Baptists must retain the historic Baptist distinctive of congregationalism, even as they recover the biblical office of pastor/elder.
Conversations with two pastors in recent years alerted me to this dynamic. In each of their churches, only the pastor/elders voted to receive newcomers into membership. Subsequently, the congregations were informed of the new member additions. Note the omission: the congregation itself did not act to affirm the newcomers as members (i.e., to “vote them in”).
In the past 30 years, SBC churches have experienced something of a restoration in their understanding that elder and pastor are interchangeable terms in the New Testament that refer to one office (1 Pet. 5:1-2; Acts 20:28), often held in the New Testament period by a plurality of qualified men (e g., Acts 14:23). Sharing the teaching and leadership office of elder/pastor brings shared wisdom, responsibility, oversight, care, and accountability. I rejoice in and advocate for this understanding.
Surely, many of our churches have benefited (and others would benefit) from more pastoral involvement in the membership process. Pastors are wise to begin shepherding relationships with prospective members by hearing their backgrounds, stories of conversion, and understanding of the gospel.
Membership classes provide an additional means of confirming that prospective members affirm the church’s statement of faith, are willing to follow the leadership of its pastors, understand its ministry philosophy, and are willing to commit to follow Jesus together with that congregation. From my perspective, pastoral interviews and new member classes are prudentially superior to situations where member prospects are immediately granted membership status. These processes safeguard regenerate church membership by providing a way to discern the newcomer’s credible profession of faith before admission to membership.
At the same time, the membership process is one area in which some SBC churches have relied too heavily on the role of pastor/elders in that they bypass congregational involvement.
In what follows, I describe two reasons churches should ultimately bring prospective newcomers before the church members for congregational vote. These arguments lead then to an application of pastor-elder led congregationalism with respect to receiving church members.
Argument from Baptist History
First, historic Baptist doctrine supports the practice of utilizing a congregational vote to affirm new members. While this argument does not enjoy biblical authority, our Baptist forebears certainly operated on biblical conviction, which we do well to consider.
The churches who drafted the First London Confession (1644) stated the matter this way: “Christ has likewise given power to His whole church to receive in and cast out, by way of Excommunication, any member; and this power is given to every particular congregation, and not one particular person, either member or officer, but the whole” (XLII [42]). The language explicitly affirms the power of the church as a corporate body to receive new members and denies that this authority belongs to mere officers.
Similarly, The Second London Confession (1689), describes church members as those who “do willingly consent to walk together, according to the appointment of Christ; giving up themselves to the Lord, and one to another, by the will of God, in professed subjection to the ordinances of the Gospel” (26.6). The language suggests that every member of a church acts and shows his or her “consent” to walk together. The confession adds (26:7) that Christ has granted the church congregation itself authority to carry out His commands and discipline under the leadership of its elders/bishops—who are approved through “the common suffrage [voting] of the church itself” (26.9).
These views do not belong merely to the English Baptists. In the article on the Church in the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 (following the 1963), the church is described as “an autonomous local congregation. . . that operates under the lordship of Christ through democratic processes.”
While this language falls short of mentioning a congregational vote, individual members are said to be “associated by covenant” and “responsible.” Further, it is the “congregation of baptized believers” that is described as “exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by His Word.” Autonomy means that Christ alone is the head of the church and no external body, institution, government, or bishop may authoritatively direct the affairs of the church. Theologically, covenanting together entails the members making promises and commitments to one another to walk together in following Jesus in all the ways Scripture calls the church to walk.
Can the church members themselves truly be said to exercise these responsibilities toward one another when they do not in any way personally affirm a newcomer as a new member?
Argument from Scripture
Second, Scripture itself places the responsibility to admit members on the congregation. Space does not permit a full exploration of the biblical evidence for this claim; thus, several choice examples must suffice.
In Matthew 18:17-20, Jesus says that the whole gathered church—be it two to three people or thousands—has His authorization and presence to exercise church discipline (i.e., remove an unrepentant professing believer from the church; Matt. 18:17-20). This action—church discipline—is one way the church exercises the keys of the kingdom of heaven (cf. Matt. 16:19). Jesus does not tell the disciples to present the matter before the pastors/elders, a committee within the church, a denominational group outside the church, or an authoritative individual outside the church, such as a bishop or pope. Jesus says, “tell it to the church” (Matt. 18:17). This doesn’t mean the church will always act rightly, but it does mean Jesus has authorized the church as an embassy of His kingdom and given them the responsibility to act for His name’s sake.
I contend, and Baptists have historically agreed, that if the local church is the only body authorized by Jesus to publicly revoke an unrepentant member’s membership status (i.e., the back door of the church), then the church is also uniquely authorized to affirm fellow believers as members (i.e., the front door of the church).
If we ask how the church makes congregational decisions, the New Testament answer appears to be that the church votes. Corporate approval appears to be in view with the 2 Corinthians 2:6-7 example of restoring a repentant former church member when Paul describes the “punishment by the majority” [Gk: majora] as sufficient. The claim that elders could be faithfully and rightfully delegated these tasks of bringing in and removing members goes against numerous passages that assign the congregation with this role (Gal. 6:1; 1 Cor. 5:1-11; 2 Thess. 3:14-15; Titus 3:10-11; etc.).
Elder-Led Congregational Approval of Church Members
These specific passages related to receiving and removing persons from formal fellowship with a local church form the background to the doctrine of congregationalism. Congregationalism is the claim that the congregation itself is responsible to make decisions to bring in and remove members, affirm doctrine, appoint church officers, and (often) to provide broad approval for building and budget matters. Other Scriptures reveal examples for the ways Jesus’ authorization of local churches took shape. As God’s Word, Scripture provides patterns by which the church should operate until He returns.
When the church at Galatia began to tolerate false teaching, Paul did not rebuke the pastors (though they were implicated); rather, he held the whole church responsible: “I am astonished that you [plural for whole church at Galatia] . . . are turning to a different gospel” (Gal. 1:6; see also 2 Tim. 4:3; Rev. 2:14-16, 20, 24). The New Testament also presents the “whole church” acting to set apart leaders (Acts 15:22; see also Acts 6:5; 1 Tim. 5:22).
The call for the congregation to carry out its biblical responsibilities is not to deny the role of pastors/elders in leading the process, presenting prospective members to the congregation (or not), etc. These leadership responsibilities are entailed by various commands to pastor/elders to correct false doctrine (1 Tim. 1:3-4; 2 Tim. 2:24-25; Titus 1:9, 11, 13); exercise authority in the church (1 Tim. 5:17; Heb 13:17); to guard the gospel—”good deposit” (1 Tim. 1:19; 6:20; Titus 1:9), and to manage the household of God (1 Tim. 3:4-5) so that the church continues to be a “pillar and buttress of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). These passages provide some of the basis for the prudential action of pastors to make new member interviews and classes prerequisite to membership.
Conclusion
From Baptist history and Scripture, we’ve seen that when pastors act on behalf of the church to receive members, at least two biblical responsibilities are removed from the church’s purview. First, the members lose responsibility to recognize and affirm the gospel transformation and witness of a prospective member. The members are implicitly taught to leave that work to the leaders only. This lack of responsibility stunts each member’s own discipleship and undermines the church’s sense of itself as a church that can act with Jesus’ authority.
Second, the members lose the ability to personally and voluntarily agree to encourage and hold accountable the new member. When the congregation is bypassed, often only the pastors can formally commit themselves to the care of the new members. Without a vote of congregational affirmation, how would the church itself know the new members and act to formalize the relationship between members?
These observations lead to further areas of application: What could churches do to enable every member to have access to a prospective member’s gospel testimony so that the church can welcome new members with knowledge? How can members’ meetings be planned and organized for congregational involvement? How can the church help its members to know with whom they are especially responsible to live out the one another commands of the New Testament?
Jesus’ plan to build His church provides its optimum opportunity for health in a fallen world. When churches are faithfully led by their pastors and allowed to exercise their biblical responsibilities, we trust it will lead to congregational maturity and clearer commitments within the church, which will be a firmer witness for Christ in the world.
———-
Dallas Vandiver (PhD, Southern Seminary) is a member of Ridgewood Church in Greer and assistant professor of Christian Studies at North Greenville University.