“But some of the believers from the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to command them to keep the law of Moses!””

(Acts 15:5, HCSB)

I have always heard that the reason for congregationalism as a church system is this: There was a business meeting in Acts 15. There was a dispute and they solved it as a congregation together in a business meeting. I would propose that the opposite is true. The reason AGAINST congregationalism as a church polity model is because there was a dispute and they solved it in a business meeting.

The whole reason why there was a business meeting was that a group of believers took sides and formed a church political party. They were aligned with the Jewish Pharisees, and they were legalistic. They argued against different people coming into the church because the new people needed to keep the Jewish law (the law of Moses.)

This was a critical juncture for the new Christian church. Would the church accept  Jewish traditions as part of their practice? Would everyone have to convert to Judaism to become a Christian? Or would the new believers be accepted for being Christians, without any cultural strings attached?

The business meeting allowed for this conflict to arise. It also allowed for this conflict to be solved. However, Peter, the apostle in favor of reaching out to the Gentiles (because of his experience in Acts 10), gave a strong argument against keeping the Law of Moses. James, the apostle, would eventually share a compromise to solve the problem. There would be conditions, but not the complete law of Moses.

The pattern for this conflict resolution was not to bring it before the congregation but to let the leaders (elders) meet and solve the conflict.

(Acts 15:6, HCSB)

This is a better case for a plurality of elders than for congregationalism.

Photo by Grant Whitty on Unsplash