Practical Polity in Acts 15

One blessing of seminary education is the opportunity to clarify thinking about topics I may not have otherwise spent time on. This is one such essay considering what it practically looks like for a church to be elder-led, congregation-ruled, and deacon-served (congregational polity). I am grateful for God’s gift of the church and the chance to keep growing in love and knowledge with God’s people!

The New Testament was written in a culture dissimilar to the modern West, with our present affinity for individuality and objectivity. The practical outworking of congregational polity and elder leadership may not even be a question raised by churches existing in a communal culture. Community decision-making under clearly defined leadership is still a routine practice in many cultures that more closely mirror that of first-century Palestine: a group of people gathers, discusses all the issues, listens to the leaders, and then makes the decision. People routinely thinking and choosing in community probably understand congregational church polity more readily than we who live in a culture that idolizes individualism. Congregational church polity works itself out as elders are entrusted with leadership for direction and instruction, deacons are leaders in service, and the congregation collectively makes decisions regarding the life of the church.

The narrative of Acts 15:1-33 provides a helpful example of these dynamics in action. When a serious question arose in Antioch regarding the practices of Gentile converts, the conflicted parties returned to Jerusalem to confer with the apostles and elders. According to verse 4, the discussion was raised in a gathering of the church, not simply the elders. Converted Pharisees voiced their concerns, and the church leaders considered their input (15:5-6). There is no clear textual reason to assume the discussion was limited to elders and apostles. Rather, Peter had to stand and get everyone’s attention to hear the report of Paul and Barnabas, relevant to the whole dialogue. Subsequently, James announced the leaders’ conclusion based on Scripture from Amos’s prophecy. The whole church then affirmed agreement and sent a delegation back to Antioch with letters answering the question (15:22).

This text suggests several practices relevant to the church today. First, the apostles did not consider their authority exclusive of the elders’: they did not independently make the decision, but rather submitted to the collective leadership of both offices. If this was the apostles’ practice, the church body should certainly value and submit to elder leadership. Second, the conversation was open to input from the entire church. Elders should hear and consider the opinions and concerns of the church family. Third, the apostles and elders were responsible to lead the conversation and ground the church’s thinking in Scripture. The church should respect the elders and expect to hear the authority of God’s Word in their words. Last, the final decision was voiced by one leader, James, and then approved by the entire church, not only the apostles and elders. 

Although New Testament practices did not include Robert’s Rules of Order, this narrative shows the church gathered to make decisions, led by elders, but collectively affirming the final decision, even claiming the authority of the Holy Spirit (15:28). If these apostles and elders (many of whom personally saw the risen Christ and penned words of Scripture) welcomed discussion among the church on a matter of such theological significance, and made the decision with the church’s affirmation, it does not seem reasonable to assume that a modern board of elders is better suited to make decisions than the gathered church. The description of Acts 15 illustrates the practical outworking of congregational polity.

The role of deacons as leaders of service is integral to the enacting of such decisions. In the church’s infancy, the apostles commended that the church appoint men to oversee the necessary practical service (Acts 6:1-7). (This narrative provides yet another example of communal decision-making under appropriate leadership.) The deacons’ role was facilitating and coordinating the church’s efforts and resources so that all needs were met. Deacons do not possess decision-making authority intrinsic to their office greater than the rest of the church. Rather, when the whole church makes decisions, the deacons are often a key part of fulfilling them practically. God has gifted the church with people and power to accomplish all that He calls us to do.

How do you see congregational polity in practice, in Western cultures or others? I’d love to learn from you in a comment below.