Convicted Congregationalist and Still Evangelical

Evangelicals unite around many basic doctrinal values (like the Trinity and the authority of Scripture). But we disagree over forms of church government. Does that mean, then, that the Bible doesn’t provide sufficient direction to bind one’s conscience toward a certain form?

I believe the answer to this latter question must be no. I am an evangelical, and I’m happy to participate in wider evangelicalism knowing that there is liberty to affirm diverse and even conflicting forms of church government. However, I still believe that a Baptist ecclesiology (specifically, in my case, a congregational, plurality of elders model) is the biblical form of church government.

However, not all agree or at least want to define evangelicalism in this way. Take Alister McGrath for example. He writes, “Historically, evangelicalism has never been committed to any single model of the church, regarding the New Testament as being open to a number of interpretations in this respect and treating denominational distinctness as secondary to the gospel itself” (Evangelicalism & the Future of Christianity, 81).

Here he rightly explains that evangelicalism has never been committed to any single model of the church. He also affirms that denominational distinctness is secondary to the gospel itself, which is a defining mark (perhaps the defining mark) of evangelicalism. However, I want to take issue with one small aspect of his sentence, namely, that evangelicalism regards the New Testament as being open to a number of interpretations in respect to a single model of the church.

Now, we do want to make sure we are interpreting McGrath correctly. After all, could he not merely be saying that evangelicalism allows for diverse interpretations of the New Testament in regards to a model of the church? Upon further reading of McGrath it becomes clear that he means far more. For example, after he rightly emphasizes the importance of the church, he then says:

Evangelicals are aware of the importance of a well-informed biblical model of the church; they, in common with many other Christians, remain unpersuaded, however, that the New Testament intended to lay down precise details of church polity. This minimalist attitude to the doctrine of the church does not mean that individual evangelicals do not have well-defined understandings of the nature of the church; rather, it points to no single such doctrine being normative within the movement, since the New Testament itself does not stipulate with precision any single form of church government that can be made binding on all Christians. (82).

And again, he writes:

The evangelical perception that the New Testament allows a considerable degree of diversity in relation to theories of the church has had several major consequences. . . . (1) Evangelicalism is transdenominational [and] . . . (2) Evangelicalism does not necessarily take the form of a denomination in itself, possessed of a distinctive ecclesiology, but can also be a trend within the mainstream denominations. . . . (3) Evangelicalism itself represents an ecumenical movement (emphasis original).

So close, but still not close enough. Notice the words in bold. There are two problems here. First, I believe the New Testament does lay out a normative model for church government. Granted, none of these texts explicitly says, “Thus says the Lord . . . this is what church government shall be.” Nevertheless, by inference, looking at how the early church structured itself and how the apostles instructed the early churches, I believe we can justifiably say what church government should look like.

Same for Presbyterians

You do not have to be a Baptist (or a Congregationalist for that matter) to say this. In fact, Presbyterians might argue in the same way to defend their alternative to congregationalism. Same for Anglicans who claim their form of government to be the biblical model. The point here is simple: various evangelicals, from diverse denominational traditions, while agreeing with one another on primary tenets of evangelical faith, may nevertheless disagree on what type of church polity to abide by on the basis of New Testament evidence.

Returning to McGrath, I believe he has wrongly defined evangelicalism at this point. It would be much better to say the following: While evangelicalism does not prescribe a certain form of church government in order to be an evangelical, nevertheless, those within evangelicalism may believe that the New Testament does.

Such a definition, I believe, actually allows greater liberty within evangelicalism. Evangelicals can disagree with one another on church government, even arguing that fellow evangelicals are not following what Scripture says about the proper form of church government. And yet, all the while, they remain evangelicals because they believe evangelicalism is defined by primary tenants such as the gospel, the Trinity, the inspiration of Scripture, and so on.

Evangelicalism remains transdenominational, even though its members remain denominational. In short, we do not have to give up our biblical convictions about church government in order to be evangelical. Rather, we can remain evangelical (and therefore ecumenical) while still holding our convictions as to what Scripture teaches when it comes to church government.