Are Church Business Meetings Biblical?
Since I am never one to shy away from controversial topics, I have decided to wade into the depths of church congregationalism vs. biblical leadership models. I seriously doubt that this will do much to change the hundreds of years of tradition in our churches. I myself am fully ensconced in the Southern Baptist lifestyle as a pastor in local SBC churches for more than 30 years. I even serve on a committee for our state convention that plans for the annual Convention and business meeting. I understand that I will most likely never escape congregationalism as long as I am part of a local church, association, or convention. But that does not negate my responsibility to continue in my efforts to educate our people about what God's Word has to say about the church.
Over the years I have heard many people say something along these lines, "I give my tithe to this church, so I should have a say in how we do things." There is so much wrong with that statement that I could spend hours covering just the possible replies to such nonsense. The basic response that I usually give is that by using their tithe as an argument to receive anything in return has just removed it from being God's possession back to their possession and it therefore now means nothing. Also by demanding that they get a say in how God's church operates they have in essence removed God as the leader and placed themselves at co-equal status with God. Some may have already decided that I am a nut by making these claims, so let me use some scripture to back up these two points.
Luke 18:9-14 describes a moment in the Temple when a Pharisee stood to pray. The prayer was most likely a public prayer spoken before a group of gathered worshippers. In his prayer he brags about the fact that he fasts and tithes. Jesus condemns his act as that of a man who is self-righteous. His tithe meant nothing to God because his heart was not right with God. Matthew 6:1-4 is another scripture in which Jesus explains that promoting yourself for giving will give you no reward in heaven. By using tithe as an argument for getting a say in the operation of the church, the individual is actually parroting the Pharisee's act of self-righteousness. They are in effect saying that those who do not tithe should have no say in things, but since they themselves do tithe they should be allowed to choose what type of copier the church purchases. They see themselves as shareholders in a business and demand certain benefits for their investments.
The second point is discussed below under "What Is the Biblical leadership Model."
What Is Congregationalism?
Biblical Congregationalism is about a priesthood of believers proclaiming Christ. In most churches, however, Congregationalism is a form of governmental rule that is used to determine the will of God for the local body of believers. This is also called Democratic rule and is usually controlled or dictated by Robert's Rules of Order. The first can be backed up by scripture (1 Peter 4:4-10 and Revelation 1:6). The second has no real biblical mandate, although some have used the passage in Acts 6:1-4 to insist that church members should have a say in the inner workings of the church.
The Acts 6 passage is not describing Congregationalism, but rather a form of shepherd leadership. When the church in Jerusalem began to see some problems among the widows of the body, the church did not just immediately go into a business session and vote in some deacons. The twelve apostles of Christ functioned as the elders or shepherds of the group. They gathered the expanding group of disciples. These disciples would have been those who were being mentored by the original twelve. It was from among this group that the charge was given to choose seven from their group to serve as men full of the Spirit and wisdom in dealing with the problem. In other words, they created a ministry team that would deal with a specific need.
Acts 6 does not show the entire church body meeting to vote on an issue of selecting deacons of the church. It shows the leadership of the church assigning this task to the spiritual leaders of the body in order to choose from among their own group men who would be trusted by the body to handle these concerns. This is not Congregationalism. This is not a mandate for the church to be run in a democratic manner.
There is, however, a biblical example of what happens when the people use Congregationalism in making a decision. In Numbers 13 and 14, Moses sends twelve spies into the land of Canaan to see what awaits them. Ten of the spies reported and then spread word throughout the entire camp that the new land would be impossible to conquer. Two of the men share that with God's help they know they can take the land. There is no actual vote indicated, but the obvious will of the people is shown. After the people begin to talk about electing a leader to take them back to Egypt and the whole camp was calling for the stoning of Joshua and Caleb, God's presence entered the camp to condemn the people for their lack of faith. The result of this non-biblical form of Congregationalism was that the Israelites had to wander in the dessert for 40 years before their children could enter the Promise Land.
Does your church seem to be wandering aimlessly? Perhaps the church needs to learn how God instructed them to function.
What Is the Biblical Leadership Model?
The bible describes the church as a body: a living organism (1 Corinthians 12:12-30). We each have a part to play as the body of Christ. Jesus is the head of the church (Colossians 1:18). The head tells the body what to do. God's original plan for His people is shown throughout the book of Exodus. God called out a shepherd, Moses, to serve as the leader of His people the Israelites. Through the power of God, Moses led them out of their slavery in Egypt. After they left Egypt, God led them physically with the pillar cloud that held a fire within it at night (Exodus 40:38). God spoke to Moses and Moses shared with the people what God had to say (Exodus 33:7-11). This form of leadership continued in spite of the constant complaints by the Israelites. When Moses died, Joshua continued on as God's chosen leader for the people (Deuteronomy 34:9)
After Joshua, God set up a system of judges to the people (Judges 2:16-19). Prophets of God served as spiritual leaders who proclaimed God's words to the people, but the people became dissatisfied with this and demanded a king to rule over them (1 Samuel 8). God intended for them to see Him as their King. Even after God gave them a warning about what would happen if He placed a king over them, the people still demanded it. This could also be seen as a form of Democratic voting by the people and they got what they wanted at a heavy price. So the prophet Samuel was given the authority to call out a king (1 Samuel 9).
In the New Testament Jesus gave us specific instructions for how the church was to function. He once again instituted that He would be the King of the church. Jesus would be totally in charge. He left instructions for men to serve as shepherds/overseers/bishops/pastors/elders (all five words are interchangeable) to act as His leaders for the church. These pastors would call out people to assist them in their duties, just as the apostles called out deacons. The pastors were to function as God's mouthpiece for the church given His direct instructions to the church.
We cannot have a double-headed church body. The pastors are not the head. The lay leaders are not the head. The members are not the head. Only Christ can be the head of the church. Any other design is doomed to destruction. Likewise, any design that removes the pastors as the mouthpieces of the church will lead to failure. Some church members might say that they are only acting on God's desires when they demand certain things be done in their church, but God gave authority to only the pastors to act in His stead with the direction, vision, and leadership of the body.
Accountability for Pastors
Obviously this form of leadership can lead to abuse. Pastors are just as prone to sin as their flock. So God had to institute some form of accountability in His local church. The first level of accountability for pastors is with God.
"We speak as those approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel. We are not trying to please people but God, who tests our hearts." 1 Thessalonians 2:4
The second level of accountability is supposed to come from those disciples in the church who have been called to be spiritual leaders in order to help the pastor. Some say it is the church in general, but I believe that it is only those believers that are sufficiently mature enough as Christians who are able to help hold other Christians accountable for their actions. Remember that part of accountability is the process of revealing sin. An immature Christian is not capable of taking on that role and responsibility. One of the intents of Paul's letters was so that he could remain accountable to the church and hold the church accountable even when he was not present with them. 1 Thessalonians 2:5-12 is Paul's account of their actions to the people of God. Most pastors know that they are held accountable by God and the church and will act in accordance with that knowledge.
Knowing that pastors are accountable to the church does not give the church the right to harass pastors over every little decision about the church. God does not expect a church member to correct the pastor in all areas. Remember the lessons from scripture? God spoke directly to Moses and the prophets and yet the people still rebelled. God continues to speak to the hearts of pastors and He expects His people to follow their leadership.
"Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority, because they keep watch over you as those who must give account. Do this so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no benefit to you." Hebrews 3:17 (NIV)
It is only in the face of immoral, unethical, or illegal actions that a pastor should be approached for correction. I would caution anyone to think about their motives and their calling before they attempt to hold a pastor accountable for any perceived wrongdoing.
Some additional resources on this topic:
Comments