Baptist Foundations - Decision Making in the Church
Acts 15:22
Baptist Foundations — Decision Making in the Church
Congregational Polity (Part 1)
It seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers.[1]
Congregational responsibility is an indelible mark of a church that pleases God. Every member is responsible not only to bring souls to Christ, but also to participate in the advance of the congregation. Tragically, contemporary Christians seem to have adopted a philosophy that assures them that if they attend the services of the church occasionally, they have demonstrated responsibility for their Faith.
I certainly have no desire to depreciate attendance at services of worship of the congregation; it is important that Christians share in praise and worship and also receive instruction in the Word. If that is all there is to one’s Faith, however, it is a deficient Faith. One could make the same argument that it is important for husbands to come home and see their families with some degree of regularity. It is important for children to occasionally share an evening with their parents. It is important for wives to spend some quality time with their husbands. However, these statements actually serve to acknowledge that failure to spend time with family is harmful. The home consists of more than merely being together occasionally. In the same way, the church imposes far greater responsibility than merely being present from time-to-time.
When a decision is made that commits the church to an action, the example found in the New Testament leads us to understand that it is a community decision. Though ideas are often proposed by the leaders of the congregation, the entire congregation is expected to participate in the decision-making process. This means, not that some members have a right to block an action they do not like, but rather it means that all are expected to seek the mind of Christ and to share in the decision-making process.
In order to understand more perfectly what is entailed in decision-making in the church, I invite you to consider one verse of Scripture. The verse I ask you to consider provides essential background for understanding the letter that was drafted by the First Baptist Church of Jerusalem in response to a question of doctrine posed by the First Baptist Church of Antioch. The account is found in Acts 15:22.
The Account of Decision Making in the Early Church — Church polity as practised today is primarily modelled from New Testament examples instead of arising out of a precise statement of divine expectations. The Book of Acts provides the historical account of the labours of the Apostles, especially those of Paul during his missionary labours. Consequently, the example of the early churches, while not serving to necessarily impose strict demands for conduct in congregational decision-making, does serve as a model for contemporary churches in their own approach to congregational worship and polity.
We have a model of decision-making in the apostolic church in this verse. However, in order to fully understand the brief account provided by Doctor Luke, we must familiarise ourselves with the events that led to this summary statement.
Paul and Barnabas had just completed the first planned missionary journey recorded. The movement of the divine account leads me to believe that they hadn’t even had time to relax from the rigours of the journey upon their return to Antioch when some men from Jerusalem began to infect the congregation with spiritual anthrax. When Paul later relates to the Galatian churches how he and Barnabas had travelled to Jerusalem fourteen years after his conversion, I believe he is speaking of the events surrounding our text.
Taking the two accounts together, it appears that James had dispatched some men from the Jerusalem church to go down to Antioch. These men, members of the Jerusalem church and trusted by James, turned out to be Judaizers. They used the occasion of their visit to attempt to move the Gentile believers in Antioch toward a doctrine that mixed grace and works. The pitch these religious hucksters made must have sounded something like this: “Yes, it is a good start to believe that Jesus died for you. But, if you want to be really saved, you will need to be circumcised and you will need to keep Kosher.” The Word states that Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them [Acts 15:2].
I don’t believe that translation does justice to the intensity of Doctor Luke’s words. Peterson, in his treatment of the Word, The Message, captures something of the forceful response in the statement: Paul and Barnabas were up on their feet at once in fierce protests.[2] The Judaisers precipitated an uproar with their errant presentation. The mixing of law and grace created dissention, for two diametrically opposite concepts were pitted against one another. As advocates of truth, Paul and Barnabas did not merely “debate,” they engaged the false teachers as divisive and dangerous because their teaching that was utterly foreign to what the apostles had taught during their missionary labours.
The language used, together with Paul’s recounting of events [see Galatians 2:1-6], leads me to the conclusion that Paul and Barnabas were prepared if necessary to distance themselves even from the Jerusalem church and the Apostles should this error be confirmed. Paul affirms that he received a revelation from God, though the Antioch church appointed him, together with Barnabas and some others of the brothers, to the task of seeking clarification from the Apostles. This was likely less an issue of asking what was true than it was seeking information of what the Apostles had been teaching.
The appointed emissaries came to Jerusalem where they met together with the apostles and elders of the Jerusalem congregation. There followed a period of intense, extended debate. The circumcision party presented its case; and the grace party presented its case. After volleying views back and forth, Peter spoke, coming down on the side of salvation by faith without any requirement for believers to become Jews. Following his persuasive declaration of all that God had done, Barnabas and Paul related the way in which God had worked through them as they penetrated the Gentile world with the message of life.
When they had finished speaking, James, the brother of our Lord and Pastor of the church, spoke. Iterating Peter’s words, he appealed to Scripture, pointing out the mercies of God and the grace of God demonstrated repeatedly in Scripture. He concluded by giving his judgement that the issue was settled. All people are saved by grace, but he did ask that the Gentiles show consideration of Jewish Christians, avoiding deliberate offence.
Note that the debate surrounding this issue was public. When doctrine is debated and delineated in secret, the results bear no authority over the saints of God. It is only as a church walks in the light that doctrine becomes authoritative. The church that deals with issues of doctrine privately dishonours the Lord and also ensures that the saints will be forever weakened. Leadership must determine whether an issue is doctrinal, whether a point impinges on moral or ethical conduct requiring the application of sound doctrine.
If an issue is not doctrinal in nature, there is little point in investing undue energy. Appoint a committee of members to care for the matter, permitting them to act on behalf of the congregation. However, if the issue is doctrinal in nature, if the matter at hand reflects doctrinal values, then let the elders of the congregation prayerfully search the Word of God to guide the congregation in discovering the will of God. Should it be determined that the issue before the leaders is doctrinal in nature, let the entire church participate through hearing the debate and through witnessing the deliberative process.
At last, the summary statement is issued that focuses attention on the process of decision-making in the church. Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. The apostles and elders came to consensus. James, being a practical leaders, then asked the congregation to ratify the position the leaders had adopted, and likely the position was by acclamation. The Judaisers appear to have abstained—a common ploy when it becomes obvious that one’s position is untenable and unsupported.
The next step in the decision-making process was to implement the decision. The Jerusalem congregation was led to choose trusted men to accompany Paul and Barnabas. This would assure the church in Antioch that the letter they received was authentic. These men, unlike the Judaisers that had first disturbed the doctrinal peace of the Church at Antioch, did represent James’ view of salvation, just as they represented the collective view of the entire church. The two men chosen by the congregation, Barsabbas and Silas, are identified as leading men among the brothers. They do not appear to have been elders, but they were nevertheless recognised as leaders within the congregation. They are identified as prophets [Acts 15:32], which leads me to conclude that they were known for their preaching. Not every preacher of the Word need be an elder.
I believe it necessary to stress a couple of points that are important for our own congregation conduct. First, James, the pastor of the congregation, appears active not only in participating in the discussion, but also in directing the leaders and ultimately the congregation in the decision-making process. This is unlike the actions of many Canadian churches, fearful of offending political masters and having little fear of being disobedient to the Lord who reigns among us.
Recently, during meetings with our church leadership a denominational leader expressed horror at the thought that a pastor would have a voice in congregational decisions. I had commented that I had one vote in a meeting. His immediate and fearful rejoinder was, “You can’t vote!” His words unwittingly express his view that the church is just another political organisation, the pastors of the church being separate from the congregation. However, the evidence of Scripture is that not only did pastors have a voice in the congregation, but also they were responsible to guide the congregation in decision-making. The thought that a pastor cannot vote, cannot openly participate in the decision-making process, reduces the church to just another political organisation. Perhaps that is how some “do” church in Canada today, but the practise is unbiblical and unwise.
As these doctrinal issues were decided by the church in Jerusalem, not every member of the congregation was invited to speak. Had that occurred, chaos would have reigned. Rather, those who were leaders spoke and those who represented the referring congregation (Barnabas and Paul) spoke. The debate appears to have been courteous, although it was undoubtedly heated at times. The members of the congregation that observed the debate were not actively engaged in the debate, but rather they were present as observers, undoubtedly learning as they watched. In other words, the deliberation was open for observation, but not open to consider every nuance of doctrine or question that might be raised by every member.
Biblical Guidelines for Decision-Making in the Church — Doctrine leads to duty. It is not enough that we simply accept biblical truth; we must practise truth. Church problems are not resolved by passing resolutions, but by practising biblical revelation. Because the doctrinal decisions of a congregation are so vital to the spiritual health of that congregation, it is important that the elders get the issues right; and the process of arriving at truth must also conform to biblical precedence. This means that issues must not be decided on the basis of how the leaders of a congregation feel, or by who is most persuasive in argument, or even how some in the church make respond, but rather decisions must be firmly grounded in the revealed will of God. In order to make certain that such decisions honour God, I offer the following points to guide elders, and ultimately to guide the congregation.
Churches are responsible to teach truth and oppose error. There is no tolerance for false teaching to be found in this passage. Christianity is a religion of revelation. We believe that God has spoken a definite and eternal Word. Any teaching that is contrary to that Word within the church must be confronted and rooted out. Those things that are not clearly stated in the Word should not provide an occasion to break fellowship; there is sufficient truth that is clearly presented to occupy our fellowship and our understanding.
Among those essential truths for which Christians are to contend is the truth that Christ is very God in human flesh, that He died a sacrificial death because of our sin and that He was raised bodily from the tomb, that He ascended into Heaven where He is seated on the right hand of the Father and from whence He is returning for His people very soon, that the forgiveness of sin is offered to each individual that believes this truth, and that the Bible is the Word of God given for our benefit and for God’s glory.
I briefly pastored a congregation in the Lower Mainland that was ruled by a spiritual oligarchy. A mere handful of powerful members controlled the church, holding the congregation in spiritual thraldom. Early in my tenure at that church, the chairman of the senior board was acting with exceptional pugnacity one evening. In an effort to understand his position, I asked a question of him. I was seeking clarification on his views, innocently thinking that we could find common ground of agreement from which we could then work.
I asked if there should be a conflict between the Word of God and the constitution of that church, which document would direct the board. His response stunned me. He said, “We are a Canadian church and we always obey the constitution.”
I thought that perhaps he didn’t understand the impact of what he had said, so I sought to clarify the issue. “If the constitution of this church is in disagreement with the Bible, which statement do we follow,” I asked again.
Without hesitation, he answered, “The constitution.”
In a case like that, there can be no agreement because there is no agreement on the basis either for our conduct or for our faith.
To my astonishment, upon polling the members of that board, the entire senior board agreed with him, howbeit with reluctance. I responded then, and I would likely respond similarly again, “Gentlemen, I owe you an apology. I thought that I was dealing with mature Christian men and I have treated you as such. However, I now realise that you are all spiritual imbeciles.” Error must not be tolerated. However, make certain that you oppose error and that you are not merely advancing a personal preference.
Issues are to be thoroughly understood. I am not suggesting that every item deserves the same degree of attention. What must receive the full and careful attention of church leaders are issues of essential doctrine, and moral and ethical considerations that flow from the truths adopted and practised by the congregation. Lesser issues—issues of style of worship, distribution of funds, care and maintenance of church properties—while important, do not attain the level of affecting the soul of worshippers and outsiders.
In the account of the Jerusalem conference, it is evident that the issues were thoroughly discussed. When the disciples were dispatched by the church in Antioch, upon their arrival in Jerusalem they were welcomed by the church together with the apostles and elders [Acts 15:4]. At the earliest opportunity, they declared all that God had done with them in their labours. Their presence, and especially their statement of divine blessing in their mission to the Gentiles, brought the issue to the front burner. Members of the Jerusalem church, who were also Pharisees, were immediately on their feet demanding that the missionaries circumcise the Gentile believers and compel them to keep the Mosaic Law [Acts 15:5].
The response of the leadership was to immediately adjourn for consultation. The Word of God informs us that the apostles and elders were gathered together to consider this matter [Acts 15:6]. Doctor Luke seems almost laconic in his statement that there was much debate [Acts 15:7]. The goal of these discussions, however, was to uncover the truth and know the full will of God. The discussion was important not only for Antioch, but for the Faith.
There will not always be complete understanding on every point of doctrine, even among the most competent theologians. We perceive truth through various filters, including our own cultural conditioning, our own social interactions, our level of education in specific areas. Since we are not all identical in these areas, it should not be surprising that disagreements will arise. During my tenure as a teacher, I learned that one benefit of being in the academic arena was the opportunity to discuss differences in various theological positions. These discussions were at times vigorous and animated, but the goal of each disputant was to arrive at the truth. Over time, we each moved toward greater theological accuracy.
A similar process was operating as the apostles and elders engaged in animated debate. These men were seeking truth and they were willing to place their understanding of Scripture before others to arrive at truth. In the same way, elders among the churches are called to thoroughly debate the issues that challenge the congregation, holding one another accountable to the Word in order to arrive at a fuller understanding of the divine will.
This debate did not begin with an exhibition of unity, but as the proceedings went on, participants moved toward unity. The debate required time and each participant needed to be heard. This was a demonstration of discovering the will of God through consensus. Churches today do not often seek consensus. Instead, we demand a vote, which is certainly much quicker. However, the problem with voting is that some people will always be dissatisfied with the decision. Thus, there is no unity following the vote. We Canadians adore the minority report, which is really an opportunity for dissenters to say, “I told you it wouldn’t work” when difficulties are encountered in the future—and difficulties will occur.
How much wiser it is to take time to bring about consensus. It does take longer to make a decision, but undoubtedly, the result of unity in the Body is worth the effort. There seems always to be some dear soul who is opposed to every advance, but we need a hearty dose of sanctified common sense to know that such people cannot often be satisfied. When opposition becomes mere obstruction, it is time for the church to move on. If the obstructionist is willing to join the unified assembly, well and good, but if not, there is nothing left except to leave that one to stew in his or her own antagonism.
Leadership should seek unanimity on decisions. When an issue has been thoroughly debated and the intent of Scripture is apparent, leaders should endeavour to have unanimity. It is biblical to seek harmony throughout the discussions, and to seek full agreement after discussion ends. Unity in the Faith is a hallmark of righteousness.
Christians are to live in harmony with one another [Romans 12:16]. As Christians, we are to be eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace [Ephesians 4:3]. Assuredly, leaders should demonstrate a spirit of unity, making it a priority in the way they live out their lives before the congregation. Peter urges all who share in the Body of Christ to have unity of mind [1 Peter 3:8]. Though there will undoubtedly be times of dissent for any of us, God’s Word instructs us that we are responsible to agree with one another and that we are also responsible to live in peace [2 Corinthians 13:11]. Paul taught the Philippians that his joy would be complete when the congregation was of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind [Philippians 2:2]. When disagreement seems insurmountable, recall the entreaty of the Apostle to two warring women to agree in the Lord [Philippians 4:2].
The apostles and elders were unanimous in their decision. When they write, in verse 25, it has seemed good to us, they used a word that often means to be unanimous[3]. James made a ruling, as revealed in his words in verse 19: my judgement is [egò kríno]… As Pastor of the congregation, James had every right to make such a judgement. Having received the ruling of the leadership, the congregation determined how to implement the decision. In this, the church was unified. What a gracious demonstration of godly humility as the apostles and elders accept James ruling. It is an example of one who is “first among equals.”
Unity does not just happen; unity takes work. For unity to be evident and to reign, there must be a willingness to submit to truth and a willingness to submit to one another. Unity demands that we must be willing to take risks, trusting that those fellow saints with whom we disagree have good motives, even when we don’t agree with their conclusions. Too often, we think the worst of one another instead of believing that each is seeking the best. Unity requires that each participant in the decision-making process must accept the Bible as the ultimate authority for faith and practise. This is more than mere words, for it means that we must subordinate our own personal desires to the revealed will of God. It means that we must seek the art of godly compromise. This is not a plea to compromise truth, but it is a plea to seek sweet reasonableness in every discussion.
It seems that divisions in the unity of a congregation are usually caused by disagreements between “followers” and “leaders.” A powerful leader gets a following and refuses to give in on even the smallest point. Before long, there is conflict. Most church problems are not over doctrinal issues, but rather by arguments on practical matters—what colour to paint the kitchen, where to place the piano, what type of music shall we use.
As with practical issues, doctrinal issues confronting the church are often marred by partisanship that reduces debate to politicking. People take sides based on their experience instead of seeking to understand the will of God. Perhaps an individual has been humiliated by a fellow Christian, and when seizing advantage in debate, they see an opportunity to humiliate the one who previously humiliated them. “Though the issues discussed seem to be principles, deep down a hurt self is causing havoc in the church.”[4]
The congregation must be informed of the decision and led to accept the decisions. The words of the text reveal that the discussions were not secret. It seemed good to the leaders of the congregation, together with the whole church to openly take the action described. The congregation was informed of the decision of the leadership and they participated in the implementation through appointing as their representatives Barsabbas and Silas to vouchsafe the written decision.
There is a truth here that is easily overlooked. Many Christians are ever so careful to demand that the church obey the constitution—a manmade document, but they exempt themselves from participating in the deliberation process. They absent themselves from the services, treat the congregational meetings as though they were a bother, but they are quick to complain that they don’t know what is going on, that they were not informed.
The modern church is too often treated as a political entity and not as the Body of Christ. Far too many people imagine that it is their right to join the church; but having joined, they treat her with contempt through failure to participate in her services. They cease attending services, but woe to the church if she attempts to remove them from the rolls! They do not support the congregation with their prayers, with their presence, or with their finances; but the church had better be there for them when they need help! Being informed of congregational decisions means that members participate in the congregational meetings and in all the services of the church. It is not the obligation of leaders to chase errant members to inform them of all that is occurring; it is the responsibility of each member to participate actively and fully in the life of the Body.
Decision Making and the Will of God — There are some further truths that seem essential for a full understanding of how we are to make decisions within the Body of Christ. Admittedly, these truths are not immediately apparent in reading the divine account, but rather they are general truths that flow from the Word of God.
Decisions for a congregation must reflect the character of the Father. As we grapple with issues of doctrine that occasionally confront us as a congregation, we must learn to ask, “How will our decision affect the united witness of the congregation to the lost?” When a decision is implemented, it is vital to consider how application of that decision will reflect on the Lord our God. Perhaps it would be good to consider the nature of love.
When Paul provides the spectrum of love in 1 Corinthians 13:4-7, he doesn’t so much define love as he describes it. This is what God is like, and this is how His people are to act. Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. That description should serve to describe us as we move toward consensus in every decision.
Both the decision and the process by which we arrive at a decision must submit itself to the test of whether it reflects the divine nature. The church is not a political entity, nor is decision-making a political process. Neither are members of a congregation to segregate into political parties. We Christians are obligated as children of the Heavenly Father to love one another earnestly from the heart. We will not necessarily like every decision that is made, at least not initially, but we are obligated to treat one another with respect and courtesy, showing our love for the Father and our love for one another in all things.
Decisions accepted by a congregation must be true to the revealed will of God. Biblically sanctioned decision-making is not dependent upon what we think about a matter, and it is certainly not dependent upon how we feel about an issue. Biblical decision-making must be firmly grounded in the Word of God, which is the revealed will of God. This means that each of us is responsible to make ourselves thoroughly familiar with the Bible, and it also means that we are responsible to carefully consider how we implement biblical truth in our lives—individually and collectively.
Contemporary churches often make decisions based upon what outsiders may think of the church instead of considering what God may think of His professed people. The view of society is often more important to us than is God’s view on an issue. Certainly, we do not wish to give offence for our beliefs, but it is far more important that we demonstrate fidelity to God and to His Word than that we satisfy the expectations of the world. Whether the world agrees with our decision to be righteous or whether they are incensed at our godly decisions should not be the determining factor in making our decision. If we consider the views of this world, the church will become a democracy instead of being the Body of Christ—a theocracy, submitted to the will of God. When we begin to seek the approval of man, we will shortly begin to tolerate evil and soon we will be doing that which is displeasing in the sight of God.
This is the process for churches that once stood for truth but who now approve of the slaughter of the unborn, promote women into pastoral positions, and perform same-sex marriages. Ignorant of God’s Word, however well versed in the changeable world of psychology, churches held captive to their own desires go about making their own standards of righteousness. Congratulating themselves on their tolerance, these religious organisations rapidly depart the Word of God and the Spirit of God just as rapidly departs from them.
Decisions of a congregation are to be received by all the members. Unity is not uniformity. Our decisions must be based on love, not law. Love leads to unity; law leads to uniformity. We cannot compel uniformity, nor would we enjoy the result if we had uniformity. What we must seek as a congregation is unity—one heart and one soul in which the people of God make every effort to know the truth and to do what is true. Members are to exhibit a submissive spirit in receiving decisions of the congregation. There is truly no place for a “minority report” among the people of God. While we are discussing an issue, there is time to receive the concerns of any who question the direction the discussion may be tending. However, once the leadership has spoken, it is time to work together to implement the truths God has revealed through appeal to His Word.
I have presented this message because it lays the foundation for further advance in congregational decision-making. It brings us back to a doctrinal position of submission to the Word of God and the practical expression of love for Christ and for His church. All that I have said flies in the face of modern political thought. If you wish to be a member of a service organisation or a fraternal club, do not join the church. This is the Body of Christ. It is not like a service organisation or a club; it is the people of God seeking to honour Him.
Though you cannot “join” the church, the Spirit of God does add some to the Body of Christ. Those who are saved are set in the congregations where He chooses. Have you believed the message of life? Have you received the forgiveness of sin? Have you been born from above? It is impossible for you to practise the truths I have taught until you are born into the Family of God.
That New Birth is the heritage of each one who believes the message of life—that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures, that He was buried and that He raised to life for our justification. The Word of God commands us to believe this message so that we will be set free from all condemnation and be delivered into life. According to the promise of God, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved… For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” [Romans 10:9, 10, 13].
This is our invitation to so many as are appointed to life. Believe this message and be saved today. Amen.
----
[1] Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers, 2001. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
[2] Eugene H. Peterson, The Message: The Bible in Contemporary Language (NavPress, Colorado Springs, CO, 2003)
[3] HCSB translates the verse, we have unanimously decided, Holman Christian Standard Bible (Broadman and Holman, Nashville, TN 2003)
[4] Ajith Fernando, NIV Application Commentary, New Testament: Acts (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI 1998) 428