Congregational Rule

Okay, I'll agree.

There are two of the Baptist distinctives at work on this thread: the Bible as the sole rule of faith and practice, and the autonomy of the local church (not the autonomy of the pastor).

 

Actually, the use of the term "church" (Gr. ekklesia) necessitates democracy. The ekklesia was the legislative body of a Greek city-state. We know this from Thucydides and other classical Greek sources (Plato, Aristotle, et al). According to the Liddel-Scott lexicon of classical Greek, it was: "an assembly of the citizens regularly summoned, the legislative assembly." So the male citizens (excluding slaves and women, unfortunately) were summoned to appear in the assembly to make decisions by a democratic vote after discussion.

Any educated first century citizen would have known this. (Not to say that an educated 21st century citizen would know it. :smilewinkgrin: ) This is evident from the fact that according to BAGD Josephus uses the term this way in the first century. One may object that Liddel-Scott quoted above is a classical lexicon. However, koine Greek lexicons agree. BAGD: "assembly, as a regularly summoned political body." Abbot-Smith: "an assembly of citizens regularly convened." Louw-Nida: "a group of citizens assembled for socio-political activities."

It is no accident that God chose to have His church be communicated by this democratic term. God meant the church to be a democracy with an elected leader. Otherwise, episunagoge (a gathering) would be the normal NT term for church. It is not, since it only occurs for the church in 2 Thess. 2:1 and Heb. 10:25.

 

A pure democracy won't work in a church, a government or any other organization. It is a recipe for gridlock if each person has equal power and responsibility. That's why every group I know of looks for leaders.

It is clear that the apostles appointed elders in the first churches. Since the office of apostle no longer exists, I doubt that some guys stood up in the assembly and said, "I feel the Lord is calling me to be and elder, your overseer. So I'm appointing myself to rule over you." Do you think the congregation said, "Oh, okay."

So how did elders emerge in the post-Apostolic time? How about the same way it's done today?

Even in the elder-led churches today, who makes them so? The congregation.

In my church, we have a single elder--the pastor. He is accorded great honor and respect. His desires for the direction of the church are accorded great weight. Should it become necessary for the pastor-elder-bishop and the congrgation to part ways, there are only two ways to do it. The pastor decides to separate (resign, accept another call, retire) or the the congregation decides to separate from him. Maybe some of you can think of another way, but none comes to mind right now.

 

Not in our elder led church.

 

Not in ours either. Anyone chosen to be an elder will be chosen by the elders.

Can you imagine a church filled with (as statistics imply) the majority of people who are only professed Christians, making such an important decision? What about the truly born again Christians within a congregation? How many of them are new Christians? What you are left with is a very minority of people who are regenerate mature Christians to make decisions for the church. The minority will not be ruling, but instead the majority. The majority will be either immature regenerate Christians or unregenerate professing Christians, or a combination.

Our church is elder ruled and always will be.

 

Who chose your first elder(s)?

 

God.........................

It was a body of elders who recognized it though.

I am the leading elder of our church. I planted the church.

 

Who chose the first elders of the first church? God

 

Benjamin Keach, prominent signer of the 1689 London Baptist Confession, in Tropologia, Book IV, wrote:
"Seventhly, they have a Right and Privilege to choose their own Officers; every free Citizen hath his Voice at every Election. No Minister, Bishop, or Deacon, may be imposed upon them without their own free consent."

Hanserd Knollys, also a prominent signer of the 1689 Confession, in responding to Dr. John Bastwick's Independency not God's Ordinance, also rejected as unbiblical the type of elder-dominated polity practiced by Presbyterians and apparently some 21st century Baptists:
"How can the Doctor make good, that "The Presbyters alone without the consent of Brethren may admit members, and cast out members, and that the Brethren or the congregation hath nothing to doe to hinder any such thing,"[?]"

 

The scripture has to be my authority. I love the 1689 confession of faith.... but do I hold it above scripture? No.

 

Would this be considered congregational rule or elder rule? The elders make the decision (with the exception of the annual budget) but the congregation can override said decision with a 2/3 vote.

 

Scripture was the authority for these godly Baptist men of the past too. Their understanding of scripture is what differentiated them from Presbyterians and what differentiates most modern-day Baptists from those Baptists who have turned to presbyter polity.

 

Not in our elder ruled church.

 

Were they perfect in their understanding of Scripture? Are you? I'm not.

That is why I believe in the autonomy of the local church. Our local church is elder lead.

 

I said in an earlier post that Baptists have had congregational government for at least 150 years. I was wrong by 200 years. It's at least 350 years.

 

John,

1. I'm encouraged by your Greek analysis of ekklesia and esp. avoiding the semantic obsolescence fallacy by citing NT examples.

2. However, I noticed one issue in the authorities you cited: they all seem to point to the secular use of ekklesia. Maybe your can clarify this. :thumbs:

3. I do see a democratic use of ekklesia in the life of the church. However, this democracy does not nullify the function of the elders-pastors-overseers dynamic in the church.

4. If everything were democratic, we would have no need for texts like Acts 20:28; 1 Tim 5:17 and 1 Pet 5:1-4.

 

I actually agree with you, except the elders (elder led, not elder rule) are still subject to church discipline. I Tim. 5:19 is a restatement of the method of church discipline given by Jesus in Matt 18.

peace to youraying:

 

No Greek word changed in core meaning simply because it was used in the NT. The nuance may have changed, but not the core meaning. (I believe agape is an example of this.) So in my thinking I don't distinguish between the secular use of a word and the sacred. The secular use defines the sacred, or else we are stuck back in the days when people thought koine Greek was some special heavenly language.

Therefore, people need to know that when they use the word church/ekklesia from the NT they are using a democratic term. If they want their church to be strictly elder run with no interference from the congregation (who the elders think cannot possibly be mature enough to be led by the Holy Spirit--what paternalism), then they should call it something else, not a church.

In Japan there is a famous movement started by Uchimura Kanzo called the Mukyokai, or "non-church" movement. (Maybe the "unchurch"? :smilewinkgrin: ) It's more like a Bible club that usually meets on Sunday. That is what I think of when I hear about "elder rule" churches, though there are churches that go by "elder rule" where the people are allowed to vote for the elders.

I agree here. The Biblical congregation chooses the pastors/elders/deacons. Then they allow themselves to be led by them, especially in the area of "prayer and the ministry of the Word."

 

This is congregational rule. :type: