Democracy Gone Wild In Congregational Churches?

I am a pastor in a denomination that practices a mild form of congregationalism. We have District Superintendents who hold great sway with their churches, but ultimately churches make their own decisions about who will come pastor their church and when this pastor needs to leave. We have structure within our denomination, district, and local churches, but most of the positions filled are selected based on a democratic vote. On the local church level, typically our church boards are composed of the pastor (who more often than not is the head of the church board), deacons, elders (if a church recognizes such a position or distinguishes them from deacons, often they don’t even though according to Scripture the two offices aren’t the same), "members at large," the church treasurer, and other positions and variations. Often times, these church boards resemble business boards, where the pastor or board chairman is the CEO and the board members are the "leaders of the company" who conduct "the business" of the church. In these meetings, ministry vision is often overshadowed by custodial concerns, reports, etc. Thus, separate boards of committees are typically formed to do the ministry visionizing separate from the church board.

In a more Presbyterian form of church government, the structure of church government is different. Typically here, there is a "board of elders" separate from a deacon board or other entity that focuses mostly on ministry. In the Scriptures, the terms for elders and presbyters are typically used interchangeably and denote the spiritual leaders of a body of believers. In modern arrangements, the elder board is led by or joined by the "Senior Pastor" who functions vocationally or bi-vocationally on a daily basis as the head elder. Churches with prysbyterian forms of government are typically just as (or even more) bureaucratic than their congregational counterparts but with striking differences. There is not an emphasis on congregational "elections" to fill various spiritual leadership or committee posts. Instead, it is the job of the already existing spiritual leadership— the elders or whoever— to fill these spots. In congregational churches, nominees are picked through a nominating committee, and the members of the church ultimately vote on the winners.

There are some obvious dangers in the congregational format. For one thing, popularity, name recognition and other factors may overshadow who is actually best qualified. And rather than pastors and other church leaders who best know their congregation filling posts, the decision is instead left up to the majority. On a district level, one of the committees I sit on saw a one its best members lose "re-election." The person who was elected to fill the spot certainly seems to be a capable enough individual, but it really would not have been the choice of the board or this particular ministry director to have lost this valuable contributor. Sensing what a loss it was, the committee chair asked this individual to stay on as a non-voting "advisorary member" to make sure their insights weren't wasted. Also, on a district level, newcomers to the process with less “name recognition” are at an obvious disadvantage since few know who they are and what their qualifications are. Even though the people with the best name recognition are often the best people for the job, this is not always the case. Qualification and calling sometimes take a back seat to the perceptions or whims of the popular will.

On this same note, on a local church level, a pastor and his church board or elder board cannot make appointments even though they are typically in the best position of knowledge and discernment to make such decisions. Instead it has to go to a popular vote where the wrong man or woman might continue in, or be elected to, a position they are not best suited for. Another danger in congregational manifestations such as "church elections" is that they pit church members, and typically friends, up against one another. In many churches this is no big deal, but there are times where feelings are hurt and friendships interrupted.

While I'm not going to be crossing over to a Presbyterian church anytime soon (And I do support and appreciate my denomination even in areas where I have some differences), I do think some quarters of Protestantism have taken direct democracy a bit far. Especially as Americans, we love to have a voice. If the majority says it, that typically settles it (except for the losers who may or may not have truth on their side). In America, we typically don't like the judiciary branch overruling our popular wills. When the courts strike down a referendum that was voted on the "the people" or strike down a law that Congress passed and the President signed, we call that "judicial activism" (even though the courts are there in part to be a check against Democracy Gone Wild). In the past, we know that the popular will was wrong sometimes. Today though, we like to think that we have it all together and that if the majority says so, then it must be the right thing to do. This principle goes for our churches as well.

I'm interested in others providing their congregational or prysbyterian horror stories and/or success stories. What do you think is the best form of church government, and regardless of which model we take, has the individualistic democratic spirit gone too far in our local churches and denominational structures?