Representative Democracy and Congregationalism

Last week, I was at a conference on Church renewal, Church planting, and Church revitalization. A topic that came up was the host Church's polity, which was elder-led congregationalism. Specifically, an issue that I spent some time discussing with my Pastor was congregationalism. You can go here for a discussion on the topic, or here for an older argument for congregationalism (p.904). 

I went away more or less convinced. Yet I do have a gut reaction that makes me hesitant about giving authority to the congregation as a whole. This probably comes from a fear that the Church will be and, to a certain degree, is plagued with the kind of democratic politicization that defines North American politics. By this, I don't have in mind the kind of democracy in which everyone simply participates in a common mission. That would surely be a good thing for the Church. What I fear and often see is nearly the opposite. The kind of politics we find in Canada involve people expecting their leaders to represent the peculiar interests of their demographic and then making that the criterion by which to judge the effectiveness of their leadership. I have witnessed that kind of crass, lazy "democracy" in Christian settings. People expect the leadership team to have representatives from every demographic: one leader from this side of town, one leader from the 30-somethings, one leader representing the older people from this part of this country, etc., etc.

The Apostles were not dismissive towards those who sensed partiality. The New Testament addresses the issue on multiple occasions and even documents a moment in the life of the early Jerusalem Church where an issue of partiality was addressed in a culturally-sensitive way (Acts 6). Yet the pastoral epistles seem to put a higher value on character and wisdom than representative democracy. Just as parents don't need to have all the same interests or opinions as their children in order to take care of them, Church leaders, if they have pastoral, caring hearts, can and should do a good job tending to the flock no matter how diverse the flock might be.

The Church is called to embrace diversity in class, age, ethnicity, and spiritual maturity (though, hopefully, the whole body would be growing together in that last category). But this shouldn't cause a Church to become over-democratized. There is a difference between a ministry that seeks to build up the whole body of Christ without partiality and a ministry that seeks to appease each demographic equally at every step in every process and ensure that each group has a "voice" in every members' meeting and every decision. The former is surely something to strive for. The latter emerges from an attitude and an environment that is childish, foolish, and, quite frankly, sinful.

Discernment in the Church

In a previous post, I noted that it was the Church in Antioch that set apart Paul and Barnabus for their first missionary journey. I applied this to missionaries and parachurch workers. It also applies to prospective pastors.

I don’t know how to do this every time in every place in our day. However, I do know how I want it to look like in my life. I don’t usually point to myself as a good example, but I do want to share what I’ve done as a demonstration that it can be done:

I have recently to pursue a Masters in Ministry (M Min) through an organization that helps Churches do Church-based Theological Education. Before applying, I took this to our Board of Deacons, they discussed the issue, and they decided to give their blessing and assistance to this endeavour. Recently, I preached a sermon series through Galatians. At the end, I specifically asked my Pastor what the feedback was from the membership and leaders in our Church. Apparently, no one was ready to hand me over to satan.

Some have asked me if I want to be a Pastor. I really believe that the answer to that is “let’s see where God leads me” and, more specifically, “God leads His people through His Church”. If my Church tells me “not now, but later”, I want to listen to that. If my Church says “no thank you”, I want to listen to that. If my Church says “Now!”, I want to listen to that. Discernment is a process that is done corporately, not just by individuals. And God's prescribed way of gathering His people is the local Church.

By the way, I don’t need a perfect Church for this to happen. Paul trusted the brothers in Antioch, even though this was the same Church that would be/was tricked by Peter’s hypocrisy in Galatians 2*. If Paul can trust his Church, I can trust mine. That doesn’t mean I’ll do whatever they say. It just means that it is a Biblical principle to involve your Church in the discernment process.

I am zealous that this be a part of our culture at our Church. The individualistic approach to calling and discernment is hurting the Church today. I pray that this will change.

*I’m not saying that the events in Galatians 2 occurred before Acts 13. I’m just saying that the hypocrites in Galatians 2 were the same men who laid hands on Paul in Acts 13. Not sure about the timeline myself.