Matthew 18 and the Church Constitution: A Biblical Guide
Short answer: A church constitution is a written document that sets out how a congregation orders its life together: its doctrine, membership, leadership, discipline, and decision-making. Scripture never commands a constitution by that name, but it does command order. Matthew 18:15-20 gives Jesus' own pattern for restoring a brother who sins, and it ends with the church gathered, hearing, and agreeing. Acts 15 shows the apostles and elders settling a sharp doctrinal dispute and sending a written decision to the churches. Those two passages, with the elder qualifications in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, are the biblical raw material for a constitution. A faithful constitution does not replace Scripture; it puts Scripture's order into writing so a church can obey it consistently rather than improvise.
What a church constitution actually is
A constitution is not a mystical document. It is a written agreement among a congregation about how they will do what Scripture requires. It usually states the church's doctrinal confession, the requirements for membership, the offices of elder and deacon, how leaders are chosen and removed, how members meet and vote, how disputes are handled, and how the church relates to other churches. Its purpose is to make obedience repeatable. Without a written standard, a church drifts toward whatever the loudest or longest-serving person prefers, and members have no way to know what they agreed to. With one, the congregation has a public, checkable standard by which leaders and members alike can be held accountable.
That purpose explains why a constitution is a servant document, never a master. It exists to help a church obey Christ, not to define Christ's church for him. When a constitution is treated as the final authority, it quietly replaces Scripture in practice. When it is treated as nothing, the church loses the ability to settle disputes without personal conflict. The biblical pattern is a written order that sits under the Word, is judged by the Word, and can be amended when it is shown to be out of step with the Word. The document is real and binding on those who adopt it, but it is always subordinate to the text it is meant to serve.
Historically, most congregations have some form of written order even if they do not use the word constitution. Baptists and congregational churches typically write detailed constitutions and bylaws. Presbyterian churches order themselves through a book of church order. Anglican and Methodist churches have their own instruments of governance. The terminology and the degree of detail differ, and faithful Christians have differed on these matters for centuries. What no serious tradition denies is that a church needs order, and that order needs to be written down somewhere if it is to be taught, followed, and appealed to by ordinary members.
So the question this article answers is not whether a church should have a constitution, as if Scripture settled that in a single verse. The question is what a constitution ought to contain and how it ought to function if it is to serve the gospel. Matthew 18:15-20 and Acts 15 are the two places where the New Testament shows the church actually handling conflict and making a binding decision together. If a constitution is not consistent with those patterns, it is a liability no matter how polished its language.
Matthew 18:15-20 and the pattern of restoration
Jesus begins with the smallest possible circle. Matthew 18:15 says, "If your brother sins against you, go, show him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained back your brother." The goal is stated up front: gaining your brother back, not winning an argument. The first step is private, face to face, and personal. It costs the offended party something to go. That is deliberate. Jesus puts the burden on the person who has been wronged to take the first step, which immediately rules out the passive resentment that so often hardens into division. A church constitution cannot manufacture that humility, but it can build a process that begins there instead of short-circuiting it.
The escalation is slow and intentional. Only if the private conversation fails does the offended brother bring one or two others, and only if that fails does the matter come before the church. Most conflicts should never reach the third step. A constitution that turns first-step problems into formal charges has not strengthened Jesus' process; it has bypassed the two stages he explicitly designed to keep matters small and restoration likely. The wise document protects the private stage, provides for the small-circle stage, and reserves formal congregational action for the rare case where a person will not listen even to the church.
The passage also puts real weight on the gathered church. After the earlier steps fail, the matter is told to the church, and the unrepentant person is to be treated as a Gentile and a tax collector, which in Jesus' setting means an outsider to covenant fellowship, yet still a person to be loved and won. Binding and loosing language follows, and Jesus promises his presence where two or three are gathered in his name. Whatever debates surround those verses, the plain point is that the gathered congregation has genuine authority to act, and that action is not a private vendetta but a corporate decision made in his name and under his word.
For a constitution, this means discipline must be written down as a church act, not a pastor's private discretion. The document should identify who may initiate a case, what evidence is required, who hears it, how the accused is protected, and how restoration is publicly celebrated. It should make clear that the aim is repentance and reinstatement, and that excommunication is a last resort for the impenitent, not a tool for managing difficult personalities. Where a case involves serious sin, such as the situation Paul addresses in 1 Corinthians 5, the constitution should make discipline possible without making it capricious.
Acts 15 and the written decision of the gathered leaders
Acts 15 records a dispute that threatened to split the early church. Some men came from Judea teaching that circumcision was required for salvation, and Paul and Barnabas had no small disagreement with them. The church in Antioch sent them to Jerusalem, along with others, to bring the question to the apostles and elders. Notice the shape of the process: a real theological dispute, recognized leaders, a gathering, public discussion, testimony about what God had done, appeal to Scripture, and finally a decision. This is not bureaucracy for its own sake; it is a church refusing to let a gospel issue be settled by whoever shouts loudest in a local synagogue.
The Jerusalem decision was then written and delivered. The apostles and elders, with the whole assembly, chose men to carry a letter to Antioch. The letter names the problem, rejects the false teaching, states the decision, and gives practical instruction about food offered to idols, blood, and sexual immorality. This is the closest thing in the New Testament to a formal, circulating ruling on a doctrinal matter. It shows that writing things down is not a merely human invention; it is a way of making a settled judgment available beyond the room where it was made, so that later churches can know what was decided and why.
That precedent does not mean every church must reproduce an apostolic council. The apostles are unique, and no constitution carries their authority. It does mean that recording decisions is a legitimate and useful way of serving unity. When a church writes a confession and a constitution, it is doing a small, non-apostolic version of what Jerusalem did: facing questions, reasoning from Scripture, deciding, and putting the decision where members can read it. The value of a written document is precisely that it survives memory, transition, and conflict, and can be examined later to see whether the church is still living up to what it said.
Acts 15 also models restraint. The council did not add requirements beyond what was necessary, and it explained its reasoning to the churches so they could receive the decision gladly. A constitution can do the same when it is short enough and clear enough to be read aloud and understood. Long, technical documents that few members ever read fail this test. The goal is a text that a new believer can follow, an elder can teach, and a member can appeal to when something goes wrong. If the document only serves the leadership, it is not serving the church in the way Jerusalem's letter served Antioch.
What a constitution should contain: doctrine, membership, and leaders
A church constitution should begin with doctrine, because everything else depends on it. The document should state plainly what the church believes about Scripture, God, Christ, salvation, the church, and the last things, at whatever level of detail the congregation has actually agreed to. Titus 1:5-9 shows Paul directing Titus to appoint elders and to do so according to a standard, which requires the church to know in writing what kind of man qualifies. The doctrinal section is the foundation of the constitution, and everything from membership to discipline hangs on it. A constitution with a thin theology and a thick governance section has inverted the order.
Membership should come next. Scripture assumes that a local church knows who belongs to it: believers are to gather, to submit to leaders, to be restored or removed when they sin, and to care for one another. A constitution should say who may become a member, what a member commits to, how membership ends, and how a member may transfer or request withdrawal. Matthew 18:15-20 makes no sense without a definable body that can hear a case. A church that never defines its membership cannot practice Matthew 18, cannot keep a meaningful members' meeting, and cannot carry out discipline that is actually recognized as a church act rather than a personal quarrel.
Leadership is the next major section, and it should reflect the qualifications given in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1: above reproach, faithful in marriage and family, not greedy, hospitable, able to teach, and so on. The constitution should state how elders and deacons are identified, examined, appointed, supported where appropriate, and, if necessary, removed. It should also state who makes decisions and how. 1 Peter 5:1-4 shows elders shepherding willingly and not for shameful gain, and the constitution should create structures that make that kind of shepherding possible rather than exhausting or corrupting it. Where differences between congregational, elder-led, and other forms of polity exist, the constitution should state the church's own conviction clearly and honestly.
Discipline and dispute resolution belong in the same section. Building on Matthew 18, a constitution should describe the private step, the small-circle step, the congregational step, and the outcomes, including restoration and, finally, removal from membership. It should protect both sides: the accused must know the charge and have a fair hearing, and the church must be able to act decisively where sin is public and unrepentant. It should also address doctrinal disputes, grievances against leaders, and how the church relates to other congregations. Written rules cannot make people kind, but they can prevent confusion, favoritism, and the informal power that fills the vacuum when a church has no process at all.
How a constitution functions in the life of a church
A constitution functions best when it is taught, not merely filed. Elders should be able to explain it from Scripture, and members should know what it says well enough to use it. In practice, this means the document should be read publicly when it is adopted, made freely available, and referred to when decisions are made. If a church only takes the constitution off the shelf during a crisis, it will usually be interpreted by whoever knows it best and in whatever way suits them. A constitution that is regularly taught becomes a shared standard, and a shared standard is harder to bend unfairly.
It also functions as a promise to the future. Members come and go, pastors move, and new leaders rise who did not write the original document. A written constitution lets a church keep its commitments across generations rather than reinventing itself at each transition. This is why amendment procedures matter. A constitution must be changeable, or it becomes an idol; but it must not be changeable casually, or it becomes a weather vane. Most healthy documents require advance notice, discussion, and a substantial vote to amend. That balance allows honest correction without allowing a sudden majority to seize the church's identity in a single meeting.
The constitution should also name its own limits. It should say that Scripture is the final authority, that the document is subordinate to Scripture, and that where the document is shown to contradict Scripture it must be corrected. This protects a church from a subtle idolatry in which loyalty to the constitution replaces loyalty to Christ. Christ is the head of the church, and he rules it through his word. No confession, book of order, or constitution can be placed alongside him. Where faithful Christians differ about the details of polity, they can still agree on this hierarchy: Christ first, Scripture next, and the church's written order serving both.
Finally, a constitution functions pastorally in the ordinary life of a congregation. It tells a new believer what is expected. It tells a wronged member where to go. It tells an accused person that he will be heard, not ambushed. It tells a departing elder that the church will not slander him. It tells a prospective member what the church believes before she joins. None of this is glamorous, and none of it saves anyone. But it creates the conditions in which the love, holiness, and truth of the gospel can be practiced in a body rather than only talked about in a sermon.
Biblical fidelity check
Scripture does not command churches to adopt a document called a constitution, and it does not prescribe a single form of church governance. Matthew 18:15-20 and Acts 15 establish the principles of order, honesty, restoration, and corporate decision-making, but they do not hand down a model charter, a quorum, a voting threshold, or a membership roll. 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 give qualifications for elders but not a nomination procedure. Anyone who claims the Bible mandates a specific constitution, or that a particular polity is the only biblical one, has gone beyond what the text actually establishes. Faithful Christians have governed their churches differently, and honesty requires saying so.
A common misreading is to treat Matthew 18 as a formula for binding a church to whatever two or three people agree on, as though Jesus' promise of his presence guarantees that any small group's decision carries divine authority. The passage is about restoring a sinning brother under God's word, not about sanctifying private agendas. Another misreading treats Acts 15 as a permanent apostolic court whose rulings a modern constitution can reproduce. The apostles are not repeatable, and their letter is Scripture, not a template for a church's minutes. What the passage does establish is that settling disputes by reasoning from Scripture, recording the decision, and delivering it to the churches is a good and proper work.
Other passages that speak to Matthew 18:15-20
Several passages flesh out the order Jesus describes. The qualifications that a constitution should require of leaders are compared in Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3 elder qualifications compared: A Biblical Leadership Guide. The unity that discipline exists to protect is treated in What Does 1 Corinthians 1:10 Mean? Context, Theology, and Application, while the basis of that unity in God's faithfulness is examined in What Does 1 Corinthians 1:9 Mean? Context, Theology, and Application. A broader treatment of the letter's opening themes, including the church's calling and identity, appears in 1 Corinthians 1: Called, United, and Boasting in the Lord.
Frequently asked questions
Does the Bible require a church to have a constitution?
No. Scripture commands order, appoints elders, and shows the church making binding decisions, as in Acts 15, but it never mandates a document by that name. A church can be biblical without a formal constitution and unbiblical with an elaborate one. What matters is whether the church's actual practice matches Scripture's pattern: sound doctrine, qualified leaders, meaningful membership, honest discipline, and submission to Christ's word. A constitution is one wise way, not the only way, of putting that pattern in writing.
How should a church constitution handle Matthew 18 discipline?
It should write out the steps Jesus gave: private confrontation, then one or two witnesses, then the gathered church, with the goal of restoration at every stage. It should protect the accused with a clear charge and a fair hearing, identify who may bring a case, and state that only unrepentant sin leads to removal. Crucially, it should keep first-step matters small rather than turning every offense into a formal proceeding. The document serves the process; it must not replace the patient, personal love that Jesus' words require.
What is the difference between a church constitution and its statement of faith?
A statement of faith states what the church believes, and it is the heart of the constitution. The constitution also states how the church operates: membership, leadership, meetings, discipline, amendment, and relationships with other churches. Some churches combine both in one document; others keep them separate. Either way, doctrine should govern governance. A constitution that carefully defines voting procedures while leaving the gospel vague has reversed the biblical order, and it will not produce the kind of unity Acts 15 and Matthew 18 both aim at.
