Evangelicalism and the Church

By Matthew Barrett

Our doctrine of the church is a vital aspect of our Christian faith and living. How we define the church may have important implications for our overall understanding of Christian doctrine and has a multitude of practical implications for the regular gathering of the saints. I would guess that most evangelicals would agree that the church is very important, both for the individual Christian and for the Christian community as a whole. And yet, there is disagreement among evangelicals as to how we should understand church government. Evangelicalism is diverse, consisting of Presbyterians, Anglicans, Methodists, Baptists, and free church, non-denominational types as well. Within these traditions various denominations (and nondenominations) have formed. What is clear is that each of these traditions (Baptist, Presbyterian, etc.) disagrees with one another on how to order, structure, and govern the church. While it is not a guarantee that those in denominations affiliated with these traditions will be evangelicals (liberalism has crept into every single one of these traditions!), nevertheless, many of these traditions do consist of evangelicals. Evangelicalism, therefore, provides unity around some of the most basic of doctrinal values (the inspiration of Scripture, the Trinity, etc.). To be an evangelical one must affirm these doctrinal tenants. However, with many other doctrinal tenants there is liberty to disagree. So while one must affirm the doctrine of the Trinity (to take just one example) to be an evangelical, one does not have to affirm a specific form of church government (Presbyterian ecclesiology for example) to be an evangelical.

That being said, does it necessarily follow that since evangelicalism does not ascribe to any one form of church government (nor demand that its members do the same), individual evangelicals that make up evangelicalism do not believe the Bible (whether explicitly or implicitly) provides sufficient direction to bind one’s conscious to a certain form of church government? Stated otherwise, is it true that while we can agree to disagree on church government for the sake of having unity as evangelicals, we can still return to our denominational parties with the conviction that the Bible nevertheless still gives us sufficient information to bind us to one form of church government over another? I believe the answer to this latter question must be yes. To use myself as an example, I am an evangelical and I happy to participate in wider evangelicalism knowing that there is liberty within evangelicalism for its members to affirm diverse and even conflicting forms of church government. However, at the end of the day, I still believe that a Baptist ecclesiology (specifically, in my case, a congregational, plurality of elders model) is the biblical form of church government.

However, not all agree or at least want to define evangelicalism in this way. Take Alister McGrath for example. He writes, “Historically, evangelicalism has never been committed to any single model of the church, regarding the New Testament as being open to a number of interpretations in this respect and treating denominational distinctness as secondary to the gospel itself” (Evangelicalism & the Future of Christianity, 81). This is a great statement by McGrath. Here he rightly explains that evangelicalism has never been committed to any single model of the church. He also affirms that denominational distinctness is secondary to the gospel itself, which is a defining mark (perhaps the defining mark) of evangelicalism. However, I want to take issue with one, small aspect of his sentence, namely, that evangelicalism regards the New Testament as being open to a number of interpretations in respect to a single model of the church.

Now, we do want to make sure we are interpreting McGrath correctly. After all, could he not merely be saying that evangelicalism allows for diverse interpretations of the New Testament in regards to a model of the church? But upon further reading of McGrath it becomes clear that he means far more. For example, after he rightly emphasizes the importance of the church, he then says,

Evangelicals are aware of the importance of a well-informed biblical model of the church; they, in common with many other Christians, remain unpersuaded, however, that the New Testament intended to lay down precise details of church polity. This minimalist attitude to the doctrine of the church does not mean that individual evangelicals do not have well-defined understandings of the nature of the church; rather, it points to no single such doctrine being normative within the movement, since the New Testament itself does not stipulate with precision any single form of church government that can be made binding on all Christians. Those who accuse evangelicals of having “immature” or “underdeveloped” theories of the church might care to ask themselves whether they might not have hopelessly overdeveloped theories (82).

And again, he writes,

The evangelical perception that the New Testament allows a considerable degree of diversity in relation to theories of the church has had several major consequences. . . . (1) Evangelicalism is transdenominational [and] . . . (2) Evangelicalism does not necessarily take the form of a denomination in itself, possessed of a distinctive ecclesiology, but can also be a trend within the mainstream denominations. . . . (3) Evangelicalism itself represents an ecumenical movement.

My response? So close, but still not close enough. Notice the words in bold. There are two problems here. First, I disagree that the New Testament does not lay down any precise details of church polity or that on the basis of the New Testament there is no normative model for church government. Indeed, I would argue that there are ample texts in the New Testament that do give us sufficient warrant to argue that the New Testament model for a church is congregational and led by a plurality of elders. Granted, none of these texts explicitly say at any one point, “Thus says the Lord…this is what church government shall be.” Nevertheless, by inference, looking at how the early church structured itself and how the apostles instructed the early churches, I believe we can justifiably say what church government should look like. Therefore, I would disagree that “the New Testament allows a considerable degree of diversity in relation to theories of the church.”

But you do not have to be a Baptist (or a Congregationalist for that matter) to say this. In fact, a Presbyterian might argue in the same way. In other words, they might argue that there is not biblical evidence to justify a congregational form of church government whereas there is evidence to justify a Presbyterian form of church government. Other traditions could make the same argument, claiming their form of government to be the biblical model. The point here is simple: various evangelicals, from diverse denominational traditions, while agreeing with one another on primary tenets of evangelical faith, may nevertheless disagree on what type of church polity to abide by on the basis of New Testament evidence.

Returning to McGrath, I believe he has wrongly defined evangelicalism at this point. It would be much better to say the following: While evangelicalism does not prescribe a certain form of church government in order to be an evangelical, nevertheless, those within evangelicalism may believe that the New Testament does. Notice how different this is from what McGrath has said above. McGrath wants to argue two things:

1. Evangelicalism does not prescribe a certain form of church government.

2. The New Testament does not prescribe a certain form of church government.

He concludes from these two premises that to be an evangelical, therefore, means that you believe there is no specific form of church government demanded by Scripture. But what consequence would this have for those of us (be you a Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc.) who are both evangelical and believe the New Testament does provide sufficient warrant to bind one’s conscience to a specific form of church government? Surely, based on McGrath’s definition, we would not qualify to be an evangelical, since being an evangelical means that “the New Testament allows a considerable degree of diversity in relation to theories of the church.”

However, evangelicalism should be defined differently. Evangelicalism allows a considerable degree of diversity in relation to theories of the church. But, as individual Christians, we must have the right to believe that the New Testament does stipulate (though perhaps not explicitly but indirectly) a single form of church government that is binding on all Christians. Such a definition, I believe, actually allows greater liberty within evangelicalism. Evangelicals can disagree with one another on church government, even arguing that fellow evangelicals are not following what Scripture says about the proper form of church government. And yet, all the while, they remain evangelicals not because they believe the New Testament does not bind one’s conscious to a specific form of church government, but rather because they believe evangelicalism is defined by primary tenants instead, such as the gospel, the Trinity, the inspiration of Scripture, etc. None of this changes evangelicalism’s “consequences.” Evangelicalism remains transdenominational, even though its members are very denominational. In short, we do not have to give up our biblical convictions about church government in order to be evangelical. Rather, we can remain evangelical (and therefore ecumenical) while still holding our convictions as to what Scripture teaches when it comes to church government. Within evangelicalism there is liberty on secondary matters (e.g., church government), but this does not mean that one must believe the New Testament allows for a variety of interpretations on these secondary matters to be an evangelical.

Matthew Barrett (Ph.D., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) is the founder and executive editor of Credo Magazine. Barrett has contributed book reviews and articles to various academic journals and he also writes at Blogmatics. He is married to Elizabeth and they have two daughters, Cassandra and Georgia. He is a member of Clifton Baptist Church in Louisville, KY.