A Congregation is a Voting Body
There is a compelling exegetical case for congregational church government. That case is so compelling that structuring a local congregation in any other way seems to be disobedient to the pattern of polity laid out in the New Testament. While there are many other passages, these key passages indicate not only how the early church functioned, but that this was laid out in scripture as the Holy Spirit-led solution to the problems of church management.
Church discipline is a congregational responsibility.
There are two key areas in which the biblical pattern is accountability to the congregation—the entire church body—and where decision-making is assigned to the entire church body. These are in financial accountability and in church discipline. Let’s start with church discipline.
Jesus establishes the pattern for settling sin matters between brothers, and church discipline in Matthew 18:15-17. The three-step process starts with one-on-one confrontation. If that does not settle the matter, then it goes to mediation before one or two more trusted parties. We would assume that if the goal is to settle the matter, the mediators should be trusted by both the accused and accuser and be people of wisdom and good reputation.
But the key aspect of this passage is that the final verdict is determined by the church (the congregation, the assembly). In Greek culture, the ecclesia was the voting body of any city. In our context, we would call it the electorate.1 This was not just the crowd that showed up for worship. It was the group of people that “had final control over policy.” When New Testament writers used this word, they used it deliberately and the members of the ecclesia knew exactly what their privileges and responsibilities were. The function of the assembly in Matthew 18:17 is a perfect reflection of this contemporary use of the word. For the sake of clarification, we might consider reading the word congregation as voting assembly instead.
The next important passage on church discipline fits into the Matthew 18 pattern. Paul instructs the church to act having been led together (1 Corinthians 5:4). The idea of this not just telling the congregation to act when it meets, but to act when it is led to a unified decision with the Apostle Paul. The only real way to determine the unity of a congregation on a matter is some sort of poll to determine agreement. It is remarkable that even though Paul held the authority of an Apostle, he instructed that the final decision of the local church would be to agree with him and take action—recognizing that the final authority in removing a member under discipline is the decision of the assembly, not even the Apostle’s—just like Jesus said in Matthew 18. Please notice, that both Jesus and Paul did not call upon the elders to remove errant church members. The term elder could have been used in either or both passages easily if that was the intent. Instead, the inspired text calls on the voting assembly to do so.
Three key passages indicate that financial accountability in the local church, in the end, rests with the congregation.
In Acts 6:1-7, the financial administration of the Jerusalem Church was becoming an overwhelming burden to the Apostles. It came to a head when the Greek widows were missed in the regular benevolence ministries. The church could have easily numbered 10,000 by this time and many of these people were displaced travelers who had not yet or did not intend to return to their homes in the diaspora. There was great need but also great supply. The new-found faith of thousands resulted in unusual generosity. People were selling all their possessions, even land (Acts 4:32-37). The collection of funds voluntarily given, and the dispersing of vast amounts of wealth and material required business management skills and time. The Apostles certainly did not have the time, and likely did not have the administrative skills necessary. The term serving tables in this passage is likely a reference to financial transactions. It was an early term for what we would come to know as a bank (Luke 19:23).
The role of the voting assembly in this passage is to choose from among the voting assembly managers would could oversee the process. The responsibility would then be passed from the Apostles to the servers (deacons). There are a couple of key principles to note. The process managers were chosen from the voting assembly and therefore accountable to the voting assembly. The second principle is that they had to know who was part of the voting assembly to know who would be making the decisions. Finally, the will of the voting assembly had to be determined in some way. The only effective way to do this is by a vote.
When Paul sought to bring an offering from the Churches of Macedonia and the Greek peninsula to Jerusalem, he was extremely concerned about financial accountability. Transporting such a large sum of money was not only dangerous, it opened the travelers to accusations of impropriety. Paul addresses the problem in two passages.
In 1 Corinthians 16:3, Paul commits himself not to handle any of the money personally. Instead, he commanded the churches to choose from among their voting assemblies, trusted representatives that would carry the offering to Jerusalem. These were representatives of the churches who would give account back to the church of the propriety of the process. This is congregational accountability.
He mentions this again in 2 Corinthians 8:16-21. In this case, he speaks of the specific representative chosen by multiple voting assemblies to accompany the generous gift to Jerusalem. Paul’s goal was not only to provide accountability before God but also in the sight of men. The sight of men is another expression for accountability.
Congregational accountability for financial matters and for church discipline is a biblical pattern. It is dangerous to disobey inspired precedent.
see here for the audio version of this post: A Congregation is a Voting Body
- https://www.britannica.com/topic/Ecclesia-ancient-Greek-assembly [↩]