Marriage is a covenant that cannot be dissolved by any human authority. Jesus said in Matthew 19:6, “Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” The condition of a marriage might not be good. He or she or both might neglect, disobey, or fail, but the covenant of marriage is not broken by these.Marriage isn’t a contract. Contracts are broken when one or more parties fails to keep its promise. Scripture compares a covenant to the ties between a parent and a child. Isaiah 49:15-16 reads:
Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee. Behold, I have graven thee upon the palms of my hands; thy walls are continually before me.
Parents are committed unconditionally to their children, even when children misbehave. In a marriage covenant, vows are exchanged “for better or worse.” In a contract, if one side doesn’t follow through the obligation ends — not in marriage, because marriage is a covenant.Scripture compares church membership to the marriage covenant. I’m writing this because I don’t think most people think that way about the church. Joining a church is not like joining a gym or a golf club. Ephesians 5:23 says, “For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church.” In Ephesians 5, you read how Christ sees that covenant from His end. Verses 25 through 27 read:
Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
The covenant into which Christ entered results in His giving Himself and sanctifying and cleansing for the good of His bride. Jesus isn’t in it for Himself. He’s in it for us. As the bride, we’ve entered into that covenant freely and voluntarily. I’m sure that people don’t often get what that means and don’t see it as the same.As you’ve read this so far, I’m guessing that some of you have a hard time with this idea, that is, that your church membership is like a marriage covenant. When you read the New Testament epistles, that’s how it reads. This is why love of the brethren is such a big deal in 1 John. It’s why Jesus commands His disciples to love one another in John 15.The marriage covenant changes the identity of two people. There are now one flesh. Everything they see, they now see through the perspective of the other. In a church covenant, a member looks at His life through His church. Covenantal commitment is the norm through all of scripture. There is an in and an out to it. You are either in or you are out. Noah and his family were in and everyone else was out. In 1 John 2:19, John writes:
They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
This is obviously church membership. When someone takes off, it just proves that he was never there in the first place.When people take off from a church, they are not taking their covenant seriously. They are not looking at the church like Jesus describes it (her). It’s very common today, that people decide they are going to go, and then they expect the church to approve. They are treating their relationship to the church as something worse than a contractual relationship, but closer to a contract than a covenant. I say closer to a contract, because when the church isn’t everything they want it to be, they think they are permitted to leave the contract. Those terms are set by them and they can stay or leave however they want. Scripture takes this covenant way more seriously.I say that people take it less serious than a contract, because the people very often do not obligate themselves almost at all. They don’t see there being that kind of authority in a church. I think that most people treat their credit card contracts more serious than they do church membership, which is a stronger relationship, because the one in and with the church is a covenant. People don’t take the church seriously, like Jesus takes it, because they are not taking Jesus Himself seriously. They don’t take what He says seriously. They are very superficial in their relationship to the church and much more serious about other temporal and less meaningful relationships. This shows their disrespect to the church and the church covenant. This also reflects on their salvation as seen in 1 John 2:19 above.In Matthew 18:18 talks about church membership like being bound and church discipline as being loosed. It’s very serious. Someone loosed by a church is someone not regarded as saved. It’s like the person was never a member in the first place. He’s not viewed any longer in the covenant community.The church possesses the ordinances, baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Christ gave those to the church. Neither of these save someone, but they do show the strength of this covenant. Someone doesn’t get baptized unless he is saved. He gets baptized to say he is saved. In so doing, he joins the church. The Lord’s Table is communion with the Lord’s body, as pictured by the elements. At the point of communion, everything is to be aligned with Jesus Christ and His body.Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are not just rituals. They are symbolic of the covenant that someone has. They have entered into the church and are continuing in the church, in its communion. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are signs of the covenant. Baptism is a sign of a death of the old life and a new life. At His Table, when Jesus said, “This is my body,” He wasn’t saying it was literally His body, but symbolically, His body as a sign. These are both signs of this covenant that we have. They are not the covenant, but they symbolize the covenant. Baptism brings someone into the church and the Lord’s Table keeps someone in communion in and with it.The covenant is so serious that when someone takes of the symbol unworthily, he is guilty of the body of Christ, and he could die because of it. That’s what Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 11. People should take church membership seriously. Leaving a church should not be an easy thing to do.
Amen. I would add that we will also be held accountable at the judgment seat of Christ for active and faithful church membership, too (1 Cor. 3:11-15). In Heb. 13:17, the pastor will give account to God as they watch for souls or the flock (Acts 20:28). Church membership will be a huge item at the judgment seat. It ought to matter to all who desire to please the Lord.
Good points and an important way to look at church membership. Following the same line of thinking, you have people who want to take advantage of all the benefits of church membership without the commitment of the covenant of church membership. That's like wanting to take advantage of all the benefits of marriage without the commitment of the covenant of marriage. I wonder what God thinks about that!
Bro. Brandenburg,
So then, we really should not advise a person to leave their church. What is the "adultery" that a church could commit that would allow a person to divorce/leave it? Or should they not leave it, even because of "doctrinal adultery"?
Thanks for the article.
Vic Crowne
Bill and Thomas,
Thanks and good points to add.
Vic,
I actually am a no-divorce/no-remarriage person. A covenant is unconditional.
This is why joining the church in the first place is such a big deal. If the church though changes or the member changes, whichever one goes unscriptural, the 1 John 2:19 says, they are not of us or they would no doubt have continued. It also means some type of active vigilance to keeping a church on the right track. Nevertheless, it is this serious and people should take it this way, because it is how scripture presents it.
Hello kent,
Theres an asssumption that leaving a church or church problems are bad, it does make people nervous. However following what God says is more inportant than what man says. God says ,"Come out from among them and be ye separate, touch not the unclean thing".
I did get into a long conversation with a friend of mine a couple weeks ago about divorce. He said that the acceptance and permission of divorce has resulted in the spread of homosexuality. It used to be frowned upon to get a divorce before the hippies and drug attics came along. Having said that, I dont have a personel beef with people that are divorced or practicing homosexuality, I have a solution to the pain and suffering that these sins are causing.
Come face to face with a holy righteous God and repent. Fear God, not in a reverential or repectful way, but fear him in a way that literally makes you tremble and scared. He has power not only to take life away from you, but he has power to cast you into the abyss of hell.
Once the church and society that we live in reach a certain point of rebellion the only solution is judgment. We see in the Bible there is hope. Jonah preached judgment and the people put on sackcloth and ashes and repented, i think they even put sackcloth on the animals.
I probably sound a little harsh , but im preaching to myself. There is hope with biblical straightforward teaching and willingness to see things the way God sees them.
As far as churchmembership goes i didnt know what the loosing and binding meant in Matt 16 but now i know. I shared this post with my wife, and she is coming around to the teaching of church membership, but it may take some time.
Also, thought you might like to know the church im currently attending had a special guest. My old youth pastor!!
Anyway, for those of you reading this, the only Kent I knew , was the Kent before the collapse of the Belin wall.
I have not seen him or spoken to him in person since that time.
He was a great college basketball player that was very familiar with the glass backboards at MBBC. Im sure he would much rather be throwing freethrows than tinkering with the comment box. Thanks Craig
I wanted to add one more thing, it goes to show you how peoples lives knit together in a happy local church. I really dont know what kents life is like now, other than what I read on his blog,but the Brandenburgs that I remember where a quiet,kind,wonderful family. L
Craig,
I appreciate your comments. There is similarity in the break down of the family and the break down of the church today. God ordained institutions break down when they don't follow God's Word. On the other hand, it can go very well if we are vigilant. There will always be problems to deal with, but we can do that by the grace of God.
I'm going to answer a comment I published, then recognized whose it was, someone who I think likes his free agency without church authority.
I haven't said that a church is the bride of Christ, but I am saying that church membership is like a marriage covenant. I'm not saying, "is a marriage covenant," but comparable. It is serious. I am saying that based on how the NT treats it. I think most people don't treat it this way because they have a weak soteriology and they want to function as free agents. When we are married, we are bound. Jesus said that church membership was to be bound, see Mt 18. And He treats it very seriously. That Greek word, "bound," is in Mt 18:18 and Rom 7:2, used of membership and of marriage. You've got to deal with that, GC. In Matthew 18, members are bound in locality, not something bigger than that. Does something universal, invisible practice church discipline, GC?
It's hard to understand your questions, so it is hard to answer them. In Romans 16:1, "the church" (tes ekklesias) is in Cenchrea, so "the church" is local only. It seems to be bounded by locality there. In Acts 20:17, same thing, Paul called for the elders of "the church" at Ephesus. Christ's church is local. There isn't a universal invisible marriage of a universal invisible man and woman either. The man and the woman of Eph 5 are local.
In Eph 5 the husband is the head of the wife "even as" Christ is the Head of the church, speaking to the church at Ephesus. The "even as" makes a sharp comparison. Church membership is seen in Acts 2:41, 5:13 (where it says that others would not "join them"), Paul in Acts 9:26, in Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12, 1 Corinthians 5 talks about being inside or outside of the church. In Romans 12, someone doesn't fit into the body as a body part (a member) thinks more highly of himself than he ought to think. 1 John 2:19, I mentioned someone being with or not with, continuing with or not continuing with. They are not "of" because they are not "with," which mirrors Mt 18:15-20.
I think that churches ought to fellowship with one another, which is the point of 3 John 6-9. We deal with that in our book, A Pure Church.
I will have to ask if you would explain a few things. I am a layman, and this is what God called me to be, so how it would be from a pastor's viewpoint I do not know. What I do know is what my father taught me by his example all of my life: that when a church rejects truth as evidenced by a pastor refusing to deal with sin or to teach the Bible aright, to go out from them and to burn the bridge lest it harm himself or his children. What do you advise when a pastor is guilty of adultery, or condones it among his people, and the board refuses to put him out? Also, if a church begins to use contemporary music, and you have spoken of this being wrong, what do you do then? Suppose you have talked to the pastor and the board about these changes and nothing is going to be done? Am I missing something here?
Dear kent,
If someone had been divorced and then remarried should they be allowed to join a Bible believing church? They both were saved after their marraige.
Thanks.
Anonymous,
I mentioned church membership, not membership of a single church. I also commented earlier that you can be longer "of a church" and, therefore, not "with a church." Jesus wasn't welcomed in the church at Laodecia. This is why this is "as a" marriage covenant. It is, so it is serious. There needs to be a commitment to the church. It is a commitment to His church though.
Craig,
Salvation and scriptural baptism are the two basis for church membership. If someone is saved, he can join, no matter what he was before he was saved. 1 Cor 6, Paul mentions a bunch of horrible sins, and he says to the Corinthians, such were some of you. Were.
Not to be to technical, but if you leave a local church for reasons beyond your control and you start attending another local church and you believe God would have you attend this new church, are you saying that its inportant to discuss church membership with the pastor of the new church your attending? Or should you do further research into the Bible?
Brother Kent,
I’ve done some study into church membership. How would you say that a person should join a church?
Today the process I see is something like this. 1. They must be aced and baptized. 2. They must agree to the doctrinal statement. 3. They must show themselves committed to the church. 4. The church must vote to have them join.
My question is with 2, 3, and 4.
For 2, is agreement with all church doctrine a biblical requirement? It appears to me members were added and were then taught the doctrine, not the other way around. Of course, to disagree with the doctrine would bring about discipline, but to make someone agree to it before they can join seems to be going beyond Scripture.
For 3, I agree that all members should be committed, but the level of commitment that allows someone to stay a member doesn’t seem to be something that we could categorically state. Would you say a church can decide what it’s standards for commitment to stay a member are? (I’ve read your post about things that aren’t in Scripture, but this seems like an area that we should tread lightly.)
For 4, I don’t see anywhere that a church body voted to add a member in the Bible. Is there an exegetical argument for a church to vote to receive a member?
I also have a question about church covenants and constitutions. I realize it is long standing practice, but is there Biblical precedent for doing so?
Sorry for the questions. I tried to read through your articles for answers to these questions and I may have missed them, but these are questions I’ve had for a while now.
Saved, not aced*
Dear David,
Good questions. We certainly want to have Scriptural authority for what we believe and practice.
Certainly disciples receive a great deal more instruction after they are baptized–indeed, we receive instruction in God’s church the rest of our lives. But that does not deny that there is not a certain level of doctrinal knowledge that is prerequisite to conversion itself and a certain level that one agrees to when he is baptized. Baptisms were quite soon after repentant faith in the book of Acts, yes, but there will not be as much wheat coming in with the chaff when you know you might be killed or suffer serious consequences for following Christ. From the fact that they “continued” in the Apostles’ doctrine and fellowship we can see that they were already committed to it when they were baptized. With plenty of religious organizations around that will tickle anyone’s ears, requiring that someone is, say, committed to the sort of basics in a church covenant before baptizing him is a way to see if he is really committed to the Apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, or if he just like the color of the carpet and the friendliness of the people and the food at the fellowship meal.
We see in the OT the assembled people of God entering into specific covenants, and it is hard to see why this would be a type that is fulfilled in Christ, so that would be a basis for covenants as well.
A church constitution is nothing but a summary of Scripture’s teaching. Since the church must allow no other doctrine (1 Timothy 1:3), surely it can record and explain what the doctrines of Scripture are both for the edification of the saints and to have a way to keep out the wolves or to exclude ones that get in unawares.
Matthew 18:15-20 shows that the church body as a whole determines its membership (not the pastors, a deacon board, etc.). For them to be able to expel (and thus receive necessarily, for if they could expel someone and the pastor could let him right back in against their consent would obliterate their excommunication) shows by good and necessary consequence that the membership determines who gets in and out, and it is hard to see how that can be done without voting. Furthermore, the primary sense of the word translated “ordained” in Acts 14:23 is to vote by raising one’s hand. This has been recognized for centuries; e. g., the Baptist Confession of 1677 declared:
9. The way appointed by Christ for the Calling of any person, fitted, and gifted by the Holy Spirit, unto the Office of Bishop, or Elder, in a Church, is, that he be chosen thereunto by the common suffrage of the Church it self …
W. J. McGlothlin, Baptist Confessions of Faith (Philadelphia; Boston; Chicago; St. Louis; Toronto: American Baptist Publication Society, 1911), 266.
with a footnote on “common sufferage /voting” that reads: Acts 14:23. See the original.
Hopefully that helps. I am sure Bro Brandenburg can also contribute something here.
Hi Bro David,
For 2. We do not expect someone to agree with every point of the doctrinal statement. Our church hears the voice of the Shepherd and follows it. Jesus Himself is not lesser than a doctrinal statement.
For 3. When someone counts the cost, as Jesus showed consistently, never straying from that, truly believes in Him, that commitment is there.
For 4. The Greek word cheirotoneo, found 4 times in NT, means “to elect or choose someone for definite offices or tasks, choose.” You see the word “hand” in the compound Greek verb, as in “to stretch out a hand in voting.” It’s in Acts 14:23, Titus 3:15, 2 Corinthians 8:19. It’s also implied in “added to the church” like the church had a roll. If something is brought to the church as in Matthew 18:15-18 to decide, it implies voting. I could say more, but it’s a brief answer.
I think there is an implication of a written covenant or statement of faith. One is not required, but it’s still there, because the people need to know what they’ve violated, what the expectations are, how the church will apply scripture. Paul talked about tradition in 2 Thessalonians 2 that was violated, and this could be the beliefs and practices the church held. In Acts 15, you see a specific statement being made to those two churches as a basis of unity and separation. Again, just a brief answer. Not all encompassing.
Thanks!
Thank you both for your answers. There is much I agree with, but for time’s sake, I’ll get to the things of which I’m still not convinced. I’m not trying to argue for arguments sake, and I did read carefully through each of your responses with a desire to know the truth.
Brother Ross,
You said, “requiring that someone is committed to say, the basics.” I understand the point, but is it our authority to demand that before someone is added to the church? Also, to make someone sign a statement that says, for instance, “we will have regular family devotions” would be asking them to 1. Sign something that many families don’t do and 2. Causing them to make an oath that they may break which God never told us to sign. Isn’t baptism the outward manifestation of commitment to the Lord and His church? I truly still don’t see how we can require something that God does not.
You said, “Since the church can allow no other doctrine…” I wouldn’t be opposed to a statement of faith, but I think there should be a clear understanding that the statement is not Scripture and could be changed. For instance, there were doctrines I held when I became a pastor that changed after further study. The Bible must be the authority and “Constitution.” Of course I know you agree with that, but I think it should be clear that the doctrinal statement could be wrong. Not that we assume our doctrine is wrong, but for the sake of letting our people know that the authority is not the man made constitution.
You said, “Matthew 18 says the church body determines the membership…” Acts 2 says “the Lord added to the church” so it does not seem that we have a say in who is added. If someone is saved and desires to be baptized, the Lord has added them to the church. As far as the church putting people out, I agree that that is not simply the pastor or “deacon board” (which is also not Scriptural). However, you said, “it is hard to see how this could be done without voting.” But the Bible actually gives, in Matthew 18, the word that I believe should replace voting, “agree.” To agree is not to vote. God says His people should be of “one mind.” Voting destroys agreement and unity because it is the exact opposite. It creates a culture of strife because everyone wants their way. How many problems do churches have because the members have been taught that they “get their say” in their vote?
You said, “The primary sense of the word translated ordained is to vote by raising one’s hand.” I’ve heard this argument before, but I don’t see it. I don’t know Greek, but I know what ordained means and I never see the church ordaining. It was always men that ordained. Jesus ordained his disciples; Paul and the elders ordained Timothy; Timothy and Titus were told to ordain pastors. The context of Acts 14 is that Paul and Barnabas went back to those cities and ordained pastors. From someone who doesn’t feel the need to defend voting, it appears that you’re trying to “find it” there because it’s the common practice. It makes sense in America because we’re used to democratic voting, but I don’t see it in the Bible. Even if that word means to stretch out the hand, it still doesn’t necessitate a democratic vote. I believe that the men in the church, who are Spirit-filled, should discuss things together and come to agreement, but that is not the same as having a vote. Who’s to say that in a 80-20 vote the 20 percent is wrong? Where does the Bible teach majority rules in the church? Also, what should the majority be? Who determines whether it’s 60, 80, or 90 percent? Does Christ get to determine that? Since He’s the head it seems He should, but I wouldn’t know where to find His desired percentage. Now what I’ve heard from most people is this, “Well, we practically always agree anyway.” My question is, do we get to determine how things are decided or does Christ?
Brother Brandenburg, I entirely agree with the first two things you said.
You said, “it implies voting.” Again, my question from above is does it actually? If a newly saved member is in the church, do they have the right to vote for a new pastor? What if they don’t like the way he wears his hair so they vote no? What if they think the unrepentant sinner was a nice guy and think the church is being too hard? Can they vote no? What if you had ten newly saved members in a church of 15 that don’t like the pastor? Can they vote him out?
It also seems to me that now we vote on much more than just the pastors and new members. We vote on missionaries (which isn’t a Biblical word, as you’ve written on), doctrine, financial decisions, even down to the color of the carpet. I just don’t see it in the Bible. The elders decided on doctrine and the pastor, James, made his sentence. The money was laid at the apostles feet to be used as they saw fit. The leaders in the church laid hands on Paul and Barnabas and sent them out. Did the church agree? Of course! Did they vote? I don’t see the vote.
You said, “Paul talked about tradition in 2 Thessalonians 2…” I’m not saying you’re wrong or that I am convinced churches shouldn’t have a covenant and statement of faith, but 2 Thess 2 says “by word, or by our epistle.” It appears he was speaking of apostolic authority not that churches could create their own traditions for their people to keep. Maybe I’m wrong there.
I realize some of this may come across as a challenge from someone who won’t listen, but that is not my intention. I would ask if you would you be willing to stop voting and reconsider your stance on covenants and constitutions if you were convinced that it wasn’t Scriptural or if you will continue it no matter what because it is tradition. From someone who isn’t convinced that the Bible “implies voting” I think it would be good for us to take an honest look at it. If I may be blunt, it appears that you’re trying to defend what you’re doing, but as someone who doesn’t feel the need to defend it, your arguments do not seem to be the clear reading of the passages presented.
I know you’re used to being on defense here, but I’m not trying to attack you. I don’t want you to feel like you have to defend yourself against what I said. I think I may be right and you may be wrong. If I’m right, I would be happy for you to join me in being right.
One more thing. Brother Ross, I live very near to Fairhaven and have good friends there. They recently voted in a new pastor. They were told to pray about the Lord’s will on their vote for pastor Mitchell. It was a 93% yes. Were the 7% out of the Lord’s will? Did they not know the Lord’s will? Should they repent of voting the wrong way?
I found an article online that I will post. It states the position I would tend to agree with well. I don’t know anything about the church other than this article.
https://gracebc.info/is-the-church-a-democracy
Bro. Brandenburg,
I also think your overall point here agrees with the New Testament. I would go a step further in agreement by saying that it is sufficiently clear that the church as a whole may be involved in these processes. That is why you see Paul mention that the church should be gathered together in 1 Cor. 5:4-5 and as noted by Paul again in 2 Cor. 2:6, when he specifically says that the church discipline was one that was inflicted of many. Like you say, this would find its basis in what our Lord said in Matthew 18:15-18. And 2 Corinthians 8:16 goes completely and entirely along with that.
The Greek word you noted I also found in two places in New Testament Scripture, namely Acts 14:23 and 2 Corinthians 8:19. I wasn’t able to find your other two references, so I was interested to know how you found that particular word where you did in Titus. The word is also found in the non-inspired subscriptions to the epistles at the end of 2 Timothy and Titus, though, so this might give you another example of how the word might have been used. Obviously the content of the exact application of the word might not be doctrinally binding. I still think your point is right though, Bro. Brandenburg.
I also noticed that the word “καταστήσῃς” is found nearby as well, in Titus 1:5, but this I think is more of a top-down concept than our word is. Incidentally, for those who are interested, sacerdotalist interpreters would often rely on this same verse (Titus 1:5), in a misguided way to argue against congregational church polity. There were many churches who were stripped of their congregational polity by their own civil government, and Titus 1:5 was the verse such people would wrest (see 2 Peter 3:16). You’ll notice upon inspection that this is a different word, although still translated “ordain” in the KJV.
As one historical example of this overthrowing of congregational polity, see one medieval edict from the year A.D. 1234:
Decretals of Gregory IX. 1. c.c. 56.
“It is prohibited by a perpetual edict: Not by the laity, but rather by the canons of the Pontiff shall elections be decided.
“If an election should, perhaps, be undertaken, it shall have no force: notwithstanding the fact this may be contrary to the custom, it ought rather be called the corruption of things.”
This legal declaration of course comes in the immediate aftermath of the Albigensian Crusade and the start of the Inquisition period in the middle ages.
Hi Andrew,
Not much time at the moment, but when I looked up the word in BDAG, it had Titus 1:9 in the reference. When I went to type all the references I looked at, I typed its list and included that one in BDAG. I’ve removed it. I’m guessing BDAG had it there for a reason, but I’m not going to take the time to discover that, because there are enough references, as you said in your comment. I’ll come back later for some of the other comments. I had more to say in that comment, but I wrote it quickly.
Hi again,
I hope I may have been of some help, and always interested if there might be more to think about on this subject, so had to ask. I will try not to disrupt the flow of your conversations. Also, just to add to my previous comment, was just trying to help to show how the precedent for this ordaining exists. As obviously, like we see, when and where it’s appropriate to do this will be up to the church’s leadership; That’s why my comment said, “may be involved in these processes.”
Happy New Year!
Just so we aren’t talking past one another. I’m not saying the church shouldn’t be involved. My point is that I do not see the church voting democratically in the Bible and I don’t think that is the way God prescribed decisions to be made. In every decision I see the pastors/apostles/elders making a decision with which the church agrees and obeys (be it putting someone out, choosing deacons, doctrinal decisions, etc.). I don’t see where the body has authority over the pastor/elders and his/their decisions. This is why there are high qualifications and extra accountability out on “them that rule over you.” Is there one instance where the body has authority to overrule the pastor?
Brother David,
I still don’t have the time to put into answering you here, except for a few points. I hear now that you are arguing against congregational form of church government and for a presbyterian form. Earlier you said to both Thomas and I that we’re accustomed to being defensive here, as if that’s just what we do. Defend. Even if we’re wrong, we’ve got to defend our positions.
I believe there is unique pastoral authority, but primarily what I see is a congregational form of church government. Jesus taught that in Matthew 18:15-17. The pastor is under church authority in 1 Timothy 5:17-20. Those are clear. Then when you look at other passages, they harmonize with those, such as 1 Corinthians 5:13, when Paul, writing to the whole church at Corinth, says, “Put away from among yourselves that wicked person.” “Put away” is a second person plural imperative. The whole church is to put away that wicked person. When Paul says you plural, he is talking to the entire audience, the church at Corinth. Paul does the same thing in 2 Thess 3:6 when he commanded them plural that they the brethren at Thessalonica should withdraw yourselves plural, speaking to the church at Thessalonica.
Brother Brandenburg,
Please forgive my hasty words about you being defensive. I didn’t mean it in a derogatory way, but I see now how it came across that way and I’m truly sorry. It wasn’t necessary in this conversation.
If what I’m saying is called presbyterian I guess that’s what I’m saying. I haven’t studied church polity in great depth outside of my Biblical study. I just read through Acts and the epistles looking for how decisions were made about money, membership, deacons, doctrine (the things churches vote on) when someone asked me why churches vote.
What I saw was the apostles commanding the church to bring them deacons who they ordained (Acts 6). I saw money being laid at the apostles feet and sent to the elders (Acts 4, Acts 11:30). I saw “the Lord” adding to the church (Acts 2:47). It appears that church members have the right to refuse baptism in the question “can any man forbid water?” But that does not appear to me to be a vote, rather that they might know a valid reason to refuse baptism (Acts 10). I see the apostles and elders conferring on doctrine with the pastor making his “sentence” in Acts 15, with which the whole church “was pleased.” I see the pastor needing to rule his house well else “how shall he take care of the church of God?” (1 Tim 3). I see elders “taking the oversight thereof.” 1 Peter 5. As I said, I have not studied much on church polity and I truly don’t know what arguments people make for different ideas. This is just what I saw when I tried studying the Bible on this.
I do agree that the whole church takes part in putting someone out. That is very clear in Scripture. What I don’t think is clear from those passages is that this proves congregational authority or voting. Putting someone out is in obedience to Christ, is it not? If he commanded the church to do that then the church ought to obey. That is done when saved believers in the church agree -not vote- (Christ’s word in Matt 18) that someone is not demonstrating repentance, who is then treated as being lost and no longer part of the body. A pastor that sins would also be treated this way and likely disqualified from future ministry even after showing repentance. To me, that appears different than the church body ruling by their vote.
As I asked before, where in Scripture do we see the church making decisions with congregational vote? Where do we see a church vote to add a member? Where do we see a church vote on how to spend money? Where do we see a church vote to ordain a pastor? (I realize you would say Acts 14:23, but to me it seems apparent that Paul and Barnabas, not the church, are ordaining there). Where do we see a church vote on doctrinal decisions? Where do we see a church vote even on discipline?
I know that’s long with many questions and you said you are busy. Please don’t feel the need to answer this any time soon. I don’t want to be dull of hearing, I haven’t been influenced by anything other than someone (an independent Baptist) asking where the church votes in the Bible and my study of Scripture. I’m trying to be open minded about it, even if it appears I’m not.
I do thank you for the time. In a way, I’m looking to see if you can give a satisfactory defense of congregational polity and as yet, you have not demonstrated it to me beyond reasonable doubt that would cause me to abandon my current understanding, but I will read anything you say with a desire to know the truth. And once more, please forgive the arrogance in my last comment and even any arrogance that may be evident in this one. Arrogance is not my intention. I want to know the truth.
Brother David,
It isn’t an argument that Thomas and I just defend, that’s why we don’t agree, because defense of what we believe is imperative in every case. At this point in my life, I don’t change as much as I did when I was younger, but I will change. I just changed on something in the last three or four years. I learn new things all the time. I don’t agree with elder rule (presbytery rule), but it isn’t a deal-breaker for me. If churches take that form of church government, I wouldn’t separate over it. I don’t believe it though, because of what I’ve written. If scripture teaches elder rule, then we would not find these congregational examples like we do.
You argued that Matthew 18 isn’t a vote per se, because of the word “agree” perhaps in verse 19. In v. 18, you get these statements, ye shall bind and ye shall loose, this plural form, which refers to “the church,” when the disciplined person neglects to hear the church. In 1 Timothy 5:20 “all” is plural. Who is that? It is all the members. Acts 15:3 starts with “And being brought on their way by the church.” Who are they being brought by? It says, “the church.” It is a strong communication of agency. The church was the agency of the bringing, a word for sending. The church was bringing them back for a purpose. A. T. Robertson says, “They were being given a grand send off by the church at Antioch.” The next verse, v. 4, says they were received of the church.
Romans 12 talks about fitting into the body as a member, a body part. Every member fits into the body, including its teachers. The whole is greater than each of its parts. I don’t disagree that the elder, bishop, pastor has unique authority in the church. You seem to agree there is congregational authority. The balance between the two seems to be where there is understandable variation. The church should follow its leadership. When the overseer says, This is what the passage says, the church needs to take that seriously. However, you get this balance in 1 Corinthians 14:32, the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. There is a forum for challenge in a church. Paul in 1 Timothy 3:15 says the church is the pillar and ground of the truth, not an elder or the elders.
When Paul writes to the church at Thessalonica in chapter 5, he commands them, despise not prophesyings, but he also commands them, prove all things. What are they proving? They are proving what they are hearing from the preaching. They don’t hold fast to everything. They hold fast to that which is good. This shows congregational accountability.
Thank you for that. I truly don’t have much of a disagreement with what you said. Also, I want you to know that I’ve agreed with about 95% of what I’ve read here and could comment my agreement with almost every article. I’ve been greatly helped and encouraged by much of what you’ve written, so don’t take this as if I’m here to disagree.
If I may say one more thing and then I will let the discussion rest. I believe the church should be involved in decisions that are made. I believe any pastor who loves the sheep will involve them. I believe that there is even an authority (in the sense of decisions) as fellow members that the pastor ought to hear and consider what the other members have to say. when you give Acts 15 of the church sending and receiving, that reads to me as the church has been well taught and they are together on what the Bible teaches. They gladly sent off Paul and Barnabas and likewise received them that the dissension might be settled. I teach my church to listen critically to what I say and if I speak an error to bring it to my attention. I do that because I believe they have the Holy Spirit and God can speak to them the same as me and I don’t always get everything right. I see all these things clearly in the Bible.
What I don’t see is where the Bible teaches that decisions are made by the church voting. It seems so arbitrary to me how we would even begin to decide what is voted on, what percentage is necessary, etc. As a pastor, I believe it is my job to teach my people from the Bible why we do what we do. I can show them their responsibilities as members, but I don’t know where I could go to teach that they vote, and I don’t know where I would go to teach them that they rule in the church.
As before, I appreciate you taking the time to discuss this. If you respond to this I will again listen with open ears. God bless you as you preach the Word.
Brother David,
It’s fine to discuss this. In Eph 4:3, when Paul speaks of endeavouring to keep the bond of unity. he means in a church. Churches should unify around the truth, which means bringing everybody in the leadership. This is not a vote as in, hey, you can state your own opinion and differ than the leadership. At our church for decades, we had 100 percent support on issues. We believed in total unity. For that reason, we spent a lot of time talking about it, showing it scripturally. People knew and still do know that when the whole church is going a certain direction, they should not divide, especially on non-scriptural matters. I understand where you’re coming from in the way of voting, that is, 15 people say this, 10 say this, and then 7 say this, creating situations of division. However, the voting action still is there. Feel free to comment, but I’m probably done on this too.