The Church Should Never be Democratic!

Presbyters and Baptists - Democratic Traces

We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us. If your gift is prophesying, then prophesy in accordance with your faith;  if it is serving, then serve; if it is teaching, then teach;  if it is to encourage, then give encouragement; if it is giving, then give generously; if it is to lead, do it diligently; if it is to show mercy, do it cheerfully.

Romans 12: 6-8

In the reformation movement, some seminal questions about church governance started to emerge; Does "responsible freedom in their actions" allow confirmed Catholics to determine the leadership of their church? Should the church officially recognize a diversity of ministries corresponding to the different talents and skills of Catholics? And should these ministries be ranked and authorized not hierarchically but according to function?

The New Testament church thought so. The Spirit is given to the whole church, the apostle Paul taught, not exclusively to its leaders (I Cor. 12:1-28; Rom. 12:3-8). Accordingly, no one person or select group of people claimed full authority over the grace-filled ministries exercised in Christ's name. In the apostolic church there was, instead, "a diversity of gifts and charisms . . . all working together as one for the good of the whole," says ecclesiologist Father Richard P. McBrien in his book Catholicism (Harper San Francisco, 1994)."The power which Christian authority has is grounded in the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is available to all."

There are different kinds of gifts. But they are all given to believers by the same Spirit. There are different ways to serve. But they all come from the same Lord. There are different ways the Spirit works. But the same God is working in all these ways and in all people. The Holy Spirit is given to each of us in a special way. That is for the good of all. To some people the Spirit gives a message of wisdom. To others the same Spirit gives a message of knowledge. To others the same Spirit gives faith. To others that one Spirit gives gifts of healing. To others he gives the power to do miracles. To others he gives the ability to prophesy. To others he gives the ability to tell the spirits apart. To others he gives the ability to speak in different kinds of languages they had not known before. And to still others he gives the ability to explain what was said in those languages. All the gifts are produced by one and the same Spirit. He gives gifts to each person, just as he decides.

1 Corinthians 12: 4-11

 

It was so in the first century church, 21 centuries later only a number of non-conventional sects follow this model. We have already seen how the Roman Catholic Church eventually adopted an autocratic format. The reformation movement, though intended to have taken the church back to the apostolic tradition had mixed results. We are now going to briefly examine modern day Baptist and Presbyterian structures as samples of other church structures.`

 

During this time some prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. One of them, named Agabus, stood up and through the Spirit predicted that a severe famine would spread over the entire Roman world. (This happened during the reign of Claudius). The disciples, each according to his ability, decided to provide help for the brothers living in Judea. This they did, sending their gift to the elders by Barnabas and Saul.'

Acts 11:27-30.

 

In the apostolic period, as is recorded in these verses and many others in 'The Acts of the Apostles', the Holy Spirit bestowed varying gifts to the believers. In these verses Luke records that certain prophets came to Antioch from Jerusalem, and we should remember that prophecy was one of the evidential gifts of the Holy Spirit in the apostolic period. The prophet in the Word of God was more than a foreteller of the future. Primarily he was a spokesman for God, a forth-teller. John was a prophet in this sense. Each gift played a specific role in the body of believers. In this instance we see that the believers deputed Barnabas and Saul (Apostles) to take help to the elders in Judea. This is the first use of the word elder in connection with the apostolic church.  We will see later that the concept of eldership had been introduced when Stephen the martyr and six others were chosen in Acts 6, but Acts 11 is the first use of the name elder in the apostolic church. It will be seen that elders and overseers are used interchangeably in 20:17 and 28, and also bishop in Titus 1:7. We must cast from our minds the modern conception of a bishop. At this time in the New Testament they were simply overseers who were leading the various assemblies of believers.

These verses form the basis of Presbyterianism which means leadership through presbyters – (translates elders). Modern Presbyterianism is a delicate balance between elder and democratic rule. The church is governed by various committees in which elders sit as moderators. All the Elders that lead various committees and sections of the church sit together in a quorum called 'The Session'. Even the priests are deemed not as authoritative heads but as 'ruling elders' who chair The Session with equal vote as all others. Decisions in these committees are taken by vote. Take note however, that the elders are not elected democratically but are appointed by the session and recommended to the church's higher committees before presentation to the congregation. The congregation conducts annual elections of deacons and committees that work with the elders in specific tasks

Baptists churches, whose origin is the United States are considered the true embodiment of a full democracy in a church set up. In Baptist churches the majority rule the church. Members walk into business meetings to exercise their divine right to have their say on the church's business. I have not known any Baptist church congregation that has very little say about anything. I'm not saying that such does not exist, just that I have not seen it. There has been a significant shift in the last decade or two away from democracy toward elder-leadership, or a variation of it, in Baptist Churches. But I have read key Baptist leaders who still assert that congregationalism is essential to Baptist identity and that democracy is a key to congregationalism. Most who make this claim rely primarily on Acts 15:2 – "Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch….." - and on 2 Corinthians 2:6 in which Paul talks of punishment being inflicted by the majority.

But is democracy the only way to see these passages? There is no indication of a church actually taking a vote on something to decide an issue. They reached a consensus agreement on issues, but is that an indication of democracy? It seems clear to me that strict elder-rule Presbyterian style is not seen in the New Testament, but neither is American/Baptist-style democracy. Which makes me ask the question – What then should the church be? Let's find out in my next and last chapter.

Read More:

What Should the Church be?

Introduction