Great post further examining the role of congregational government.
Responding to Satanic Attacks on My Post about Satanic Congregationalism
I must admit I'm amazed how those that attend churches that embrace congregationalism get very ruffled at the thought that it is not the best form of church government. Recently I was discussing this with a good friend (no one from Kingston, just to be clear) and he quickly said, "but scripture says we are to have congregational government." At first, I was offended by the notion that he thought I had embraced a practice that was against scripture. Then after realizing that was just my personal pride and he was simply reacting to what he thought was a Biblical teaching (but is not), I simply challenged him to find it in scripture. He quickly accepted the challenge. Since then he hasn't found any concrete evidence because there is none. What there is however, is a extensive amount of evidence of an Elder ran church.
Responding to Satanic Attacks on My Post about Satanic Congregationalism
I must admit I'm amazed how those that attend churches that embrace congregationalism get very ruffled at the thought that it is not the best form of church government. Recently I was discussing this with a good friend (no one from Kingston, just to be clear) and he quickly said, "but scripture says we are to have congregational government." At first, I was offended by the notion that he thought I had embraced a practice that was against scripture. Then after realizing that was just my personal pride and he was simply reacting to what he thought was a Biblical teaching (but is not), I simply challenged him to find it in scripture. He quickly accepted the challenge. Since then he hasn't found any concrete evidence because there is none. What there is however, is a extensive amount of evidence of an Elder ran church.
A church ran by a plurality of Elders. Meaning several. The amount will vary from church to church based primarily on its size. The reason for a plurality is obvious, a one man show is never a good idea. (Proverbs 11:14) But the most common argument against an Elder ran church is, "what if the Elder board goes haywire and ruins the church." I laugh at this assertion for several reasons. I've seen far more church implode over voting and in my own personal experience have never seen an Elder led church implode. I'm not naive, I'm sure it happens in Elder ran churches as well. My point is neither model is exempt from bad leadership, bad doctrine or non-spiritual clicks getting together and making ungodly decisions. Churches are made up of ummmm... people. And guess what, people are flawed. Even redeemed ones. Then you throw in the wolves in sheep's clothing and you have a recipe for church problems.
Reasons why congregational government is a bad idea:
1. It's not scriptural. This is a great place to start, with the Bible. I heard a message by Pastor Steven Furtick (Elevation Church) a while ago where he said, every time we see the people vote in scripture things turn really bad. Moses and the children of Israel in the wilderness... that vote backfired. Jesus & Barabas... poor choice there. You get the idea. Let's stick to what scripture actually says, not what congregationalists want it to say. Starting with Titus 1 is good.
2. It creates dissension. I remember growing up and feeling tension at business meetings over votes on silly things such as whether or not we were having VBS for the coming year (no joke) and whether or not we were going to remodel the church kitchen and better yet what color the cabinets would be for the remodel. Ugh.. I still to this day hate church business meetings. People take sides and inevitably get hurt when their "golden child idea" is shot down. Business meetings and congregational government do nothing to build unity in the church.
3. Public opinion is dangerous and in church is no exception. Before anyone gets worked up about how the United States is a democracy of public opinion let me remind you lest you forget your high school government class that we are a democratic republic. In other words we elect representatives to do our work for us in votes. This is wise on a number of levels. Following that logically, congregationalists will say, "yes and we elect deacons." Getting off the point that congregational churches often vote about significant things. And public opinion can in most cases (99.9% of the time) be swayed by the person who is 1) the most eloquent speaker 2) has the most influence for whatever reason. One or two strong willed and outspoken individuals can rule the roost. I've witnessed it over and over again as have hundreds of other congregations. Often those people calling the shots are not spiritual and are more interested in their way and control. Dangerous. Very dangerous.
4. It assumes that the congregation has enough information to make an informed decision. Again, this comes from personal experience that often those voting don't know all the facts. They know what they've been told in the business meeting (which is usually a small snapshot of the situation) and by their friend sitting next to them. I saw a lady years ago that brought her elderly husband and would elbow him on when to vote. Nice. It's not uncommon. It's dangerous and yes, Satan uses this to his advantage.
Often people will be presented with important matters of business having never prayed about the issue at hand. That's a recipe for disaster. Then they wonder why God didn't bless our expansion program! DUH! You left God out of it.
How about this, godly (not perfect), gifted, humble, teachable, capable, caring leaders, praying together over decisions that effect the church and making the decisions based on what is best for the people, not what's popular in the pews. That's the way God designed it.
5. There is no benefit to congregationalism. None at all. Think there is? Name it? That the people have a voice? So we're about satisfying someone's feelings that they need to vote to feel a part? How about we teach our people that it's not about them, it's not about us, it's about Jesus Christ. Go ahead, I'm waiting on another benefit. Trust me, I've thought this through, there isn't one. If you're thinking to protect the church/congregation, refer to paragraph above that begins, "A church ran by a plurality of Elders. "
So, quick review of pro's and con's:
Con's: Creates dissension, gives people false sense of security, rests on the lures of public opinion, is not scriptural, puts an undue and unnecessary burden on the congregation and one that God did not design nor intend.
Pro's: None
Still for congregationalism?
Congregationalism is a big reason why the church is dying on the vine today. Non-spiritually minded people making godless decisions and running off godly men (often those in a church that are godly will not fight and will leave, creating a bigger problem). Congregationalism from Satan? Maybe James MacDonald isn't that far off.
