s call on the two men, and they obviously recognized the men’s fitness for the work. Their testimony of godliness and consistent service was acknowledged by the people. Fourth, the laying on of hands conveys the idea of human recognition and approval of God’s call. The ancient practice of laying on of hands came from the custom of stretching out the hand in an approving vote. Man does not call missionaries, but godly people can recognize and approve the call of the Holy Spirit on the life of the one called. This symbol communicates the idea that Barnabas and Saul went to the work under the authority of the Antioch church. We see the congregational authority of the church in the symbol of approval.
Having served as a mission agency administrator for nearly twenty-eight years, I want to emphatically state the Biblical principle that local churches send missionaries and missions agencies do not. Since 1792 Baptists have formed agencies to facilitate a cooperative effort among churches to fund and support the Great Commission work, but in the Biblical pattern missionaries go under the authority of their sending churches.
Congregational Action
It is important for us to note the action of the apostles and the churches they planted during the first missionary journey. Acts 14:23 reports, “And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.” There is some debate about the meaning of the word “ordained,” but most Bible commentators believe the word indicates congregational voting in the selection of pastors.3 It seems clear that whatever the process involved, the local congregations participated in the selection of their pastors.
A. T. Robertson elaborates on the word “ordain” in Acts 14:23, saying,
It is an old verb that originally meant to vote by show of the hands, finally to appoint with the approval of an assembly that chooses as in II Cor. 8:19 … But the seven [deacons] were first selected by the Jerusalem church and then appointed by the apostles. That is probably the plan contemplated by Paul in his directions to Titus (1:5) about the choice of elders. It is most likely that this plan was the one pursued by Paul and Barnabas with these churches. They selected the elders in each instance and Paul and Barnabas “ordained” them as we say, though the word … does not mean that.4
Robertson was a Baptist, but the Anglican Alford succinctly concludes, “Nor is there any reason here for departing from the usual meaning of electing by show of hands. The Apostles may have admitted by ordination those presbyters whom the churches elected”[emphasis Alford].5
Lutheran commentator R.C.H. Lenski concurs in this conclusion, saying:
For the question at issue is whether Paul and Barnabas chose these elders without congregational participation or whether they conducted a congregational meeting in which a vote was taken by show of hands, the congregation choosing with participation of the apostles and under their guidance. The latter is undoubtedly correct, just as the praying with fastings by no means includes only the two apostles but each congregation as well. The method used is fully explained in Acts 6:2–6.6
The New Testament testimony is that these new churches, the product of missionary church-planting labor, congregationally chose their own pastoral leadership.
Congregational Accountability
When Paul and Barnabas completed their first missionary ministry, they returned to Antioch and reported on their work. The entire congregation heard their report. Scripture gives us the report:
And thence sailed to Antioch, from whence they had been recommended to the grace of God for the work which they fulfilled. And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles (Acts 14:26, 27).
The church commissioned Barnabas and Saul and sent them to the work. They went under the authority of their church. When they returned from their ministry, they “gathered the church together” to report on the work. They were accountable to their church.7
We must make the point here that it was the church as a corporate body that heard the report of their trip, and it was that body to whom they were accountable. I do not want to diminish in any way what the Bible says about the leadership of a pastor. But the action in sending and hearing the report of the missionaries was congregational, not pastoral. The entire congregational body was involved in the action at the beginning and the end of the first missionary endeavor.
Congregational Affinity
The last evidence of the practice of congregational church government is in the record of Acts 15. Those “certain men which came down from Judea” brought the heresy of combining works with grace for salvation. They insisted no one could be saved apart from circumcision (Acts 15:1). This passage of Scripture stresses some dominant themes. Those themes are salvation by faith (vv. 7–9) through the grace of God (v. 11), the offer of the gospel to the Gentiles (vv. 13–18), and standards for Christian conduct and testimony (vv. 19–21).
As Luke tells us the story of how these issues were debated and the appropriate conclusions were reached, he also teaches us something of the relationship between the churches in Antioch and Jerusalem. We learn how the church in Antioch worked to resolve the issue and how the church in Jerusalem related to the church in Antioch. We can develop the idea of the autonomy of the local church from this passage. There was an affinity between the two churches based on their common faith in Christ and on a loving, fraternal relationship between the two bodies. Our purpose in this brief study is to see that these decisions were made by the congregations involved.
When the false teachers came from Jerusalem, the church determined that the best way to solve the problem of their doctrine was to take it to Jerusalem and the church from which they came. Verse 2 tells us that they made the decision to go to Jerusalem. Verse 3 states that they were “brought on their way by the church.” The church in Antioch made the decision to send them to Jerusalem. That was congregational action.
The church in Jerusalem received them (v. 4). These people came from Antioch seeking answers from the apostles and elders (v. 2). They came to the leaders because the apostles were the teaching authority for the churches, and their teaching carried the force of Scripture until the Word of God was completed (Acts 2:41, 42). They came seeking advice from the leadership, but the church corporately received them. This passage describes the interaction of the churches in language that indicates corporate decision making or congregational government.
When the theological decisions were made and the declarations written, the “whole church” (v. 22) determined to send leaders to Antioch to convey the decisions that were made. Again, Luke specifically tells us of congregational action in this matter.
When the party arrived in Antioch, they “gathered the multitude together” (v. 30). The congregation rejoiced at the apostolic message (v. 31).
Our point is this: When a doctrinal dispute arose, one congregation asked advice of another. Each congregation took action to send some of its own people to the other congregation. No church controlled the other, but each congregation responded to the call of the other. The decisions were made by congregational deliberation and action.
Conclusion
Scripture demonstrates the practice of congregational church government in the account of the first missionary journey and the events that surrounded it. The church at Antioch sent the first missionaries, and those missionaries were accountable to the congregation. The newly planted churches called their pastors by congregational action. When theological heresy appeared, two congregations worked together to combat it.
We hold to the tenet of congregational church government because the New Testament teaches it by precept and example. The record reveals that early churches governed themselves by action of the congregation from the time believers were saved and baptized. When we argue for congregational government, we argue from Scripture, not from tradition.
Dr. Fred Moritz serves on the Adjunct Faculty of Maranatha Baptist Seminary.
(Originally published in FrontLine • March/April 2009. Click here to subscribe to the magazine.)
- Chester E. Tulga, “What Baptists Believe about Soul Liberty” in The Baptist Challenge (Little Rock: Central Baptist Church, October 1997), 21. [↩]
- Jack Hoad, The Baptist (London: Grace Publications Trust, 1986), 7. [↩]
- Most commentaries recognize some form of congregational voting or consent in the choosing of local church pastor in this passage. The Pulpit Commentary is a notable exception. [↩]
- A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in The New Testament in Logos Library System. [↩]
- Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (Cambridge: Deighton, Bell, and Co., 1877), II:160, 161. [↩]
- R.C.H. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1934), 585–86. [↩]
- It is aside from the main thrust of this article, but it is clear that missionaries go under the authority of their churches, and they are accountable to them. Authority and accountability are two defining, Biblical concepts in the relationship between a missionary and his sending church. [↩]