A DISCIPLESHIP OF EQUALS: CHURCH GOVERNMENT

I still firmly believe that the Congregational system, while imperfect, was still the most challenging to individual growth and development of ‘the ministry of all believers,’ and the closest to the example set by the earliest churches, said one participant.

Congregationalism was a democracy.

Probably Congregational churches and Quaker meetings were the only institutions in Australia which genuinely practiced the belief that all members were of equal value.

Each Congregational church was autonomous.

*

When I began this project, Ken Blackwell mailed me a cutting of an article on the Congregational form of government which was written by Irving Benson in the Melbourne Herald in the early 1940s. Benson was a Methodist minister.

Here is an extract from the article:

For [Congregationalists] a church is composed of those who, believing in Christ, join together in worship, fellowship and service. The root idea is that every congregation of faithful men is a church; that all Christ’s promises of His presence and guidance are made to such a congregation, individually and directly; and that its internal government is committed to its members under the direction of the Holy Spirit. The story of Congregationalists began, therefore, as soon as the gospel began to win converts and ‘those who were being saved gathered themselves into little groups.’ The Apostolic Churches, formed in this simple, natural way, were Congregational. Apostolic Christianity was organised essentially in local churches, with little organization of the parts into one whole and yet the feeling that they all belonged to one Church was most intense. The early Christian communities in Corinth or Ephesus or Philippi felt no contradiction between what we now call ‘Catholic’ and ‘Independent’ ideas of the Church.

It has to be admitted that the Congregational principle pre-supposes that the local group or Church consists only of those who are truly Christian men and women sincerely seeking the guidance of God. Congregationalism is essentially an ideal system, and whether this ideal is attained in practice is beyond the scope of my present purpose.

The distinctive element in Congregational organization is the Church meeting. It is the assembly of the adult members of the Church, which appoints the officers, including the minister, decides all questions of order, discipline extension, and organization, and is ultimately responsible for the teaching given by the minister; for the minister preaches not only to the Church, but on behalf of the Church, and in the Church’s name.

The minister is subordinate to the Church, chosen by the members, and appointed by them. Yet the influence and leadership of the minister is nowhere greater than among Congregationalists, though he has no more authority than the Speaker in parliament. They have insisted on a trained ministry, while constantly repudiating every suggestion of clericalism.

*

Participants gave insiders’ views of Congregational church government.

At Augustine, it was always ‘Our Church’. We tried to be responsible to make our own decisions, and to bear the responsibility for discovering the will of God for us (without reference or deference to a Quarterly Meeting or to a Presbytery). Our Congregational Union was only an advisory, co-operative alliance—a source of potential strength for individuals, but also of weakness when it came to promoting and establishing new causes.

*

. . . the sense of being a locally covenanted fellowship of believers constituting the Gathered Church. In my experience of Congregationalism in six different congregations in two states, I found this concept to be a reality. The members may not have been aware of the theory but they fulfilled it in practice.

*

The weakness in Congregationalism in general was the autonomy of each congregation. If you were strong and had sensitive and enlightened deacons and ministers you had a vibrant church community. Even small Congregational churches achieved vibrant church communities in many cases. But there was no Presbytery minister to assist with weak congregations. I think the Uniting Church structure at Synod level is top heavy. There was also strength in the more democratic local congregation.

*

Congregationalism was free from rules and free of creeds. We believed that the Holy Spirit would lead us, individually and collectively, into all truth. On rules, two participants made their statements. The first spoke from his experience of the Presbyterian Church, and the second contrasted Congregationalism with the Uniting Church:

When we moved to the country in 1964, there was no Congregational cause so we happily joined the Presbyterian church; having been a Congregational deacon for several years, I was quickly ordained as a Presbyterian elder. I was amazed at the way the two large, comprehensive Rule books were referred to. In my time there, never once were the Rule Books used to stimulate us to growth or to extend our Christian witness, but they were always there, and were used from time to time to kill some proposed action.

By way of contrast, the small Constitution By-laws Model Set of Rules and Model trust Deed of the Congregational Union of Victoria contains only 33 pages. The even smaller (14 x 10cm) 7-page Constitution and Rules book for Augustine is miniscule by comparison. Yet both these tiny books seemed to meet all our needs. Perhaps we had more faith in the leadership of the Holy Spirit . . .

*

As we approached Church Union in 1977, The Methodists had their Law Book, the Presbyterians had their Code Book.

Congregational churches in Australia did not have a law book or regulations. Some individual Congregational churches had pamphlets about church membership, but by and large there was a “general understanding” of how congregations organized themselves and how ministers operated, but nothing actually written down, approved, authorized or binding. You had to think your way through situations and consult others.

It was a surprise to me and a steep learning curve, as a member of the inaugural Uniting Church synod staff to have to become familiar with the ever-growing books of regulations and by-laws. Indeed, out of necessity I soon became a writer of them.

I am amazed and apprehensive about this aspect of the UCA.

*

Former Congregationalists continued to have strong views on creeds:

Congregational churches have avoided creeds that seek to spell out with some fullness what a Christian must, or should, believe. The spiritual world is mysterious. Often it deals with ultimate questions to which there is no final answers. It is inevitable that people will have different ideas. Jesus is our way to God, in his life on earth and death and now as the risen Christ he satisfies our need. Some simple statement of the essentials is all that is necessary for church membership. To go further will prove divisive. Some fine Christians will be excluded. Often Congregational churches have been valued as first in a new area because all who want to worship God as seen in Jesus and want to live in Christian ways are welcome to come and belong.

*

I cannot see that learned creeds are a part of the faith journey. I’ll tell you where I stand with creeds.

I need to be able to relate to the young people of the 21st century. I do not believe when I stand to say the Nicene Creed at a baptism at our church that this is the language of today. And these young people have brought their child for baptism, and if I put them against the wall and ask them if they believe, they’ll say “We can’t.” I believe that our creeds should be speaking to us in the language of today. And when our dear minister stands and says, “We will say the creed as we stand in the line of the ancient Church,” I can see that line, but the lack of communication with today’s world really, really upsets me.

*

One participant remembered taking part in church membership classes before becoming a member of Wyclif Congregational Church.

I don’t know how often these came around, presumably when there were enough young people interested in “joining the church”. In my case I think I was about 17, older than they are these days in the UCA, and the age range of our group was probably about 3 years.

Weekly evening classes were held in Dr Swan’s own home in Essex Rd—we didn’t own a manse until Francis Gibbons arrived from England. I don’t know for how long, possibly 4–6 weeks. He covered topics such as ‘Why church membership?’, ‘Why Congregational membership?’ and ‘The privileges and responsibilities of membership.’
We were “received” during an ordinary Sunday service: I think that we were required to affirm the CUV Covenant. The covenant was short, sharp and basic. We were extended the “right hand of fellowship” by the deacons.

My recollection is that our group consisted of eleven girls and one boy. I believe that during the service one choir member whispered to her neighbour, “Who on earth are all these girls going to marry?” In the end, none of us married the boy.

*


Next: Chapter 12. Gathered: The Church Meeting

Back to index: Index