The fifth mark of the Apostolic Church was the independent or congregational polity or government of each local church, subject only to the Headship of Christ; all local apostolic churches being united, by no outward bond of force, but by an inward bond of love.-Hassell
There are decisions and actions that a church must make to fulfill the obligations that the Lord has given her. Church polity describes the form of government that the church uses. Congregational polity is meant to distinguish from Episcopal and Presbyterian polities, both of which have the local congregations answer to a higher body that makes official decisions and can reverse the judgment of the local congregation.
None of these polities deny the ultimate headship of Christ, the difference is whether Christ made a hierarchy of bishops or assemblies to govern the local congregation under him. Congregational polity simply means there is no bishop or assembly that outranks the local congregation and can override her decisions. Bishops/elders are servants and other churches are sisters, so they should advise and warn if a church errs. But if a church will not hear the counsel of her sisters, the most they can do biblically is to mark them and avoid them by removing fellowship (Rom 16:17). The decision of any church may be wrong, but they answer to Christ the only head of the church. Just because God doesn't immediately remove the gifts he gave doesn't mean they are in order, or that sister churches are wrong to remove fellowship, it just means that God is longsuffering and keeping a long window open for repentance. But without repentance, a disorderly church over time will lose identity with the bride of Christ.
The first reason we conclude that the Apostolic Church practiced congregational polity is the lack of any instructions or examples of the apostles forming an organization for ruling over the local church (congregation). Furthermore, in Christ's instructions found in Mt 18:17-20, there is no higher authority to which to appeal on earth beyond the church described as a few gathered in Jesus' name. Another illustration of Christ governing his churches immediately and directly is the first three chapters of Revelation. John wrote seven churches in Asia a message directly from Christ. The message was personalized for each church but was published as a model for all his churches to learn from. John was plain that each church had to keep its own house in order, or the Lord himself would remove the candlestick from it. If the Apostolic churches were a part of an episcopal hierarchy, it would have been given a role for correcting the churches in Rev 1-3. So, hierarchies were a later innovation (probably third century) and had no part in the first century church.
I've heard someone say that we have extra-biblical offices and services when it comes to clerks, committees, and conferences. I disagree. Conferences, or business meetings, are biblical, and 1 Co 14:40 requires that all things be done decently and in order. Besides preaching, praying, singing, communion supper, and foot washing, what are all things that must be done? Here are a few examples: mediating disputes, Mt 18:17; receiving new members, Ac 10:47, Rom 14:1; ordaining deacons, Ac 6:3; approving messengers/letters, 1Co 16:3; Excluding members—and maintaining the membership roll, 1Co 5:4,11; marking heretics for bars of fellowship, Rom 16:17, 2Th 3:6. A faithful church will have to do all those things when the situations arise, so the conference or business meeting of the church is a necessary formality to do those things decently and in order. And there is no governing body recorded in the Apostolic Church except the local, assembled congregations including all members.
Wasn't there a governing assembly in Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15? James, Peter, and Paul are all recorded as testifying and declaring a decision against a false doctrine that had been spread by members of the church at Jerusalem. Let’s consider a few points about what this conference was and wasn’t.
Before we get into Acts 15, let’s dismiss one accusation against congregational church government. It doesn’t make the church a democracy. The church is a monarchy, with Christ, and only Christ, the King of kings at the head. Churches decide, by a majority vote, where they stand and what they will do about situations that arise, but the deliberation leading up to the vote is always seeking for the Lord’s will on the question. Therefore, it is appropriate for someone, especially an apostle, to teach the Lord’s will and therefore what the church ought to do. Church polity is saying how the church acts officially and Acts 15 does not present an alternative to congregational polity.
The second thing about the Apostolic church I want to note is the office of apostle. Apostles performed a necessary and unique function in the establishment of the church in that they received instructions directly from Christ and passed them down to their disciples and recorded them authoritatively in scripture. When apostles deliberated and made a definitive statement on something it carried more weight than a statement from anyone else then or since. The office of the Apostle is no longer needed because the foundation of the church was completed in their lifetime and the record has been preserved and handed down by the church since that time.
The Apostle Paul had to defend his apostleship because he came so late. If the role played by the apostles was meant to be passed down in the church, it wouldn’t make any sense for Paul to defend his apostleship by saying the doctrine he preached “Was not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” And then he specifically clarifies after he received the call he didn’t go up to Jerusalem to the apostles which were before him, Gal 1:11,12,17. Referring to himself as the least of the apostles, he said that the resurrected Savior appeared to him last of all, as one born out of due time, 1Co 15:8. That satisfies me that we shouldn’t be looking for church officials to appoint successors of apostles. Now we rely on their writings in scripture.
What happened in Acts 15 is that Paul and Barnabas heard false doctrine being taught in Antioch by members of the church in Jerusalem. They addressed that error directly with the church to which it was taught and to the traveling speakers teaching it. They didn’t settle the issue there, so they determined to bring it up with the apostles and elders in Jerusalem. Did he go to Jerusalem because that was the capital of the church or because the head bishops of the universal church were sitting there? It doesn’t say that. It does say that these heretics came from Judea, so Paul and Barnabas took the issue to their home church. That is consistent with the pattern given for addressing offenses that can’t be settled privately in Matthew 18. Paul said that a heretic, after the second admonition, is to be rejected. Tit 3:10. According to congregational polity, only the church that the heretic is a member of has the responsibility to officially reject him.
The apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter, Acts 15:6. Teaching and overseeing that all things are done according to God’s word is the responsibility of the bishop/elder, so it makes sense that they would get their heads before the question came before the multitude. If they can all get on the same page, then they gladly avoid contention when the whole church meets, and the church can act with a single mind. However, when elders cannot all get on the same page, at least by coming together before conference, they are better prepared to speak to the point and have their minds prepared with the relevant precepts to teach before the church makes the official decision. Everything in Acts 15 is consistent with congregational polity and does not in any way establish a council of elders to determine what member churches may or may not fellowship.
The Apostle James, who was evidently the pastor/bishop at Jerusalem at this time, gave a sentence or a conclusion. That doesn’t mean that his sentence was the official action of the church. James appealed to scripture and gave a defense on why the church should take a certain action. The action to send two messengers with Paul and Barnabas to deliver letters was taken by the whole church (vs 22). These letters read to Antioch were statements that the church at Jerusalem did not endorse what had been preached by her members and cleared up confusion they caused. That clarity, from the church at Jerusalem which benefitted from the teaching of several apostles, gave the church at Antioch consolation, vs 31. Since the churches did not yet have the benefit of the complete New Testament, the sentence of an apostle carried that type of authority.
Finally, let’s consider what we have been given among sister churches because it is said that there is no way to maintain unity if there isn’t a formal authority figure to settle questions for all churches. Jesus in his final days told us how to keep unity and prayed the Father grant us that unity. The way Jesus said people would know we were his disciples is that we love one another John 13:34,35; 15:12,13; 17:20-23. This kind of unity cannot be obtained through formality or any external declarations. It is manifest in general meetings whereby members of various congregations meet for the purpose of worshipping the Redeemer we all adore. When the Spirit is manifest in the preaching of the grace of God in truth and the saints all rejoice and hug each other’s neck; we know that we are one and don’t need a synod to tell us so. This is what Jesus gave us and it’s all we want.
