Over the almost four centuries of our existence Seventh Day Baptists have always held that speaking out boldly to a lost world about the need for repentance of sin and acceptance of Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord should always be first and formost in importance. Our often unique position in Christian ecclesiatical settings has often called us to defend a second Biblical truth. We have often found it necessary to call the attention of Christians to the need to observe the seventh day of the week as God's ordained and commanded day for our worship as part of our love for and recognition of Jesus as our Lord and the Lord of the Sabbath.

We sometimes overlook a third unique cause that often also calls out for support- to remind Christians that God has also called them to be "a royal priesthood" (1 Peter 2:9) which includes how Christians should relate to each other and to God in their church polity. The question that begs to be answered is- "How Should the Church of Christ be governed?"

Church government has been an issue within the Church since it began. When Jesus said that He would build His Church and give it the "keys to the kingdom," did He intend for it to have a single autocratic ruler or even a government of apostles and elders? Or did He want His Church governed by all its members equally?

Some churches are convinced that the Bible teaches the church should be governed in a hierarchical structure from the top down. This has clearly been the structure of the Roman Catholic Church with the Pope as the Vicar of Christ. Other churches still believing in a hierarchical structure for church government do not have just one man at the top wielding all the power. They have a governing Board of Elders that make the decisions for the church. The third type of church government is followed by congregational churches and is a democracy of all members.

We must not allow humanly devised theories of church government replace the clear teachings of the Word of God. The question to be answered is- "Does the Bible set out a clear directive for the governing of the church?" Let us look first at Acts 15.

"And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, [and said], Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question. -Acts 15:1-2.

It is clear that the matter in dispute should be brought to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem.

"And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and [of] the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them." -Acts 15:4

Note now that not just the apostles and elders were present but that it says the whole Jerusalem church "received them."

"Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them." -Acts 15:12

What multitude? Why the whole church body of verse 4 of course.

"Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; [namely], Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: And they wrote [letters] by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren [send] greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:" -Acts 15:22-23

Note that the suggestion of James was not only acceptable to the "apostles and elders," but also had the approval of "the whole church" and the letter was sent in the name of "the apostles and elders and brethren." Even churches that are governed by elders admit that "correct church government should always be based on multitude of counsel." The real question is- how many church members does it take to be called a "multitude"?

Clearly, Jesus Christ is the "Head" of the Church and the rest of us are "members of His body." At no time did Jesus ever appoint any man to be the head of His body. It is also true that He chose group of apostles to serve His people. But notice what Jesus said was expected of them- They were not to be like the world in ther leadership. They were to be humble servants.

Christ warned His disciples that they should not act like a lord making "final decisions" in deciding doctrinal or even administrative matters. He said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you" (Matt. 20:25-28).

An honest study of the New Testament Church in the book of Acts will show that there is no mention of apostles and elders making important doctrinal or administrative decisions without the agreement of the whole church.

Earlier when seven deacons were chosen, they may have been "ordained" by the apostles but they were chosen by "the multitude of the disciples" (Acts 6:2) Again we ask the question- what constitutes a "multitude"?

God's form of government for the nation of Israel was a theocracy. Under this theocracy God was King (Judges 8:22-23; 1 Sam. 12:12). Moses was only a prophet. At Mount Sinai God sought a direct relationship with the people.

And the LORD said unto Moses, Go unto the people, and sanctify them to day and to morrow, and let them wash their clothes, And be ready against the third day: for the third day the LORD will come down in the sight of all the people upon mount Sinai. . . . And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw [it], they removed, and stood afar off. And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die. -Exodus 19:10-11;20:18-19

Note that It was the people who refused that relationship out of fear. They wanted Moses to continue to be a "go between" for them. Moses became a "mediator" and occupied a position unparalleled by anyone until Jesus Himself (cf. Deut. 34:10; 18:15-19). Even with that unique position, there is nothing in God's Word that gave Moses authority to function in a priestly ministry over Israel. And now under the New Covenant all believers are called "a holy priesthood." When it came time for Joshua to relinquish his role as the leader of Israel, did he appoint a successor? He did not.

"Now therefore fear the LORD, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the LORD. And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that [were] on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. And the people answered and said, God forbid that we should forsake the LORD, to serve other gods; . . . And the people said unto Joshua, The LORD our God will we serve, and his voice will we obey. So Joshua made a covenant with the people that day, and set them a statute and an ordinance in Shechem. And Joshua wrote these words in the book of the law of God, and took a great stone, and set it up there under an oak, that [was] by the sanctuary of the LORD. And Joshua said unto all the people, Behold, this stone shall be a witness unto us; for it hath heard all the words of the LORD which he spake unto us: it shall be therefore a witness unto you, lest ye deny your God. So Joshua let the people depart, every man unto his inheritance." -Joshua 24:14-16,24-28

Joshua gathered the people together and asked them to make a choice- "Choose ye this day whom ye will serve." If that doesn't sound like a plenary decision, what does?

When Judges were ruling Israel there were at times multiple judges and sometimes no judges at all. Was there a board of elders that appointed these judges? No. Many times the people just "did what was right in their own eyes" which would have worked if they actually were doing what was right. At this time God dealt directly with His people.

When Israel later had a human king, this wasn't what God wanted. It was a rejection of God's direct rulership (1 Sam. 8:6-7). God did not want the people looking to human leadership, it was the people who chose that. Even then the kings of Israel were not allowed to function as priestly intermediates.

In the New Covenant it is clear that God wants to have a direct relationship with all His people. By using a congregational form of government, rather than a government by intermedators, we can allow each member to have a direct relationship with God. God has often used human servants as His representatives when the people didn't listen and didn't wan't to listen to Him. He used kings and prophets and priests and apostles and elders and yes even Babylonians. But these aren't His preferences. He wants a "priesthood of the believers." He longs for a direct connection with each uf us. It is CONTRARY to the clear Old and New Testament patterns of God's relationships with His people to adopt anything but a DEMOCRATIC form of church government! Only congregational polity puts each person in a direct relationship with God.

Is this different from the Old Testament? Not at all. God did not want human rule then and He doesn't want it now. To want human intermediators is to deny that Christ is actively filling these roles in our personal and ecclesiastical lives. Jesus is the Mediator of the New Covenant, the supreme Judge, the High Priest and the King. We are all appointed to be a "royal priesthood" with a relationship with the Father that is only mediated through Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2:9, 1 Timothy 2:5).