WHY DID THE CONGREGATIONALISTS INSIST ON LOCAL CHURCH GOVERNMENT?

WHO HAS AUTHORITY OVER A CONGREGATION?

The Presbyterians challenged the authority of diocesan bishops. They believed that elders should govern the church together, with representatives from several congregations meeting in wider assemblies.

But other Christians asked a further question.

If the New Testament gives elders responsibility for a congregation, does it also give a permanent regional assembly authority to overrule those elders?

The Congregationalists answered that question differently.

They believed that each congregation, under Christ, should be responsible for its own worship, membership, leadership, and discipline.

They did not necessarily reject cooperation with other congregations. They questioned whether one congregation—or an assembly representing several congregations—had governing jurisdiction over another.

This brings us back to a distinction we have encountered throughout our study:

CHRISTIANS CAN COOPERATE WITHOUT NECESSARILY PLACING THEMSELVES UNDER THE SAME HUMAN GOVERNING AUTHORITY.

But does the New Testament establish that distinction?

And how far does it extend?

1. WHERE DID CONGREGATIONALISM COME FROM?

Congregationalism did not begin with one man founding a new denomination on a particular day.

Its roots lay in the English Reformation and the disagreements among Puritans and Separatists.

Some Separatists believed they must leave the established Church of England and form congregations apart from it.

Other Christians favored congregational government while maintaining some relationship with the established church. They were often called Independents.

During the seventeenth century, congregational forms of church government developed in England and New England. The groups differed in some beliefs and practices, but they shared the conviction that a particular congregation should govern its own affairs under Christ.

We should distinguish two ideas.

INDEPENDENT DOES NOT HAVE TO MEAN ISOLATED.

A congregation can be independent of another congregation’s governing jurisdiction without believing it should have nothing to do with other congregations.

That distinction will become important.

2. WHAT DID THEY MEAN BY A LOCAL CHURCH?

The Congregationalists argued that a particular congregation was a real church, not merely a local branch that required a bishop or regional assembly to make it complete.

The Savoy Declaration of 1658 expressed this understanding. It held that Christ had given gathered congregations the authority necessary to carry out the worship and discipline He required of them. It did not place particular congregations under the governing jurisdiction of a larger church institution.

Now compare that claim with the New Testament.

Paul wrote:

“Unto the church of God which is at Corinth.” — 1 Corinthians 1:2, KJV

He greeted Priscilla and Aquila and:

“the church that is in their house.” — Romans 16:5, KJV

He also wrote:

“Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.” — Colossians 4:15, KJV

Each was called a church.

The New Testament does not describe a congregation as becoming a church only after a regional bishop or assembly recognizes it.

But we must distinguish what those passages establish from what we infer.

Calling a local gathering a church does not, by itself, settle every question about its relationship with other churches.

3. DOES “ONE BODY” REQUIRE ONE EARTHLY GOVERNING ORGANIZATION?

Paul wrote:

“There is one body, and one Spirit.” — Ephesians 4:4, KJV

He also said of Christ:

“And he is the head of the body, the church.” — Colossians 1:18, KJV

Presbyterians and Congregationalists both affirmed that Christ has one church and that He is its head.

They differed about how that one body should be organized in its local congregations.

A Presbyterian argument is that congregations belong to one church and should therefore share responsibility and accountability through wider governing assemblies.

A Congregationalist response is that spiritual unity under Christ does not automatically establish a permanent governing institution over local congregations.

Ephesians says:

“THERE IS ONE BODY.”

But does that statement prescribe regional church courts?

No such structure is described in that verse.

Does it require every congregation to govern itself without such courts?

That is not stated there either.

To decide between the two systems, we must examine the passages that actually describe church leadership, cooperation, and discipline.

4. WHO GOVERNS A CONGREGATION?

The Congregationalists emphasized the responsibility of the gathered congregation under Christ.

But that did not necessarily mean every member performed the same work or that a congregation had no recognized leaders.

The Savoy Declaration described churches with officers and members. It recognized pastors, teachers, elders, and deacons and gave the congregation a role in choosing qualified officers.

Now read Acts 14:23.

Paul and Barnabas ordained elders in the churches.

Read Titus 1:5.

Paul instructed Titus to ordain elders in every city.

Read Acts 20:17–28.

The elders of Ephesus were told to shepherd God’s flock.

These passages establish the importance of recognized leaders.

But they do not describe a congregation as a democracy in which the majority may set aside the teaching of Christ.

Nor do they describe elders as owners who may rule however they please.

THE CONGREGATION BELONGS TO CHRIST.

Its leaders are responsible to Him.

And its members are responsible for their conduct toward one another.

5. DOES THE WHOLE CONGREGATION HAVE RESPONSIBILITIES?

Yes.

Consider the case of serious sin in Corinth.

Paul instructed the congregation to address a man whose conduct was being tolerated.

He wrote:

“In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together.” — 1 Corinthians 5:4, KJV

Later he told them:

“Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.” — 1 Corinthians 5:13, KJV

Paul addressed the congregation, not merely a regional bishop or an outside court.

Congregationalists have appealed to this passage as evidence that the local church bears responsibility for its own discipline.

But notice another important fact.

PAUL WAS AN APOSTLE.

His instructions carried apostolic authority.

The passage therefore does not describe a congregation deciding that it may disregard the apostles’ teaching.

The congregation was being called to obey it.

That distinction matters whenever we discuss local church authority.

6. WHAT DID JESUS SAY ABOUT DEALING WITH A BROTHER WHO SINS?

Read Matthew 18:15–20.

Jesus described a process beginning with a personal conversation.

If the person refuses to listen, one or two others are brought along.

If he still refuses, Jesus said:

“tell it unto the church.” — Matthew 18:17, KJV

Congregationalists understand this as an important indication that the church has responsibility in matters of discipline.

But several questions remain.

What does Jesus mean by the church in this setting?

Does He describe a particular congregation?

Does the passage establish the final responsibility of that congregation?

Does it rule out seeking counsel from Christians elsewhere?

And how should we understand the authority Jesus describes in verses 18–20?

Those questions require attention to the entire passage.

One thing is clear.

The process is not designed to give leaders unrestricted control over people.

It begins with a personal effort to regain a brother.

THE GOAL IS RESTORATION, NOT POWER FOR POWER’S SAKE.

7. WHAT DID THE CONGREGATIONALISTS SAY ABOUT OUTSIDE COUNCILS?

Here their disagreement with Presbyterian government becomes especially clear.

The Savoy Declaration encouraged churches to consult one another when disputes arose. Representatives from several congregations could meet, examine a problem, and offer advice.

But the declaration did not give such councils governing jurisdiction over the congregations or authority to impose their conclusions upon them.

That was not a rejection of cooperation.

It was a distinction between:

ADVICE

and:

BINDING JURISDICTION.

Imagine a congregation facing a difficult dispute.

It asks experienced Christians from neighboring congregations to help examine the facts and the relevant Scriptures.

They meet and offer a recommendation.

The congregation considers their advice.

That is cooperation.

But suppose the outside group declares that it possesses authority to remove the congregation’s elders or impose a decision whether the congregation accepts it or not.

That is an additional claim of governing authority.

The Congregationalists believed Scripture permitted the first arrangement without establishing the second.

Presbyterians disagreed.

Our task is not to settle the matter by choosing the label we prefer.

WHERE DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT PLACE THE AUTHORITY?

8. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE JERUSALEM MEETING IN ACTS 15?

We examined Acts 15 in the previous study.

The apostles and elders met in Jerusalem to address the teaching that Gentile believers must be circumcised to be saved.

Their decision was communicated to congregations elsewhere.

Presbyterians see in this event a pattern of church leaders meeting together and issuing decisions affecting several congregations.

Congregationalists recognize the importance of the meeting but question whether it establishes permanent governing jurisdiction for later regional assemblies.

They point out that apostles participated in the meeting and that the New Testament does not describe a continuing hierarchy of presbyteries, synods, and general assemblies.

So ask the same questions again.

Who attended?

What question was being settled?

What authority did the apostles possess?

What part of the event is presented as a continuing pattern for later congregations?

And what part depended upon the presence of the apostles?

WE MUST NOT TURN ONE HISTORICAL EVENT INTO AN ENTIRE INSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM WITHOUT EXPLAINING EACH STEP OF THE ARGUMENT.

9. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A LOCAL CONGREGATION IS WRONG?

This is a serious question for Congregationalists.

Suppose a congregation’s elders mistreat someone.

Suppose the congregation refuses to correct them.

Suppose a preacher teaches something contrary to Scripture and the congregation protects him.

Where can an injured member turn?

Presbyterian churches generally provide formal procedures through wider governing bodies.

Congregationalists have historically relied upon the responsibility of the local congregation, together with counsel, assistance, and accountability from other churches.

But if the congregation refuses correction, the absence of a higher governing court can make the problem especially difficult.

That is a real practical concern.

Yet we must distinguish two questions:

WOULD AN OUTSIDE APPEALS PROCESS BE HELPFUL?

And:

HAS CHRIST AUTHORIZED A PARTICULAR OUTSIDE BODY TO EXERCISE BINDING JURISDICTION OVER THE CONGREGATION?

The answer to the first does not automatically settle the second.

And even when an appeals process exists, the people exercising that authority may themselves act wrongly.

No organizational system removes the need for honesty, justice, humility, and faithfulness to Scripture.

10. CAN AN INDEPENDENT CONGREGATION BECOME A LITTLE KINGDOM OF ITS OWN?

Yes.

That danger exists.

A congregation may reject control by a bishop or regional assembly and then allow its own preacher or elders to exercise excessive control.

It may treat its customs as though they were commands from Christ.

It may refuse to listen to correction from Christians elsewhere.

It may become so concerned with its independence that it neglects the needs of other believers.

The New Testament does not present independence as a substitute for humility.

Peter told elders:

“Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof.” — 1 Peter 5:2, KJV

Then he added:

“Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.” — 1 Peter 5:3, KJV

The flock belongs to God.

A local congregation is not the private possession of its leaders.

Nor does it become free from Christ’s commands merely because it has no outside governing body.

FREEDOM FROM ONE HUMAN AUTHORITY DOES NOT GIVE US FREEDOM FROM THE AUTHORITY OF CHRIST.

11. DID THE EARLY CONGREGATIONALISTS BELIEVE CHURCHES SHOULD HELP ONE ANOTHER?

Yes.

The Savoy Declaration encouraged fellowship and cooperation among congregations.

It also encouraged churches to seek counsel from one another when serious disagreements or injuries arose.

Now compare the New Testament.

Christians in Antioch sent relief to believers in Judea.

Read Acts 11:27–30.

Paul organized a collection among congregations for needy Christians in Jerusalem.

Read 2 Corinthians 8–9.

The Philippians supported Paul’s gospel work.

Read Philippians 4:15–16.

These passages show Christians working together across congregational boundaries.

But they do not establish that cooperation requires a permanent governing authority over all participating churches.

Nor do they forbid congregations from seeking advice and assistance from one another.

The biblical pattern gives us substantial reason to value cooperation.

The further question is:

WHAT AUTHORITY, IF ANY, MAY ONE CONGREGATION EXERCISE OVER ANOTHER?

12. WHAT ABOUT CHURCHES THAT MEET IN HOMES?

The Congregationalist argument raises a question that matters wherever Christians meet.

Does a congregation require a special building?

Does it require a large membership?

Does it require recognition from a national church before it can be a church?

The New Testament describes congregations meeting in homes.

Read Romans 16:3–5, Colossians 4:15, and Philemon 1–2.

It also describes Christians continuing:

“stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.” — Acts 2:42, KJV

The place of meeting does not create the church.

A large building does not make its members more fully Christian.

And meeting in a home does not make a congregation less fully Christian.

THE CHURCH IS THE PEOPLE, NOT THE BUILDING.

But the size or location of a gathering does not settle every question about leadership, baptism, worship, or accountability.

A house congregation must still examine Christ’s teaching.

So must a congregation meeting in a cathedral.

13. DID THE CONGREGATIONALISTS REJECT ALL CONFESSIONS OF FAITH?

No.

This is another historical detail worth noticing.

In 1658, English Congregationalists issued the Savoy Declaration of Faith and Order.

Much of its doctrinal content followed the Westminster Confession, although the Savoy document differed on church government and certain other matters.

Its authors did not reject written statements of belief merely because they rejected Presbyterian jurisdiction.

A congregation may govern itself and still adopt a detailed confession.

It may require its ministers to agree with that confession.

It may establish membership expectations.

So independence from a regional assembly does not mean freedom from every humanly formulated standard.

The question remains:

DOES THE CONFESSION ACCURATELY EXPRESS SCRIPTURE?

And:

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN SOMEONE SHOWS FROM SCRIPTURE THAT PART OF IT SHOULD BE RECONSIDERED?

That is a question every congregation must face, whether its confession is written or unwritten.

14. DID CONGREGATIONAL GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE RELIGIOUS LIBERTY?

No.

The history of New England shows why we must distinguish congregational church government from religious liberty.

Puritan Congregationalists in Massachusetts Bay developed self-governing congregations, but their religious institutions were also closely connected with colonial civil authority.

The Cambridge Platform of 1648 described congregational church government within a society where civil authorities supported an established religious order.

That arrangement could place religious dissenters under pressure.

A church might be independent of a bishop while still receiving governmental support for the established religious system.

So we must not assume that every Congregationalist defended religious freedom in the same way as Thomas Helwys or Roger Williams.

LOCAL CHURCH GOVERNMENT AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY ARE RELATED QUESTIONS.

THEY ARE NOT THE SAME QUESTION.

15. WHAT WAS THE CAMBRIDGE PLATFORM?

The Cambridge Platform, adopted in New England in 1648, was an important statement of Congregationalist church government.

It addressed the nature of a church, its officers, membership, discipline, and relationships among congregations.

It helped establish a shared understanding of church order among Congregational churches in Massachusetts.

There is an interesting tension here.

These churches emphasized local congregational authority.

Yet they also adopted a common statement describing how churches should be organized.

That does not necessarily contradict congregational government.

Christians may agree together about what they believe Scripture teaches.

But it raises another question.

If a platform describes a particular form of church government, is that form binding because:

SCRIPTURE REQUIRES IT?

Or because:

A GROUP OF CHURCHES AGREED TO ADOPT IT?

Those are not necessarily the same source of authority.

We must keep them distinct.

16. DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT REQUIRE A CONGREGATIONAL VOTE?

Congregationalists have often given church members a role in selecting leaders and making decisions about church life.

Acts 6:1–6 is relevant.

When a problem arose concerning the daily distribution to widows, the apostles told the believers:

“Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom.” — Acts 6:3, KJV

Then Luke tells us:

“And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen.” — Acts 6:5, KJV

The believers participated in an important decision.

But does Acts 6 establish that every decision in every congregation must be made by majority vote?

No such general rule is stated.

And notice that the apostles directed the process.

Likewise, 2 Corinthians 2:6 speaks of:

“this punishment, which was inflicted of many.” — 2 Corinthians 2:6, KJV

The passage does not establish a permanent voting procedure for every church decision.

These texts deserve consideration.

But participation by the congregation is not identical to a rule that the majority possesses final authority over every matter.

A MAJORITY CAN MISUNDERSTAND SCRIPTURE.

So can a minority.

Christ’s authority does not change when the vote changes.

17. CAN A CONGREGATION CHOOSE TO IGNORE ITS ELDERS?

The New Testament gives elders real responsibilities.

Paul instructed the Ephesian elders to shepherd the church.

Read Acts 20:28.

Peter instructed elders to exercise oversight willingly and by example.

Read 1 Peter 5:1–3.

Hebrews says:

“Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account.” — Hebrews 13:17, KJV

That passage does not grant leaders unlimited authority.

But neither does congregational participation eliminate the responsibilities of church leaders.

We should not turn church government into a struggle between two competing owners.

THE ELDERS DO NOT OWN THE CHURCH.

THE CONGREGATION DOES NOT OWN THE CHURCH.

CHRIST OWNS THE CHURCH.

Elders and members alike are responsible for obeying Him.

The practical arrangements by which they work together must remain consistent with that truth.

18. WHAT IF A CONGREGATION HAS NO QUALIFIED ELDERS?

This is a question the New Testament’s accounts of newly established churches help us consider.

Paul and Barnabas preached the gospel and established congregations.

Later:

“they had ordained them elders in every church.” — Acts 14:23, KJV

Paul left Titus in Crete to:

“ordain elders in every city.” — Titus 1:5, KJV

These passages indicate that congregations existed while their leadership was still being established.

But they do not teach that qualified elders are unnecessary.

Nor do they authorize a congregation to appoint unqualified men merely to fill positions.

Paul gave qualifications for overseers.

Read 1 Timothy 3:1–7 and Titus 1:5–9.

So what should Christians do while seeking qualified leaders?

They continue worshiping.

They continue teaching.

They continue caring for one another.

A regional organization may offer help.

Another congregation may offer counsel.

But neither the absence of a special building nor the absence of a regional governing organization means Christians must stop assembling.

The emphasis remains upon Christ, His word, and the responsibilities of His people.

19. IS A CONGREGATION RESPONSIBLE ONLY FOR ITSELF?

No.

Paul wrote:

“Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.” — Philippians 2:4, KJV

The New Testament also shows congregations assisting believers elsewhere.

Read Acts 11:27–30 and 2 Corinthians 8–9.

A congregation may have responsibility for its own worship and leadership without being indifferent to the needs of Christians beyond its membership.

A church can be independent in government and generous in cooperation.

It can also be independent in government and selfish in practice.

THE FORM OF ORGANIZATION DOES NOT DETERMINE THE CHARACTER OF THE PEOPLE WITHIN IT.

We must examine both.

20. WHAT HAVE THE PRESBYTERIANS AND CONGREGATIONALISTS HELPED US SEE?

Both movements challenged the idea that a diocesan bishop must govern multiple congregations.

Both emphasized the authority of Christ and the importance of biblical teaching.

Both recognized local church leaders.

Both valued cooperation among Christians.

But they disagreed about the governing authority of wider church assemblies.

The Presbyterian argument is that the unity and mutual accountability of congregations support government through connected assemblies of elders.

The Congregationalist argument is that Christ has given each gathered congregation responsibility for its own affairs while permitting cooperation and counsel without transferring governing jurisdiction.

The New Testament describes local congregations.

It describes elders.

It describes responsibilities shared by members.

It describes cooperation among congregations.

And it records the Jerusalem meeting of apostles and elders.

The interpretive question is how those passages fit together and which later organizational conclusions they actually establish.

WE SHOULD NOT ASSUME THAT THE STRUCTURE MOST FAMILIAR TO US IS THEREFORE THE STRUCTURE SCRIPTURE REQUIRES.

Whatever church background we come from, none of us is exempt.

21. WHERE DOES OUR HISTORY GO NEXT?

We have followed several branches of the English Reformation.

The Church of England retained bishops.

Puritans called for further reform.

Separatists formed congregations apart from the established church.

English Baptists challenged infant baptism.

Presbyterians developed government through connected assemblies of elders.

Congregationalists emphasized the governing responsibility of each local congregation.

But another major Protestant movement developed later in England, largely within the Church of England itself.

It emphasized personal conversion, disciplined Christian living, and organized groups that helped believers encourage one another.

Its best-known leader was:

JOHN WESLEY.

The movement became known as:

METHODISM.

And its history will bring us back to questions about grace, faith, holiness, and whether a believer can fall away.

That takes us to our next study:

WHY DID JOHN WESLEY BEGIN THE METHODIST MOVEMENT?

TEXT B4 TRADITION

Read First. Conclude Later.

RETURN TO MAIN SERIES: ONE CHURCH, SO MANY DIVISIONS—WHAT HAPPENED?

NEXT STUDY: WHY DID JOHN WESLEY BEGIN THE METHODIST MOVEMENT?