Note: because some of the confusion surrounding the upcoming vote on bylaw changes and the modification of constitution, thought it helpful to post answers to some of the questions that are being asked. Hopefully, this will help to clarify any misunderstandings some of you may have.
Do Hillside’s constitutional and bylaw changes represent a shift away from congregational governance? The short answer is absolutely not. I’ve been asked this a number of times recently, and I’ve discovered that many of those asking the question do not understand congregational governance. A few are repeating something they’ve heard from someone else and do not understand what congregational rule is. So let’s ask the question this way…
What is congregational governance? That brings us to a second question, “What does the Bible indicate?” After all, we look to the Bible, not to culture.
The clearest picture of congregational governance in action is found in Acts 6:1-6. Let’s learn from this example.
Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint by the Hellenists arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution. 2 And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. 3 Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. 4 But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” 5 And what they said pleased the whole gathering, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch. 6 These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands on them. (Acts 6:1-6)
What’s going on here? The people chose representatives to represent them. Did they choose just anyone? No, they chose in accordance with certain prescriptions: “men of good repute, full of the Holy Spirit and of wisdom.” It wasn’t a popularity contest. Choice was made on the basis of salvation, testimony (reputation for godliness), and wisdom (which arises from maturity). These were approved by the Apostles. What you have here is congregational governance via chosen representatives to distribute the money and participate in shepherding God’s flock.
Things would change after the death of the last of the Apostles. Later, the Holy Spirit, through the pen of the Apostle Paul, would spell out the requirements of those who would shepherd God’s flock in the absence of (and after the passing of) the Apostles; namely Elders. At the writing of Acts the Apostles were still alive and present. What does the Bible say:
2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil. (1 Timothy 3:1-7)
Notice these qualifications of elders (or overseers). They must be above reproach, husband of one wife, sober minded… respectable… not a lover of money… They must manage their household well so that they can manage the church. They must we well thought of by outsiders…
Stop and think: respectable in whose sight? Who determines that they are good fathers, managing their households well? Above reproach? The people of the church who “vote” for them… who elect them… who affirm them. You know: the congregation. The congregation who choses those who manage their households well to manage the church. The congregation elects overseers (elders) to govern the place as their representatives. They choose them like in Acts 6: 3,5. That’s congregational governance. This parallels our own federalism today where people elect representatives to govern. It’s a representative government not a pure democracy. That’s God’s design. That’s why you read about elder’s governing and to respect God’s design and the guys God raised up (1 Timothy 5:17). That’s why you have passages like Hebrews 13:17:
Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you. (Hebrews 13:17)
The question often arises, “what if they abuse their authority?” Remove them! How will you know that they are above reproach? And how do we remove them? These are normal, natural questions. What does the Bible say? Let’s look and see:
Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. 18 For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.” 19 Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 20 As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear. 21 In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without prejudging, doing nothing from partiality. 22 Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor take part in the sins of others; keep yourself pure. 23 (No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.) 24 The sins of some people are conspicuous, going before them to judgment, but the sins of others appear later. 25 So also good works are conspicuous, and even those that are not cannot remain hidden. (1 Timothy 5:17-25)
What does the text say? What do the words mean? What then shall we do? As in Hebrews, treat those who shepherd respectfully. Don’t make their service grief because they care for your souls and will give an account. Verse 19 reminds us to be sure to investigate credible (as opposed to frivolous) accusations against an elder. BUT if they are in sin they are to be confronted and if they don’t repent, or correct their actions, they are to be removed PUBLICLY.
How can a congregation know if these men are above reproach? How can a congregation know that they are (still) “right for the job?” Look at verse 22: “Do not be hasty in the lay on of hands…” The nomination and election process should be careful. Often, in American Christianity, elder nominations are due to popularity, personal prestige, etc. Elder candidates are to be carefully vetted and examined:
24 The sins of some people are conspicuous, going before them to judgment, but the sins of others appear later. 25 So also good works are conspicuous, and even those that are not cannot remain hidden. (1 Timothy 5:24-25)
The only thing worse than not having enough elders is choosing unqualified candidates. You just don’t fill vacancies with just anybody (see 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-16).
I had someone ask me recently how then do we balance this with the presence of staff pastors who function as elders. According to the Bible, ‘pastors’ are elder, too. They are vocational elders (1 Timothy 5:17). While “lay elders” are elected by the congregation staff pastors are not. To be honest, that’s not true. Let’s start with the lead pastor position (yours truly). The people of Hillside selected a search committee. The search committee reviewed a couple hundred resumes, speaking to a number of candidates. Eventually, after a number of interviews, background checks, etc. I was invited for a “candidating week (three days actually).” The elders interviewed me… other ministry leaders interviewed me… I preached a message for the larger congregation. I “underwent” a question and answer session before the entire congregation. The congregation voted to call me. This process has been repeated in one form or another for other pastor hires. When we called Chris Gee he met parents, ministry leaders, and the elders. He was closely scrutinized by a search committee representing the larger congregation and voted on by that search committee. That vote was then affirmed by the elders. That’s congregational governance.
The congregation or its representatives selected every elder, paid or volunteer. That’s congregational governance. Congregational governance is a representative system. And that is the biblical model.
That said, popular culture has created its own models. These are mostly along the lines of business models or boards. These were done by good people with good motives. But the Bible, not the culture, is to be our guide.
Why did Hillside modify its structure, recently? Why the changes? This essay is strictly about governance. We had created a structure with countervailing elder boards. Sure, they had different names but that’s what we had. After teaching through the Pastoral Epistles and seeing God’s blueprint for governance the congregation’s elected representatives (the Leadership Council and the Elders) separately and together voted unanimously to change the structure to match God’s word. Because we are a church that has congregational governance the final decision, based upon their unanimous recommendation, has been left to the congregation’s vote. That’s congregational governance… and that’s elder governance: they are one and the same. We modified our logistical structure to honor God by staying close to His word. And we did not do any of this without first teaching through the issue during the “Church Matters” sermon series. You can find that sermon series here, in case you are new or in case you missed it.
So, what’s the difference between elder rule and congregational governance? The difference is huge. HUGE. Elder rule is quite different than congregational governance that is elder-led. To have “Elder Rule” you, the congregation, essentially vote to never have a vote again. In so doing you invest the elders with the authority to govern the church permanently. The congregation is informed of their decisions. They may delegate some of that authority (i.e. they may allow for a search team to call a pastor or they may allow a vote to sell the property) but there is little or no congregational input. The congregation may nominate elders but the elders decide things. The election system we use and will continue to use simply goes away. Hillside’s leadership has preserved congregational governance. The modifications made to the bylaws and or constitution do not provide for elder rule. We will have congregational governance that is elder led. Elder led is not elder rule. Elder rule is more of a presbyterian model. That’s not the model you are voting on. Hillside is and will remain, even with these changes—no matter how the vote goes, a congregationally governed church.