I want to put the following article into the FIDE-O archives. It is a worthy opinion of a fellow blogger, Ben at PALEOEVANGELICAL
Once every few months I find myself in a conversation about church polity. When I describe what I believe, more often than not people hear something different from what I’m saying. In the interests of clarity, I thought I might offer a few of these misconceptions and how I respond to them
For starters, however, I believe that the biblical pattern of church leadership is a plurality of elders responsible for the oversight and spiritual leadership of the church. Deacons are the servants of the church, not the spiritual leaders. (Just like non-deacons in the church, they may well be capable of spiritual leadership and provide spiritual leadership even though it is outside the parameters of their office.) The elders lead the congregation, but 1 Timothy 5:17 and Hebrews 13:17 imply that their office includes some sort of ruling function.
Despite the elders’ role of leadership, the congregation is the final human authority in the church. Scripture either teaches directly or implies that the congregation is involved in selecting the elders and deacons and the final stages of church discipline. The congregation may or may not be involved in decision-making beyond those matters, depending on the wisdom and prudence in specific situations in specific churches.
Within that context, here are the misconceptions I’ve encountered most often about people who hold to plural elder led congregationalism.
- We deny congregationalism. [Certainly not. As I noted above, the congregation is the final decision-making authority in the most important matters the church faces. In many such churches, the congregation is also involved in other matters, such as the budget, building plans, specific expenditures, etc.]
- We deny the role of a senior pastor. [Not at all. Although Scripture does not suggest that a senior elder is the ideal, there does seem to be substantial evidence that specific individuals frequently functioned as senior elders/pastors.]
- We believe in lay elders. [No way. Perhaps some folks do believe in distinction between pastoral and lay elders, but this is certainly not a universal practice. It seems clear to me from 1 Timothy 3 that all elders are to be involved in the teaching ministry of the church, even if they do not frequently or ever participate in the pulpit ministry.]
- We’re playing make-believe because the senior pastor always gets his way. [Again, this may be the case in some multiple elder led churches, but it is certainly not the case in all. It seems that some folks are so familiar with the pastor-dictator personality-driven model that they struggle to conceive that some churches are not enslaved to it, and some senior pastors are humble enough not to demand or even expect it.
One other misconception I’ve occasionally encountered is that a church thinks it is led by a plurality of elders because it has “assistant pastors.” Technically, this may meet the definition of a plurality of elders, but my sense is that the assisant pastors in those churches are essentially “junior pastors,” not real pastors of the church. More often than not, it seems, the senior pastor is the chairman of the board, the deacons are the board of trustees, and the assistant pastors are the executive vice presidents or middle managers.
Jason Robertson is the pastor of Murrieta Valley Church in Murrieta, California which he planted in 2001. He is theologically Christian, Evangelical, Baptist, and Reformed. He is married with three children. He loves riding motorcycles, fine cigars, and college football. He has a Masters of Divinity from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary and teaches Church Planting at California Baptist University.
What scriptural backing does he have for "Scripture either teaches directly or implies that the congregation is involved in selecting the elders and deacons and the final stages of church discipline"?
I don't necessarily disagree with him, but I want to know his sources.
To answer your question let me quote to you from the article post that precedes this one. Mark Dever writes, "Jesus taught His followers in Matthew 18 that the final court for matters of disputes between brothers was the congregation. So we read in Matt. 18:15-17 that the final step is to “tell it” he said, not to the elders (as I humorously told one Presbyterian translator I had when preaching one time in Brazil) but to the ekklesia, that’s the church, or the congregation, as Tyndale translated it – the assembly. So when the apostles wanted men to serve in waiting on the needs of some poorer members among the church in Jerusalem, in Acts 6, Luke notes that the proposal the apostles made “pleased the whole group.” Luke proceeds in Acts 6:5 to list the people to fulfill these duties, and the people were chosen by the church.
Paul implicitly taught the Galatians in Galatians 1 that the final court to settle disagreements in matters of doctrine is the congregation. Paul exhorted these young Christians in Galatia, that even if he—an apostle!—should come and preach a different gospel than the one they had already accepted, then they should reject him, or whoever the errant missionary is. It is interesting that Paul said this to young Christians—he wasn’t writing to the elders. And he was writing about the matters of the most theological importance—the gospel itself! And yet, he resided his trust in them. They knew the gospel that had saved them! The cognitive content of the gospel is more significant than even claims to apostolic call, let alone succession! And Paul assumes that that message is perspicuous, even to young believers.
Paul taught the Corinthians in I Corinthians 5 that the final court to settle matters of discipline is the congregation. Paul writes about the scandalous situation in the Corinthian church, and he writes not just to the pastor or leadership, but to the whole congregation! He tells the whole congregation that they are to act, and to continue to act in not associating with this man.
And finally on this point of congregationalism, Paul taught the Corinthians in II Corinthians 2:6-8 that the final court to determine church membership is the congregation. He wrote to them about a repentant sinner whom they had earlier excluded: “The punishment inflicted on him BY THE MAJORITY is sufficient for him. Now instead, you ought to forgive and comfort him, so that he will not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. I urge you, therefore, to reaffirm your love for him.” Paul writes to the whole congregation about an action they had taken as a whole, urging them now to take a different course.
Much more could be said about this context of congregationalism, but I hope enough has been said to distinguish biblical elder leadership within a congregational context from unbiblical elder rule which does not recognize the Biblical role of the congregation. So this Biblical elder-led congregationalism is distinct from Presbyterianism, because it will never appeal outside of the congregation to find another final backstop against sin and wrong. The congregation may shirk that responsibility, but it will never lose it. Furthermore, this Biblical elder-led congregationalism is distinct from the kind of elder-rule we see in many independent and Bible churches because it recognizes that finally it must be the congregation as a whole who takes responsibility for its life together—for disputes and doctrine, for discipline and membership. The evidence is slight, but consistent and clear."
Jude, I hope this gives you what you were looking for.
Thanks for the response Jason. It completely answered my question. I appreciate it.
Wow this discussion has been dead for a while but I thought is was a great article! I agree with almost everything with the exception of the final human authority being placed in the congregation. I admit that I’m an outsider to this discussion and am still sorting out how to implement a truly biblical understanding of the elder’s role in the Body of Christ, but I don’t find support for the idea of congregational authority being the final human authority in the scriptures.
I noticed above that the examples you gave regarding church discipline had more to do with the congregation enforcing a decision made by the leadership than the congregation actually having the authority to make the decision for itself.
In the Corinthian case if the congregation had chosen to not follow Paul’s advice would they have been correct in doing so because the final authority rested with them? I would say no but would like to here your thoughts.
With regard to the Galatians passage I would say that again the congregation is obviously first supposed to submit to Christ. I don’t believe that Paul is implicitly teaching them anything about church government there or congregational authority. The Galatian church is struggling against a Judaizing (sp) influence there and Paul is simply exorting them to remain faithful to the truth of the gospel. No church government statement is implied. Paul addresses the whole church and not just the elders because the whole church is under attack.
In the Acts passage the apostles delegated a ministry that they were unable to personally fulfill to men who could. I think it is an unwarranted jump to say that because the crowd approved of the plan that they were the final line of authority for the apostles. These examples are great examples of what happens when God and His people work together but they are not mandates that this is the way that it must work. It seems to be more common in scripture that God and the congregation are at odds with each other than the other way around.
With regards to the Matthew passage, this is the best verse to argue for some sort of congregational authority as the final say but the truth of the sin has already been established (by two or three witnesses) long before the matter is brought to the congregation for a unified opinion. Again this seems to be a case of the congregation supporting an established truth that has been previously decided not of a congregational decision being made. I would love to continue this conversation and am open to having my opinion changed. God bless you and your Body of Believers.
Thanks for taking the time to listen.
This debate has been going on for many years. The senior pastor model has numerous serious problems. One is the cult of personality, another is the abuse of power which makes the plurality of elders a fiction. In a church that has a genuine plurality of ruling and teaching the question "who is the pastor of this church" should produce a blank stare from a member of the congregation. Some baptist churches in the past have avoided the centralization of power in the senior pastor by replacing him every few years. Not sure if that is the best way to address the problem.
In actuality many churches really do have "lay elders" (you will even hear them sometimes referred to as such) who essentially function as Presbyterian "ruling elders" do, even though they typically will deny that they make a distinction between teaching and ruling elders.
What is the biblical passage that teaches that there is such an such an office as "lay elder"?
Were there such differences in the early churches?
Why doesn't a lay elder practice "ruling" that elders are instructed to practice?
I just don't find the different offices in the Scripture. It seems to me that either the lay elders are abdicating their duties or they are doing their duties but aren't being respected with equal authority.
Were am I wrong?
some good thoughts on balancing biblical leadership (plurality of elders) with biblical polity (congregational).
I think your #4 point is as much a misconception made by many "senior" pastors as it by church folk. Multiple elders doesn't equate to plural elders. Likewise having a bunch of Assistant Pastors should be distinguished from true plurality of eldership.
Pastor Robertson
So…To be in alignment with the New Testament, any Pastor of a congregational church should be able to answer this question clearly and quickly right? “Who are the individuals who are the overseers of this church?” regardless of whether or not it is run by a council.
a fifth idea “we’re playing make-believe because the church is really controlled by a coalition of ruling families who hold titles and use multiple power and influnce tactics”
Pastor Robertson,
You are so right. I have served in churches where this is case.
Keep plugging away… remember who you are serving.