To Congregate, or Not to Congregate?

I spent my formative years in two Restoration Movement churches that seated their leadership through a voting process that usually occurred at an annual congregational meeting. This was the norm in the 1960s and “70s, with many churches actually allowing nominations from the floor on the day of the vote!

As I witnessed this tradition over several years, I became convinced of this system”s flaws. For starters, few if any of those present and voting were truly aware of the candidates” philosophies or qualifications, but ALL voters generally felt this was the proper procedure and their right as active members.

The obvious downsides of this method are that the current leadership often inherits inexperienced leaders who have undergone little or no vetting, and long-serving leaders frequently must deal with the fallout when immature leaders “act out” or fail the flock in some fashion.

Another pitfall is the possible manipulation of outcomes by factions within the church. I have seen people literally jump pews in their haste to “counsel” with a candidate or confer with other members concerning a name on the ballot. It doesn”t take long for such a system to reveal its cracks, and for power politics to occur, much to the detriment of Christ”s church!

Unbiblical and Divisive
After years of observing repeated leadership failures in many places, I concluded that allowing the sheep to decide on their shepherds is a bad idea. It is not just bad policy, but an unbiblical concept that has caused untold division in the church.

The pro-congregationalism mantra almost exclusively stems from Acts 6:5, which indicates the process for selection of the first deacons “found approval with the whole congregation” (New American Standard Bible). Many have argued this was tantamount to voting, but I don”t believe the narrative supports such a conclusion. Selection and/or nomination of candidates, which was the task set upon the church members, stops short of actual voting; and the development of the process, and especially the final approval of the ultimate candidates, was entirely up to the church leaders (the apostles; see Acts 6:6).

Let”s look at this from another angle. Suppose there had been a vote, and 50 percent of the Jerusalem congregation voted no on one or more of the candidates. Would the apostles have shrunk back and said, “Oh, half of the folks are not in agreement with these choices. We had better rethink this and make a second proposal.” I seriously think NOT! They were God”s duly appointed leaders who would ultimately answer to him for such decisions and the way they led the flock.

It is quite clear the people of the congregation did not cast final approval of these seven men, the leaders did. If the apostles had opened the door for approval from the sheep they were called to lead, the apostles would be bound from then on to repeat that error. To do such a thing today hamstrings the leadership in every decision-making task they face. This arrangement also becomes a major deterrent for any future prospects who may “desire the office.” After all, who would want to place himself in the untenable position of having all the responsibility and virtually none of the actual say?

A Right without Responsibility
People who deem it their right to have a say in running the church, but without any of the responsibility that comes with a leadership position, have the best of both worlds. They can force their opinions through on a particular program or individual, and conveniently escape any fallout if, or when, their pet project fails or their favored son has a meltdown. Leaders in these situations, on the other hand, cannot truly lead, and will suffer the ire of the masses when things do not go well.

A word of warning: nonleaders who insist on a say in the appointing of elders/deacons, or the establishing of key policies in the local church, may also face a stricter judgment. They would do well to function under the umbrella of their called/appointed leaders, and not place themselves in the unenviable position of answering to God for decisions they should never have presumed to make in the first place.

Does this mean a person must keep silent and never question anything? Absolutely not. A wise leadership will maintain open communication and make ample opportunities for discussion on important issues. The hidden blessing of allowing leaders to lead is the freedom from worry and responsibility the general congregation can experience. Admittedly, this is challenging for many who have strong opinions or who may disagree with decisions or directions the sitting leaders implement.

It is unfortunate but inevitable that congregations will be divided on issues and individuals. After all, we live in a fallen world! But the elders have been ordained by God to be the overseers, and right or wrong, the buck must stop with them. To be overruled by the congregation on a key issue or selection of a leader makes a mockery of the authority of the office of elder, and nothing will kill a growing church”s momentum more quickly than undermining its leadership!

I have lived nearly six full decades of my life under a divisive system of church polity that places nonleaders in positions that God never intended them to have, and I will live it no more! Show me in Scripture where the sheep lead the shepherd, and I will rethink my stance. Until then, let the elders lead and the people follow. Come what may, this is God”s way for his church.

Donald Bennett is retired senior minister of Town & Country Christian Church, Shelbyville, Indiana. He spent nine years in eldership, two years as a Christian education minister, and eight years as senior minister. Prior to serving in ministry, he was a machinist and a tool and die maker.