Congregational Polity: Biblical Foundations, Historical Development, and a Presbyterian Critique

Introduction: Defining Congregational Polity

Congregational polity, a longtime distinctive of Baptist ecclesiology, is rooted in Biblical convictions and historical development. John S. Hammett describes the polity of Baptist churches this way: “Baptists have stood virtuously unanimously in favor of congregational church government… In this model, the congregation exercises the ultimate human authority in the church, under Christ’s divine authority. Christ exercises his headship through the members, as they all see together to discern Christ’s will for the body.”¹ This form of church government entirely depends on Christ’s authority exercised through his believers. Central doctrines to understanding congregational polity include the priesthood of all believers and regenerate membership, which will be examined in the following sections of this essay. While congregational polity has notable strengths grounded in the Biblical witness and the Baptist tradition, it also reveals weaknesses, particularly regarding accountability and unity, compared to other forms of government, such as Presbyterianism. This essay will explore the Biblical and theological foundations, historical development, and practical realities of congregational polity, culminating in a critique from a Presbyterian perspective.

Biblical Foundations for Congregational Polity

Baptists cite various sections of Scripture to support their preferred form of church government. Two sections of Scripture speak explicitly on church discipline, a topic that Hammett identifies as a distinguishing between members and nonmembers in governing matters.² One passage, perhaps the most well-known imperative of church discipline, lays out the process for disciplinary action beginning with private conversation and ending in public or church-wide confrontation:

If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (Matt. 18:15-17).³

In reference to this section of Scripture, Mark Dever says, “Notice to whom one finally appeals in such situations. What court has the final word? It is not a bishop, a pope, or a presbytery; it is not an assembly, a synod, a convention, or a conference. It is not even a pastor, a board of elders, a board of deacons, or a church committee. It is, quite simply, the church.”⁴

1 Corinthians 5:12-13 implores something similar: “For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. ‘Purge the evil person from among you’” (1 Cor. 5:12-13). Both of these passages demonstrate that the church or the congregation handles matters of discipline and authority, providing a precedent and Scriptural basis for church discipline that has significant implications for polity as a whole.⁵

Another section of Scripture that presents a convincing case for congregationalism is found in Acts 6, where a church, after critique from the Hellenists regarding the negligence of the widows among them, chose seven men to serve for the needs of the congregation. This event is seen as the origin of the diaconal office.⁶ Baptists see this decision as entirely belonging to the disciples assembled by the apostles, yet “what they said pleased the whole gathering,” meaning it also pleased the apostles who oversaw the facilitation of the office (Acts 6:5). It is naive to assume the Apostles had no part in the decision for the seven men, for the congregation’s decision occurred in the framework of apostolic instruction. Would the congregation even have the idea for the diaconal office if it were not for the apostles? Nevertheless, the congregation’s role in the decision emphasizes congregational authority under Christ.

Theological Foundations and Historical Development

The Headship of Christ and the Priesthood of All Believers

The headship of Christ is the central theological principle undergirding congregational polity. Quoting Leon Morris, Hammett says, “Perhaps it would not be unfair to say that the chief Scriptural buttresses of this position [congregationalism] are the facts that Christ is the head of the church… and that there is a priesthood of believers.”⁷ Baptists argue that congregational government is the best form of church government because the other forms compromise the headship of Christ, depending on intermediary mediators to accomplish Christ’s authority over congregations and individuals.⁸ Furthermore, they say that other forms of government undermine the priesthood of all believers who have direct access to God through the Holy Spirit:

The priesthood of all believers affirms that each believer is both able and responsible to seek God directly and receive guidance from him directly apart from any human intermediary. Yet each individual believer is also fallible. Thus, the proponents of congregationalism have seen that the best way for the church to find God’s direction is for all believer-priests to seek God’s face and come to a consensus as to his direction for the church.⁹

A crucial question must be asked, however. If believers should seek God’s face together, then why shouldn’t all believers from multiple congregations seek God together, determining his directions for various churches that are unified in a single body, namely, the body of Christ? This question will be returned to later in the essay, but first, it is crucial to overview the development of congregational polity throughout church history.

Historical Development of Congregational Polity

While congregational polity is practiced to some degree in the New Testament, as previously demonstrated, and supported by early church literature such as Clement’s First Letter and the Didache, “[e]piscopal government did become the norm… in the second century and into the third and beyond.”¹⁰ Baptists claim this norm is due to the lack of availability of the New Testament in common languages, but this is a flawed mentality. Perhaps, episcopal authority was normalized because the readers of the Bible honestly thought it was the form of government intended by the human authors and God. However, it is fascinating that “once the Gutenberg printing press revolutionized bookmaking, and the Bible became more widely available and more regarded as the standard for all areas of theology, including ecclesiology, almost immediately, congregational church government began being proposed.”¹¹ The reader may decide whether this newfound preference is due to the reasons the Baptists provide, or perhaps due to an overreaction to the traditions of Catholicism and the church for sixteen hundred years.

Congregational polity and Baptist doctrine are rooted in the Anabaptist and Separatist movements. In the early 1500s, the Anabaptists or ‘rebaptizers,’ including Balthasar Hubmaier, “rejected the union of church and state assumed by the majority of Western Europe.”¹² This rejection meant that they were also unable to participate in parish systems. Thus, congregational polity formed not only out of their beliefs regarding church government but also of necessity. Likewise, the Puritan Separatists of the late sixteenth century “began to separate from the state church and organize what historians call Separatist congregations.”¹³ Again, this congregationalism was not exactly out of conviction but out of necessity. For instance, one of the Separatists, the Presbyterian Robert Browne, “came to the conviction that each local congregation had the right and responsibility to elect its own elders. By 1581, he was convinced of the necessity of planting congregations apart from the state church and its parish system.”¹⁴ Because these churches belonged to no parish system, they would be governed autonomously. The situation was the same for other Separatists and Baptist pioneers such as John Smyth and Thomas Helwys.¹⁵

By 1644, Baptist denominations in England and Baptist convictions such as believer’s baptism and congregational polity saw rapid advances. Thus, “a group of Baptist churches… drafted the First London Baptist Confession, which defined the church as a ‘company of visible saints’ called to ‘the visible profession of the faith of the gospel… joined… by mutual agreement.’”¹⁶ Around this time, the Westminster Assembly wrote the Westminster Confession.¹⁷

In 1677, William Collins and Nehemiah Cox drafted The Second London Baptist Confession, drawing heavily from The Westminster Confession, yet substantively reworking it to fit a Baptist context, including core Baptist distinctives such as congregational polity.¹⁸ The London Baptist Confession of 1677/1689 speaks explicitly on congregationalism in Chapter 26, “Of the Church.” Paragraphs Six and Seven state:

[Six] The members of these churches are saints by calling, visibly manifesting and evidencing (in and by their profession and walking) their obedience unto that call of Christ; and do willingly consent to walk together, according to the appointment of Christ; giving up themselves to the Lord, and one to another, by the will of God, in professed subjection to the ordinances of the Gospel (Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:2; Acts 2:41-42; 5:13-14; 2 Cor. 9:13).¹⁹

[Seven] To each of these churches thus gathered, according to his mind declared in his word, he hath given all that power and authority, which is in any way needful for their carrying on that order in worship and discipline, which he hath instituted for them to observe; with commands and rules for the due and right exerting, and executing of that power (Matt. 18:17-18; 1 Cor. 5:4-5, 13; 2 Cor. 2:6-8).²⁰

These two paragraphs are crucial to understanding congregational polity as iterated by historic Baptist confessions. They establish that the local church is constituted of believers who willingly walk and obey Christ together, and govern the church as a unified body through the power and authority granted to them through Christ.

Congregational Polity in Practice Today

Congregational polity remains the standard and common form of church government in Baptist and nondenominational churches today. The Baptist Faith and Message (2000), which “endeavored to state for its time and theological climate those articles of the Christian faith which are most surely held among [Baptists],” summarizes the contemporary position accordingly.²¹ The church is “an autonomous local congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel… Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes.”²²

While the processes may be democratic in a congregationally ruled church, Dever asks a probing question and provides an enlightening answer: “Is congregationalism democracy? Though congregationalism and democracy have some important similarities and common principles, the simple answer must be no, not entirely.”²³ Furthermore, he explains, quoting from the Cambridge Platform of 1648: “The Government of the church, is a mixt Government… In respect of Christ, the head and King of the church, and the Sovereaigne power residing in him, and exercised by him, it is a Monarchy: In respect of the body, or Brotherhood of the church, and power from Christ graunted unto them, it resembles a Democracy.”²⁴ Again, this creed demonstrates the headship of Christ ruling through congregants—a reality that remains true in congregationally ruled churches today. Indeed, “every local church in Christendom, from Greek Orthodox to Pentecostal, from Roman Catholic to Baptist, from Episcopalian to Lutheran, from Presbyterian to Methodist, is [inevitably] congregational in nature. They exist only as the people continue to participate in their activities.”²⁵

Benefits and Drawbacks of Congregational Polity

James Leo Garrett, Jr., in an article titled “An Affirmation of Congregational Polity,” acknowledges four advantages to congregational polity: 1. It “is fair to members,” 2. It “can be exercised under various patterns or structures,” and 3. It “is more capable than other polities of developing loyalty to and support of the congregation,” and 4. It “is very likely to produce stronger, more mature Christians than other polities.”²⁶ In other words, congregational polity is versatile and practical for a congregation and its members. However, Garrett also acknowledges that congregationalism “as exercised is not a perfect polity—there is no perfect polity—even as the congregation’s members are not perfect saints… ‘in actual practice churches of congregational polity do not always follow democratic principles’ and hence congregational polity theoretically affirmed does not always eventuate in the practice of congregational polity.”²⁷ What exactly are these imperfections? Because congregationalism entails autonomous and member-believer-led churches, it can cause disunity in the catholic body of Christ, such as church splits, poor leadership accountability, and drifts into false teaching or even heresy. How do congregationally ruled churches respond to this weakness? The answer is through institutions, associations, conventions, and conferences.

Returning to the question posited above, “If believers should seek God’s face together, then why shouldn’t all believers from multiple congregations seek God together, determining his directions for various churches that are unified in a single body, namely, the body of Christ?” Baptists seek to provide the remedy for such a question. Since The Baptist Faith and Message (2000) acknowledges that “[t]he New Testament speaks also of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all of the redeemed of all the ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation,”²⁸ it is proper that various congregations have some sort of communion with each other, even while they are governed autonomously. For instance, the Southern Baptist Convention “is a platform that combats this loneliness both personally and corporately. Cooperating churches are never alone. The Cooperative Program (CP) serves as a powerful, collaborative tool that enables Southern Baptist Congregations to stand together in advancing the cause of Christ.”²⁹ The collaboration between Southern Baptist congregations is not out of necessity, but voluntary. Still, the partnership, despite its voluntary nature, keeps congregations accountable to doctrine and the mission of Christ.

Comparison with Presbyterian Polity

Carlos E. Wilton, retired professor at Princeton Theological Seminary, writes that “Presbyterian governance is ‘connectional,’ as opposed to ‘congregational’ or ‘episcopal.’ In episcopal polity, a single individual, the bishop (episkopos, in the Greek) has ultimate oversight of everything that takes place in a congregation. Presbyterian connectionalism is intended to be a bridge between these two systems, a middle way.”³⁰ Presbyterian congregations are neither completely autonomous nor ruled by a bishop, but are held accountable by various overseeing committees. The structure of authority proceeds this way: 1. congregants, 2. elders, 3. sessions, 4. Presbyteries 5. Synods 6. The General Assembly.³¹ Congregants elect ruling elders, and these ruling elders, along with the teaching elders, compose the session, a governing body of a single church. Then, representatives (the number varies depending on the denomination) of all the sessions in a given area gather in the presbytery. Furthermore, many presbyteries compose a synod, and many synods compose a general assembly, the ultimate ruling body of a single denomination.

Just as the London Baptist Confessions and The Baptist Faith and Message (2000) have sections on polity, so does The Westminster Confession of Faith. They posit:

The Lord Jesus, as King and Head of His Church, hath therein appointed a government, in the hand of Church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate. (Isa. 9:6–7; 1 Tim. 5:17; 1 Thess. 5:12; Acts 20:17–18; Heb. 13:7, 17, 24; 1 Cor. 12:28, Matt. 28:18–20)³²

For the better government, and further edification of the Church, there ought to be such assemblies as are commonly called Synods or Councils; (Acts 15:2,4,6) and it belongeth to the overseers and other rulers of the particular churches, by virtue of their office, and the power which Christ hath given them for edification and not for destruction, to appoint such assemblies; (Acts 15) and to convene together in them, as often as they shall judge it expedient for the good of the church. (Acts 15:22–23, 25)³³

Similarly to congregationalism, presbyterianism sees Christ as the head of the church, even critiquing the “Pope of Rome.”³⁴ Furthermore, Presbyterians also acknowledge the priesthood of all believers.³⁵ The main difference is that Congregationalists see Christ’s authority as ordained through individual congregations. Presbyterians see it as dispersed over the Church in its entirety through representative bodies.

John Calvin provides a solid defense of sessions, the governing body of local churches: “From the beginning, therefore, each church had its senate, composed of pious, grave, and venerable men, in whom was lodged the power of correcting faults… Moreover, experience shows that this arrangement was not confined to one age, and therefore we are to regard the office of government as necessary for all ages.”³⁶ Furthermore, the Second Book of Discipline (1578), an official document of the Scottish Kirk, posits, “Assemblies are of four sorts. For, either are they of particular kirks and congregations, one or more, or of a province, or of a whole nation, or of all and diverse nations professing one Jesus Christ.”³⁷

Overall, this representative structure ensures higher accountability and commitment to historic, orthodox doctrines than congregationalism, where accountability can be more limited. Moreover, this form of church polity reflects all of church history, even early church history, minus Rome’s adoption of the supreme authority of the Pope over all other bishops. In Acts 15, for example, the Jerusalem Council decides for the entire universal church whether circumcision is necessary. Ultimately, they decide it is not and send delegates out to the Gentiles, demonstrating their authority over the church as representatives, elected by congregations, and empowered by the Spirit of Christ.

Conclusion

In conclusion, congregational polity remains a biblically informed form of church government rooted in the priesthood of all believers and the headship of Christ. While congregationalism is strong in several regards, such as flexibility, theological consistency, and member participation, it can ultimately contribute to a disunifying experience, a lack of accountability, and doctrinal drift. Historical developments demonstrate that congregationalism emerged out of necessity from the Separatists and Anabaptists, yet it has been sustained by deep, doctrinal convictions. While presbyterian polity offers a more structured form of church governance, Baptists and others who practice congregationalism have sought to maintain unity through voluntary fellowship rather than hierarchical oversight. However, congregationalism presents a compelling argument for church polity in Christ’s rule over and through his people.

Bibliography

Allen, Jason K., ed. The SBC and the 21st Century: Reflection, Renewal, and Recommitment. Revised ed. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2019.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion: Calvin’s Own Essentials Edition: A New Translation of the 1541 Institutes. Translated by Robert White. Edinburgh, UK: Banner of Truth, 2020.

Dever, Mark. Nine Marks of a Healthy Church. 4th ed. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2021.

Duesing, Jason G., and Nathan A. Finn, eds. Historical Theology for the Church. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2021.

Finn, Nathan A., Michael A. G. Haykin, and Anthony L. Chute. The Baptist Story: From English Sect to Global Movement. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2015.

Garrett, James Leo Jr. “An Affirmation of Congregational Polity.” Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry 3, no. 1 (Spring 2005): 38–55.

Hammett, John S. Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary Ecclesiology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2019.

The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith. 1689. Accessed April 25, 2025. https://the1689.org/

The Southern Baptist Convention. The Baptist Faith and Message 2000. Accessed April 25, 2025. https://bfm.sbc.net/bfm2000/.

The Westminster Confession of Faith. 1647. Accessed April 25, 2025. https://westminsterstandards.org/westminster-confession-of-faith/.

Wilton, Carlos E. “A Survey of Developments in Presbyterian Church (USA) Polity in the Past Twenty-Five Years.” The Journal of the Society for Protestant Church Polity 1, no. 1 (Winter 2020): 43-57.

Footnotes

1. John S. Hammett, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary Ecclesiology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2019), 154. ↩

2. Ibid., 145. ↩

3. Unless otherwise specified, all Scripture references are to the English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016). ↩

4. Mark Dever, Nine Marks of a Healthy Church, 4th ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2021), 201-202. ↩

5. Hammett, 159-160. ↩

6. Ibid., 160. ↩

7. Hammett, 161. ↩

8. Ibid. ↩

9. Ibid., 161-162. Another crucial theological presupposition of congregationalism is that of regenerate membership. Only allowing believers to belong to the covenant community of a church safeguards the congregation from theological error. Moreover, it protects the congregation from allowing any unregenerate person to exercise authority in the church. ↩

10. Hammett, 162-163. ↩

11. Ibid., 163. ↩

12. Nathan A. Finn, Michael A. G. Haykin, and Anthony L. Chute, The Baptist Story: From English Sect to Global Movement (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2015), 12. ↩

13. Ibid., 14. ↩

14. Ibid., 15. ↩

15. Ibid., 16-19. ↩

16. Jason G. Duesing and Nathan A. Finn, eds., Historical Theology for the Church (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2021), 240-241. ↩

17. The Westminster Confession will be interacted with in more depth in a subsequent section of this essay. ↩

18. Nathan A. Finn, Michael A. G. Haykin, and Anthony L. Chute, 51. ↩

19. The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689), 26.6, accessed April 25, 2025, https://the1689.org/. ↩

20. Ibid., 26.7. ↩

21. The Baptist Faith and Message 2000, Preamble, qtd. in Jason K. Allen, ed., The SBC and the 21st Century: Reflection, Renewal, and Recommitment, revised ed. (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2019), 123. ↩

22. The Southern Baptist Convention, The Baptist Faith and Message 2000, Article VI, “The Church,” accessed April 25, 2025, https://bfm.sbc.net/bfm2000/. ↩

23. Dever, 206. ↩

24. Williston Walker, The Creeds and Platforms of Congregationalism (New York: Pilgrim, 1991), 217-218, qtd. in Dever, 206-207. ↩

25. Dever, 205. ↩

26. James Leo Garrett Jr., “An Affirmation of Congregational Polity,” Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry 3, no. 1 (Spring 2005): 53-54. ↩

27. Franklin M. Segler, A Theology of Church and Ministry (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1960), qtd. in Garrett, 54. ↩

28. The Southern Baptist Convention, The Baptist Faith and Message 2000, Article VI, “The Church.” ↩

29. Jason K. Allen, ed., The SBC and the 21st Century: Reflection, Renewal, and Recommitment, Revised ed. (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2019), 12. ↩

30. Carlos E. Wilton, “A Survey of Developments in Presbyterian Church (USA) Polity in the Past Twenty-Five Years,” The Journal of the Society for Protestant Church Polity 1, no. 1 (Winter 2020): 43-57. ↩

31. Ibid. ↩

32. WCF, XXX.I. ↩

33. Ibid., XXXI.I. ↩

34. Ibid., XXV.VI. ↩

35. Ibid., XXVI.I-II. ↩

36. Calvin, Institutes, 4.3.8. ↩

37. The Church of Scotland, The Second Book of Discipline, 7.2. ↩