ELDER-LED
CHURCH POLITY: ITS THEOLOGY AND PRACTICE
Interplay between congregationalist rule and elder-led rule
in local churches (especially in the United States) has seemingly increased in
recent decades so much that churches are increasingly making a transition from
a congregationalist model to rule by a plurality of elders. The
transition often seems and proves to be a daunting task but a necessary one to
conform to New Testament standards. In this paper, I will contend for a church
polity that is led by a plurality of elders, as such a model most closely
aligns with the biblical model.
The New Testament does not disclose a single correct polity
but, without being explicit, paints with a broad stroke in its support for
elder-led leadership. For manifold reasons, direction by a body of elders
affords multiple benefits for the local church. First, elder-led polity is a
joint responsibility, which naturally yields greater accountability among
leaders. Second, as an extension of the local church body, an elder-led model
most accurately portrays the body of Christ. Third, the elder-led model is a
tried-and-true method for local church leadership and has been employed since
the early church. If God’s people desire to conform to the New Testament model,
the elder-led model works best.
This paper will also oppose the most commonly employed
model in Western culture: the congregationalist model by presenting two common
issues that arise in congregationalism:
1) little accountability and
2) too much responsibility placed upon one person.
In the
interaction between both models, the elder-led model will be met with staunch
biblical and practical support.
Elder-Led
Polity Is a Joint Responsibility (A Plurality)
An elder-led model of leadership works largely because the
local church is overseen by a plurality of elders. The biblical responsibility
of eldership extends to local congregations of the people of God. “Elders
were an integral part of the synagogue hierarchy. An elder could have been a
benefactor of a synagogue and might have been one of its founders.”[3] In
an age when a culture increasingly seems to stand against authority where they
may, polity matters, especially that
which most conforms to biblical models.
Admittedly,
elder-led church polity is not the one and only model of biblical organization
(e.g. Christ has granted liberty to the church in how she is to properly
function); yet, for manifold reasons, the model works. For three primary
reasons, elder-led church tends to be more effective than other models:
1)
a
plurality of elders is a joint effort with greater accountability and less
opportunity for abuse of power;
2)
the efficacy of the pastoral equipping responsibility is
enhanced; and
3)
in an elder-led model, the tasks of the church are handed to
the saints for the work of ministry.
Biblical eldership takes on multiple meanings. For example,
in the Old Testament scriptures, as representatives of the people, often, “the
whole congregation” and “the elders of the congregation” took on the same
meaning. With
such a broad perspective, one should consider what is implied in the office of
a biblical elder.
As numerous passages in
the New Testament indicate, the words elder (presbuteros), overseer (episkopos),
and pastor (poim¯en) all refer to the same office. In other words,
overseers and pastors are not distinct from elders; the terms are simply
different ways of identifying the same people.”
In every case, Scripture refers to elders in a plural sense (i.e. a unified
body of leaders rather than a singular person from which the hierarchy flows).
As such, the responsibility of eldership is one that is combined, which yields
multiple benefits.
A primary advantage of
the elder-led model is greater accountability. In an elder-led model, there
subsists less opportunities for abuse of power since a safeguard against such
is built in the plural board of leaders. Scripture is clear on the exceeding
qualifications of elders (1 Tim 3:1-7, Tit 1:6-9), for the role is not one to
be taken lightly (1 Tim 3:1); thus, in theory, one who is an elder will have
been vetted for character and preparedness. Moreover, in an elder-led model
such a process of vetting is more conducive than other models. In other words,
an elder may be brought up in a particular local church and already known by
her congregants.
In an elder-led model,
most often the local church is led by a plurality of elders rather than a
singular individual. As such, not only does the congregation hold its board of
elders accountable, the board of elders itself holds one another accountable. Therefore,
there are less opportunities for abuse of power. In an elder-led model,
significant decisions regarding the ministry of the local church flow through
plurality of elders so that one person does not hold the weight of such
decisions. Additionally, studies have shown that churches who have elder-led
models experience “better health and unity, experienced less conflict, and had
more trust from their congregations.”
Perhaps, attributed to the plural nature of eldership rather than a singular
person making weighty decisions, elders serve as representatives of the
congregation. Therefore, even when there subsists conflict among the board of
elders, decisions are often not made until the body has reached a consensus.
Furthermore, an
elder-led model yields greater potential for pastoral equipping ministry. The
Apostle Paul attests that pastors
hold the ministry of equipping the saints for the work of ministry (Eph
4:11-13). While some interpret the work of ministry as a primary function of
pastors, the context suggests that pastors function as equippers so that the
saints (or congregants) achieve the “unity of the faith”
(Eph 4:12). As such, equipping the saints should be considered of utmost
importance. Without claiming that elders are exempt from the work of ministry
(for certainly, all believers hold the responsibility to serve the Lord in the
local church), congregants cannot serve in their local contexts if they are not
equipped.
A plurality of elders
allows for greater opportunity to equip. Elders are given authority over the
flock to whom they have been called (Heb 13:7, 17). “This is not an authority to intimidate, but an
authority to empower and equip the church for ministry.” Based upon
the premise that the word of God is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting,
and training (2 Tim 3:16-17), pastoral equipping ministry is derived from the
authority of Scripture, the tool God has offered his people for such a purpose.
Elders possess disparate
gifts, which God intends to use for his glory in the work of ministry. Thus, a
plurality of elders bids greater potential
to equip the saints for the work of ministry so that local churches are fully
equipped and may function as God designed. A
plural eldership multiplies the number of equipped leaders serving the church
because there are more people equipping. Additionally, men that feel called to
pursue eldership but have difficulty as a sole leader tend to excel on a
leadership team, thereby providing leadership opportunities that were not there
previously.
The
overarching consensus of Scripture seemingly points to an elder-led model.
Without explicitly conveying a one and only biblical model, New Testament representations lean heavily toward the concept of elder-led
church polity. As a plurality of elders, greater accountability exists as well
as a greater employment of elders to whom local churches have been given.
Christian origins hold their roots in the apostolic acts of the New Testament.
Therefore, the models implemented by the modern church should adhere (as best
as possible) to the models found the early church. One such model is an
elder-led local church leadership. God’s design is for elders to lead his
people effectively and efficiently. The contention here then is that as the
most prominent biblical model, an elder-led church polity should be employed in
the local church.
Elder-Led Church Polity Most Accurately Portrays the Body of
Christ
The Apostle Paul
discusses unity in the body of Christ extensively, even presenting her in terms
of a human body (Eph 4:1-16). As such, the body of Christ is to function as a
single unit comprised of many individuals. On a smaller scale, elders should
function in the same manner. Elders may be viewed as representatives of the
body of Christ and so doing, an extension of the body. Thus, elders should
portray the body of Christ operationally.
Unity in the body of
Christ is a perpetual fact and not something to be achieved, for it has already
been achieved. For this reason, at every level, unity should be displayed
including with bodies of elders. Of the benefits of an elder-led model,
significance exists in 1) the display of unity and 2) an even distribution of
responsibility among local church leaders. In this manner, an elder-led model
most accurately portrays the body of Christ.
An elder-led model
firstly portrays the body of Christ in its display of unity. As the body of
Christ is unified, so also is the board of elders. The biblical concept of
eldership includes oversight (i.e. no matter which Greek term is utilized, it
is the inherent responsibility of elders to provide leadership of local
churches). As
an extension of the local church, elder decisions should reflect the will of
God through the people of God on a smaller scale. Nonetheless, elder decisions
could be considered God’s visible working among his people magnified, for such
leadership should stem from the Spirit’s work in the local church. In other
words, congregants are not exempt from the work of ministry, for truly, elders
are given to the local church to equip for such a purpose.
One might consider
instances of what seems to be disunity in the church and wonder how such cases
exemplify the unity of Christ. Unity, however, does not imply agreeing on
everything with all brothers and sisters in Christ. Rather, unity means living
in peace, εἰρηνεύω (eirēneuō), with one
another (Rom 12:18). Living in unity with brothers and sisters in Christ is
predicated upon a broad harmony with one another that may only come from the
Holy Spirit. Where such unity is not present, God’s people do not represent who
they truly are in the Spirit.
The church’s weekly
worship gathering is a comprehensive demonstration of the unity that only
exists in the church.
…words play a peculiarly important
role (in contrast to primitive worship where the action is dominant and the
word seems to have little role at all), first because faith comes by
hearing—the word must be proclaimed—and secondly because response in words is
the specifically human way by which man makes known to himself and to others
that he has received the word.
Each
week, God’s people are equipped to serve by those whom God has placed among
local churches for the role of equipping; faith, thus, comes by hearing and
hearing by the word of God (Rom 10:17). At a macro level then, unity is
revealed in corporate worship as the body of Christ endeavors to worship; at a
micro level, unity is also revealed as the body of elders equips the saints for
the work of ministry and leads the congregation in doing so.
A second significant way
in which an elder-led model accurately portrays the body of Christ is by its
even distribution of responsibility among local church leaders. Delegation is
nothing new in the design of God. In fact, Moses’ Father-in-Law, Jethro,
instructs him to delegate roles to people to alleviate the pressure and
responsibility on which he took (Exod 18:13-26). The church, as a singular
organism or body, is not designed to do life alone. God’s people are to
function as one body. Even in disagreement, the body is to function in harmony
with one another.
As an extension of the
local church, the board of elders is to also function in harmony with one
another. The local church should not be tasked to make every single decision on
their own, which is why elders exist: to lead and oversee the church in
governing decisions. Nonetheless, because the local body has vetted and
scrutinized the board of elders, they are trusted with ecclesiastical authority
to make leadership decisions concerning the ministry of the local church.
In an elder-led model, a
persistent difficulty is determining what to do with the board of deacons if
such exists. Often (wrongly), deacons are considered the governing body of a
local church. Deacons, however, are meant to care for the needs of the people,
especially those of the widows (Acts 6:1-6). The choosing of such men from
among the congregation was for the purpose of allowing the elders to focus on
prayer and the ministry of the word (Acts 6:4).
Thus, a church that seeks to transition from a congregationalist model to an
elder-led model might struggle since the focus of ministry is vastly disparate.
The
body of Christ is not designed as an organization of individuals doing what
they wish, for the church is indeed a living organism that should function in
unity and harmony with one another. In the same method, the board of elders, as
an extension of the local church, should lead the local church in the unity of
the Spirit. Even in churches where transition to an elder-led model is
necessary, unity offers a stark reality that is only possible in the Spirit of
God. Often churches discover little opposition in the transition to an
elder-led model, which is likely due to the transition process itself (i.e. the
local congregation has entrusted elders with leadership decisions and has
resolved to allow them to lead in such matters).
“The elders are also
responsible for making day-to-day decisions in order to avoid the
unwieldy task of taking every decision directly to the congregation.”
As individual believers are not
meant to live the Christian life alone, the local church is not meant to
function in ministry alone. This is why local churches are given elders: to
lead them in the ways of the Lord. In this way, the board of elders most
represents the body of Christ.
An Elder-Led Model Involves a Tried-and-True Approach to
Local Church Leadership
A final reason to contend
for an elder-led model is that such a model involves a tried-and-true approach
to local church leadership.
For centuries, an elder-led model has been the typical
model employed by local churches. In fact, the congregationalist model so often
utilized in modern churches was not employed until the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries.
In the Shepherd
of Hermas, a team of elders is described as directing the congregation.
People bring questions to the elders, seeking insight (Shepherd of Hermas, 8.2; 9.8). The elders are responsible (along
with the deacons) for caring for widows, orphans and the poor (Shepherd of Hermas, 103.2; 105.2). As
with 1 Clement, the elders are
distinguished from other church members and are given honored seats in the
congregation.[19]
The usual
polity employed by local churches, however, has been elder-led. For this
reason, the elder-led model is a tried and tested approach to the ministry of
the local church, and church history should be heavily considered in matters of
church polity.
The elder-led model holds centuries of
ecclesiastical use and praxis. Time-tested and church-tried, the elder-led
model has proven effective over time. When offered as a theological argument
from a biblical perspective, one might wonder why the local church would ever
deviate from the historic and theological roots of the elder-led
model. In response, three primary supports are offered for the tried-and-true
approach to elder-led polity:
1)
the
historical support,
2)
the
theological support, and
3)
the
practical support.
First is the historical support. Some might
argue that every church has both elders (a small group of governing officials
from among its body) and every church has congregational rule (for surely, the
ministry of the church will not continue without the blessing of the
congregation).
Nevertheless, the elder-led model fits the New Testament polity in a broad
sense in that
1) all believers in a given
city were referred to as the church in that city and were led by a board of
elders (Acts 8:1, 1 Cor 1:2, 1 Thess 1:1, Rev 2, 3),
2) a plurality of elders
oversaw the church in each city (Acts 20:16-17, Tit 1:5, 1 Tim 5:17),
3) the New Testament church
met in houses (1 Cor 16:19, Rom 16:3, 5, Rom 16:23, Rom 16:10, 11, Col 4:15,
Phil 1:2, Acts 16:40),
4) each house church had an
elder (1 Tim 3:2, 1 Tim 3:8, 1 Pet 5:2), and
5) the elders did ministry
together (Jas 5, Acts 15:22, 1 Tim 4:14, Tit 1:9, Acts 20:30-31).
Such is the model of the
early church, but to understand the historical significance of eldership, its
origin must be considered. An elder-led model is not a dismissal of pastoral
responsibility, for throughout history, God has appointed singular men to exercise
leadership over God’s people. Thus, the elder-led model merely enhances
leadership rather than dismissing it. I contend that a board of elders is a
plurality (i.e. a body of leaders with equal weight in the governing matters of
the local church).
As a matter of church
history, since the New Testament is to be the model of ecclesiastical function, it should be noted that:
the New Testament evidence itself
seems to favor a plurality of elders as the standard model. The book of Acts
tells us that as the apostles planted churches, they appointed “elders” (from
the Greek term πρεσβυτέρος) to oversee them (Acts 11:30; 14:23; 15:2; 20:17).
Likewise, Titus is told to “appoint elders in every town” (Tit 1:5).
Therefore, as the New Testament leans
heavily toward the elder-led model, so also should the modern church. God has
reasons for instructing an elder-led model, not the least of which are its
practical and multi-faceted advantages in the local church’s functions as a
harmonious body of believers. A board of elders aids in ensuring that the body
of Christ carries out acts of ministry in a unified manner. Surely, not every
believer may agree on every single issue. Contrarily, all believers, in the
unity of the Spirit, can and should function in harmony with one another as
they are led by a multiplicity who lead as an extension of their local
dynamics.
There exists also a theological support for an elder-led
model of church polity. God is a God of order (1 Cor 14:33) and has designed
his bride, the church, to be a body of order. This is why the Apostle Paul
discusses unity within the body to a great extent. Even in the triune Godhead,
there is an order: namely Father, Son, and Spirit, and each member functions
with a distinct role. In
the same fashion, God has designed his church to operate in a clearly organized
way and, thus, has given her elders through which Spirit-empowered leadership
and decisions may flow. On the theological premise of a God of order who
ordains that his people perform in the manner he sees fit, the best fit for
church polity in the New Testament appears to be the elder-led means.
Additionally, theological support for an elder-led model
possesses roots in election. A congregation is not without obligation to the
selection of elders, for the local church is tasked with choosing the elders
who will lead among them (Acts 6:1-6). The obligation to choose from among them
grants believers the role of praying and vetting candidates to lead them. As
God has a purpose in the election of his saints, a congregation must resolve
with intent to honor God in the election of her leaders. A congregation’s
requirement to choose from among them elders does not negate their
responsibility to serve. In fact, the purpose of a local church’s selection of
elders is to enhance the ministry of the local church. Therefore, the election
of elders is a vital component of local church ministry.
Moreover, as a matter of practical advantages, the elder-led
approach to church polity again holds a fast connection to New Testament
origins. As in the case of Moses and Jethro (Exod 18), a body of elders works
better than a singular person leading God’s people, for the various gifts
dispersed among the body enhance the ministry of the local church. Where one
person’s gifts may lack, another’s may offer strengths. In a practical way
then, God’s people are represented through by their leaders and ministry is
enhanced.
An elder-led model lacks no historical,
theological, and practical support, which leads to an overarching pontification
of why a New Testament church would not adhere to the principles set by God in
Scripture. The elder-led model has been a tried-and-true method of church
polity for centuries and especially in the early church. Furthermore, its
manifestation as a plurality of elders most displays the model of the New
Testament. With historical, theological, and practical support, while churches
have wavered from their New Testament origins, local congregations should
resolve with haste to conform to the most apparent New Testament model: namely
the elder-led model.
Problems with
Congregationalist Polity
The interplay here is between the elder-led model of the New
Testament and congregationalism.
Congregationalism arose in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. “It occupies a theological position
somewhere between Presbyterianism and the more radical Protestantism of
the Baptists
and Quakers.” Most congregationalist
churches function in an autonomous manner (i.e. a larger governing body does
not preside over local church functions or ministries).
Although it
was not always true in the early days in America, congregationalists have
generally been distrustful of state establishment of religion and have worked
for civil and religious liberty. Their emphasis on the rights of the particular
congregation and on freedom of conscience arose
from their strong convictions concerning
the sovereignty of
God and the priesthood of all believers. This attitude has led many of them to adopt
theological and social liberalism and to participate in the ecumenical
movement.
Within the bounds of congregationalist polity, two
primary issues persist due to its autonomous and liberal nature.
1) Within congregationalism subsists
little structure for accountability among its leaders, and
2) too much responsibility is placed upon
one person who functions much like a CEO.
These matters will be discussed boosting
the case for an elder-led polity in local churches.
First, congregationalism possesses an inherent lack of
accountability among its leaders, at least more than an elder-led model. Many
congregationalist structures accomplish the work of ministry through committees
or small teams where individuals are gifted. This allows 1) pastors and elders
to lead the congregation and 2) congregants to serve in the work of ministry to
which they are called. An apparent difficulty exists in congregationalism in
that leaders are often not allowed to lead in the manner God has called them to
do. Since they are pastors called to specific congregations, however, the local
church should allow them to lead. This difficulty is not as likely to occur in
an elder-led model since the congregation is ruled by a plurality of elders under
the lordship of Christ.
Often, congregationalist models employ a singular pastor or
elder or a small group of pastors, which creates situations in which little
accountability is left upon local church leaders. Left unchecked, the human
heart has a proclivity to pursue sin, as is the case in ecclesiastical leaders
without accountability. Furthermore, a persistent issue among congregationalist
contexts is the misuse of deacons. Deacons are given the specific tasks of
benevolence (Acts 6:1-6). In many congregationalist contexts, however, the
deacon body is utilized as an “accountability board and a sounding board for
the pastor.” In elder-led churches, there
is usually a clear distinction between elders and deacons and their roles.
A further issue in congregationalist churches is that too
much responsibility is placed upon one person: namely the pastor (or so-called
senior pastor). As was the case with Moses, therefore, the responsibility needs
to be delegated and shared between leaders who are spiritually gifted to do so.
Otherwise, the weight of work is exceedingly great, which is not intended for
one person (or even a few people to accomplish). In the book of Acts, deacons
were given to the church for the purpose of benevolence so that elders could
focus on their primary ministry task: prayer and the ministry of the word (Acts
6:4). From this designation, it should be assumed that the primary
responsibility of an elder is twofold in that regard. Therefore, to truly be a
good pastor according to the standards of the Lord, one might risk being
considered bad from the perspective of congregants. The ministry of prayer and
the word is perhaps the reason that Paul distinguishes the role of deacons from
the role of elders (1 Tim 3:2). Still, the responsibility of church governance
should be delegated to a plurality of elders rather than a singular person.
The two issues that persist most commonly
in congregationalist settings are little accountability and too much
responsibility placed upon one individual. An elder-led model solves much in
the way of those two issues. In opposition to the shortcomings of
congregationalism then, the argument for elder-led rule is enhanced and should
be accepted as the best New Testament model.
A Case for
Christ, A Case for the New Testament
The body of Christ is a single and living organism designed
to model itself after the teachings of the New Testament. Therefore, the most
fundamentally sound model for church polity is the elder-led model. Moreover,
the elder-led model that employs a plurality of elders is the most relevant to
New Testament teachings. The problems that exist surrounding the commonly
utilized congregationalist model may be largely solved by implementation of an
elder-led model. Further, the elder-led model works because of its natural
accountability structures. A biblical elder-led model also accurately reflects
the body of Christ and has been tried-and-true for centuries since the early
church. As the best New Testament model, therefore, local churches should
strive to imitate such structures and, when absent, speedily conform to the New
Testament model as a reflection of unity in the body of Christ. For this
reason, I contend that the elder-led model that functions as a plurality of
elders is the best model offered to the modern church.
