Ekklesiatime IV: Congregationalism

I didn't want to go beyond a fourth entry on the topic of the ekklesia, but there is no reasonable way to cover the biblical ekklesia without a solid discourse on the topic of Congregationalism. So this will be the fourth, and the fifth entry should be the last.

Simply put, Congregationalism is part and parcel of the ekklesia concept; if you don't have a congregational ekklesia, you don't have a biblical ekklesia. Strictly speaking you don't really have an 'ekklesia' at all. Of course you still do have a form of 'body' fellowship without Congregationalism, but like it or not that is a very handicapped form: like having a physical body with a severely damaged spinal cord.

I know that many of you reading this will reject the very idea that Congregationalism should have any part at all in the Body of Christ, much less a vital part. Congregationalism isn't fashionable in many 'church' structures – particularly as I have noted in Pentecostal and Charismatic circles where there seems to me to be a real distaste for it. In late 2009 I heard Jack Abeelen of Morningstar Christian Chapel speaking on the radio against Congregationalism, saying, "...I'm sorry, but that's just not in the Bible."

Now I have a fair regard for Jack Abeelen, and not that many notable disagreements, but if you can find the Trinity in the New Testament scriptures, you ought to be able to find Congregationalism (if you can't find the Trinity you need to get on that unless you're truly just a newborn Christian). Just like the Doctrine of the Trinity, you won't find the word 'Congregationalism' in the Bible; but what you will find, if you look honestly, is that the function of the Body of Christ as we see in the scriptures includes what would be called Congregationalism. If you can't see Congregationalism in the Bible that is biblical ignorance; and if your 'church' isn't operating in congregationalism it is operating in ignorance.


So let's take a look at the reality of Congregationalism in the New Testament.


The best place to begin is in Matt 16:17-19, with Jesus Himself, noting again that He Himself specifically chose the word 'ekklesia' to describe His Body, from among other words that He might have chosen that would not have had such specific political meaning. Looking at the word 'ekklesia', the inherent defining characteristic of the ekklesia is that it is essentially democratic in nature. This might not seem of immediate note to those of us from among the English speaking peoples, as we are accustomed to think of ourselves as democratic, and we refer to ourselves as 'democracies'. We refer to our enemies as 'the enemies of democracy'. And we do operate according to democratic principles; but in point of fact we are republics. The difference is simply this: in a republic a few act on behalf of the whole (although the few are democratically elected in our nations), whereas in a democracy every eligible citizen has a say. Imagine for instance if each one of us in the U.S. had a direct opportunity to argue and to vote on the current Health Care bill instead of hoping that the Congress will do what we want! That is the difference, and that is what the ekklesia is all about. It is true democracy in action – which is a lot easier to ignore when you go around calling the Ekklesia of God a 'church'.

Now that you know that, you should be able to see that the word 'ekklesia' fits with "whatever you bind..and whatever you loose" like a hand fits in a glove.



Then in Matt 18:15-20 He speaks about the ekklesia this way:
    "Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that  ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the ekklesia. But if he refuses even to hear the ekklesia, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.
    “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
    “Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”
 Here He is talking specifically about decision-making, authority, and judgment, and He instructs this matter to be taken not to the elders or apostles, but to the ekklesia. Again He speaks of binding and loosing, and clearly indicates that what He has in mind is the authority of the ekklesia to render judgments, and even specifies how many it takes to constitute an authoritative ekklesia (two or three).


But especially note the preceding verses leading up to this (Matt 18:12-14)
 "What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them goes astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine and go to the mountains to seek the one that is straying? And if he should find it, assuredly, I say to you, he rejoices more over that sheep than over the ninety-nine that did not go astray. Even so it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish."
Jesus here specifically associates the desire of the Father not to lose even one sheep with His clear instructions to render judgment on the straying and unrepentant brother. In other words, the ekklesia is empowered by Jesus with authority to render judgment (even harsh judgment) specifically to prevent if at all possible the loss of a believer! Vast, vast sections of the 'church' today wouldn't even dream of such a thing. It would be too mean-spirited, too unloving, too hypocritical, too religious, too legalistic, too self-righteous! It wouldn't be very church-like at all! ..no not at all I am afraid; but it would be very ekklesia-like. (...he who loves Me will keep My commands...)


In the next entry we will look further at the reality of congregationalism in the NT, and also consider consensus in the ekklesia, versus majority rule.