LIBERTY UNIVERSITY

CHURCH GOVERNMENT

A PAPER SUBMITTED TO DR. BOB BAYLES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE COURSE DSMN 505

LIBERTY BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

BY ELKE SPELIOPOULOS

DOWNINGTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA SUNDAY, APRIL 29, 2012

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 THE SINGLE-ELDER-LED CHURCH......................................................................................... 2 THE PRESBYTERY-LED CHURCH ........................................................................................... 3 THE CONGREGATION-LED CHURCH ..................................................................................... 4 THE BISHOP-LED CHURCH ....................................................................................................... 5 THE PLURAL-ELDER-LED CHURCH ....................................................................................... 6 STRENGTH AND WEAKNESSES OF EACH MODEL ............................................................. 7 CHURCH MODEL AT CALVARY FELLOWSHIP CHURCH .................................................. 8 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................... 9 BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................................... 10

iii

INTRODUCTION Churches hold to distinct and different forms of church polity. For Protestant believers, this is a topic, which has led to the division of local bodies during the past centuries of Christian history since the Reformation, when the Protestant faith groups first formed and distanced themselves from the Roman Catholic Church. While the Roman Catholic Church had been run in an Episcopal model, new polity models began forming apart from the Episcopal form of church government, according to Brand and Norman, which is also seen in Anglican/Episcopalian or Methodist bodies): the Presbyterian, the Congregational (as observed in Baptist or Congregationalist bodies), the Erastian (national state church), and the minimalist or nongovernmental models, such as practiced by Quakers or Plymouth Brethren.1 Welch alters this description slightly when he writes that with regard to religious organizations, polity may be categorized as a monarchial system, and episcopate, a loose hierarchy, or congregational in format.2 Zahl rightfully writes that church is a fought-over landscape in the history of Christianity.3 While each of the models presented have proponents in their respective denominations, for non-denominational churches, these church polities are at best guidance, and in some of these local bodies, hybrid models have begun to arise. This is the case at the authors home church, a non-denominational, Bible-teaching church in Downingtown, PA. The mixing of elements of elder-led and congregational church polities seeks to provide the best of two models to the congregation.
Robert H. Welch, Church Administration: Creating Efficiency for Effective Ministry (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2005), 26.
2 3 1

Ibid., 66.

Daniel Akin et al., Perspectives on Church Government: 5 Views, ed. Chad Owen Brand, and Norman (Nashville, TN: B & H Academic, 2004), 213.

THE SINGLE-ELDER-LED CHURCH Akin bases the biblical justification of a single-elder-led model of church government on the predominant evidence in Scripture on a congregational model, but allows for an elder-led approach due to the congregations equal standing before God in a Congregational model might lead to abuse where the practice of church discipline is absent.4 Akin underlines his understanding of church government models through a number of New Testament passages that make it clear that, while a church needs to govern itself, there are times when pastoral (or elder) leadership needs to balance congregational understanding and participation.5 Akin first and foremost provides ample evidence for a Congregational approach. He lists the fact that the epistles were directed to church congregations, and not to individuals, such as bishops, elders, groups of elders, or deacons. In addition, the responsibility for upholding the truth of doctrine fell on the church body as a whole.6 The local body highlights the priesthood of all believers, a central understanding of Scripture for Protestant believers.7 However, as he highlights, the priesthood of all believers does not mean I am my own priest.8 In that sense, it is important to remember what Akin writes about ensuring doctrinal accountability in congregations: "God has graced the church with both men and women who possess the gift of teaching. They are invaluable to the well-being of the church, and their importance should never be minimized.... Doctrinal accountability is the responsibility of all believers in the body of Christ as they submit themselves to the lordship of Christ under the authority of his Word." 9
4 5 6 7 8 9

Ibid., 28. Ibid., 29. Ibid., 33. Ibid., 35. Ibid., 37. Ibid., 38.

To ensure that congregations remain under the arbitration of the final authority of Gods Word, Atkins sees a need for a leadership within a congregation. He points to the Didache, a writing possibly dating back to the end of the first or beginning of the second century A.D., which speaks of electing bishops and deacons and says that this model strikes a beautiful balance between congregational participation and pastoral leadership as reflected also in the New Testament. He continues, The congregation has a voice in who leads them, but once these leaders are chosen, the members of the congregation are obligated to honor and follow them unless they (the leadership) are disqualified through immoral, unethical, or unscriptural behavior.10 Akin argues that the single-elder-led model is biblical based on such passages in Scripture as Exodus 18:13-18, where Jethro counsels his son-in-law Moses to set himself as a senior leader over leaders.11 The leader has to be based upon spiritual qualification for service.12 THE PRESBYTERY-LED CHURCH Reymond argues for the Presbytery-led model of church government. Presbyterian etymologically comes from the Greek words presbyteros, meaning old(er) man and presbyterion, meaning body (or council) of elders.13 Presbyterian church government, in Reymonds definition, means governance of the church by elders/overseers in graded courts, with these officers executing the responsibilities of their office in unison and on a parity with each other, and with the material care and service of the church being looked after by deacons (known corporately as the diaconate) under the supervision of the elders/overseers.14
10 11 12 13 14

Ibid., 39. Ibid., 66. Ibid., 67. Ibid., 91. Ibid., 93.

In Presbytery-led churches, there is an understanding that the men elected to be elders, while elected by the congregation, are ultimately chosen by Christs will and are placed in office by the Holy Spirit. As such, they are not there to do everything according to the congregations bidding,15 but rather they are to rule and oversee the congregation, not primarily in agreement with the will of the congregation but primarily in agreement with the revealed Word of God.16 One of the primary reasons for a Presbyter-led model is the connectional government of graded courts17, which provide accountability and dependency on each other. Reymonds argues this model is biblically based on evidence such as the Antiochean church leaders forming themselves into a sort of presbytery (Acts 13:1-3) or the Council of Jerusalem, which suggests such an approach, in Acts 15.18 The church in Antioch seemed to not feel they had sufficient authority to settle for themselves the terms of church membership in their churches, yet deliberating together, they determined the path ahead regarding church membership.19 Reymond sees this model of church government as a direct reflection of the church depicted in Acts 15.20 THE CONGREGATION-LED CHURCH Garrett defines Congregational polity as the form of church governance in which final human authority rests with the local or particular congregation when it gathers for decisionmaking.21 Garrett provides a broad approach to this type of church governance, as he allows for
15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Ibid., 94. Ibid., 95. Ibid. Ibid., 96. Ibid., 108. Ibid., 109. Ibid., 157.

different patterns within the broader model, both externally and internally. Externally, this can mean that a congregation may choose to associate with like-minded congregations on such matters as missions or education. 22 Internally, different structures may be found, such as those involving pastor and deacons, pastor-deacons-committees, or pastor-deacons-committees-church council structures. In all of these forms, however, the congregation is the final authority.23 The New Testament provides ample evidence for a congregational approach to church governance, and Garrett provides sufficient examples. He outlines how the Congregational model shifted to more structured models of church polity as the centuries passed, until Martin Luther during the Reformation brought the focus back on congregational authority in choosing its pastor and leadership. Baptists have adopted this form since their beginnings. English Baptist confessions testify to congregational selection and calling of ministers.24 Garrett does raise the difficulty of a congregation-led large church, where instead a heavy centering on the pastors authority has occurred. Yet, as he concludes, Congregational polity has several advantages, such as the fairness it provides to the members, the flexibility in patterns or structures, the development of loyalty in the church body, and the producing of more mature believers.25 THE BISHOP-LED CHURCH In Episcopal polity, there are three orders (or levels) of ordination: deacon, elder (or presbyter), and bishop.26 Only bishops can perform the rite of confirmation. The bishop also has the authority to ordain presbyters and deacons. This trifold order is intended to safeguard the
22 23 24 25 26

Ibid., 158. Ibid. Ibid., 176. Ibid., 192-94. Ibid., 226-27.

catholicity of the church: preaching the pure Word of God and administering the two sacraments of baptism and communion faithfully.27 Several elements can provide negative outcomes in this model, according to Zahl. First, prelacy can become a problem, i.e. the authoritarian rule of one man. Second, the structure given can lend an element of churchiness to church governance and life. Third, it may not be able to provide the right tools to discipline bishops who err theologically.28 Finally, this model of church governance, according to Zahl, arises from a strong sense of tradition. Reflection of tradition can be seen in the clinging to a strict liturgy according to its prayer-book tradition. Episcopalians believe in the three-legged stool of Scripture, tradition, and reason.29 Zahl underlines that the system of bishops attains an ideal of Bible doctrine, but warns that Episcopacy evacuates into power when prelacy takes over, and it turns to mush when theological discipline proves impossible and when churchiness, hence distance from real life, is attracted to it. 30 THE PLURAL-ELDER-LED CHURCH White argues for a plural-elder led form of church governance. He clarifies that if the local churches are seen to function independently, then it follows that the offices established by God in those churches are sufficient, in and of themselves.31 Much of Whites argument centers on the self-sufficiency of the local body of believers. White cites examples such as the church at
27 28 29 30 31

Ibid., 228. Ibid., 231-34. Ibid., 238-39. Ibid., 240. Ibid., 259.

Ephesus, which does not appear to exercise jurisdictional control over another church in the area.32 White offers much of the same biblical argumentation as Akin or even Garrett in support of independent congregations, yet focuses the remainder of his discussion on the evidence of plurality in the elder-led churches of the New Testament. He sees evidence that the elders were considered equals amongst each other.33 There may be differences between ruling and teaching elders, but these seem to be handled differently in congregations. The single-pastor (or elder) model brings with it the danger of a loss of checks and balances. White argues that this is avoided with the biblical plural-elder-led model of church polity.34 Having multiple elders also facilitates exercising church discipline. To White, this is the only biblically supported model. STRENGTH AND WEAKNESSES OF EACH MODEL Single-elder-led: This is a model that may work well for a smaller local body. As White points out, it leads to a loss of checks and balances, and as such, it would be important to balance this model with the appropriate councils. Presbytery-led: There is a benefit in coming together for the reason of accountability, yet the danger is inherent in this model that it might deteriorate to the level warned about in the bishop-led model: changes in theology or even complete missteps moving away from an orthodox faith may be harder to combat in a run by presbytery approach. Congregation-led: Even in this definition, Garrett qualifies that a congregation may delegate decisions to an individual member or group of members, taking the congregational
32 33 34

Ibid., 262. Ibid., 280. Ibid., 283.

approach almost back to a single-elder or plural-elder-led approach without outright saying this. As such, this model seems to underlie in many ways the elder-led approaches. Bishop-led: This, by far, seems to be the most dangerous way of leading a church. As Zahl points out, power plays are very quickly possible, as are serious doctrinal errors that are hard to correct. It also appears to have the least biblical backing, but rather seems to be an overlay structure from later centuries that tradition has kept in place. Plural-elder-led: This model seems to provide the most checks and balances of all the systems offered. By having a group of elders make decisions for the body, based on a framework for how long each elder may serve, the danger of power plays has been largely curtailed. In addition, the congregations choosing of the elders will empower the congregation to a degree to ensure their desires and concerns are represented. CHURCH MODEL AT CALVARY FELLOWSHIP CHURCH Calvary Fellowship Church, the authors home church, is based on a plurality-elder led governance model, yet has a strong built-in element of congregation affirmation. The church was founded on the frameworks of two smaller fellowships over thirty years ago, and as such, slightly divergent opinions of church polity were brought together. This model is a very workable model for Calvary Fellowship Church with a weekly attendance of about 2,000. The congregation is not surprised by elder board decisions, rather major decisions (such as a senior pastor confirmation) is always managed via a congregational affirmation vote. This also includes the incoming elders and the head of the elder board. While the elders propose the names, the congregation is asked to affirm via a congregational vote. Alternative models would not work with a group of educated, high-income families, many of which have members that work in high-profile careers and are used to decision processes not dissimilar to that offered within the congregation. As such, Calvary Fellowship

Church has found them most workable form of church government for the local body of believers. CONCLUSION Zahl writes that protestant version of the New Testament church aspire to be catholic in the true sense of the word.35 This holds true for the models of church polity presented in the book reviewing five different models of governance. Each of these models is based on verses that support how they were arrived at in Scripture. Ultimately, believers want to be faithful to the Lord they follow. While various types of church polity may even be needed for different situations in which local bodies of Christ find themselves, they should not be reason for division. In the local body of the writer, two models, the congregational and the plural-elder-led models have found a home. Neither of them is expressed to the exclusion of the other, making congregational life by and large irenic as the congregation does not feel deprived of its role in decision-making. It is, for this local body, the preferred and right model of government. This may change as the church continues to grow or as church plants are spun off that need to reinvestigate what the best model of church governance is for them. In it all, may Christ be glorified!

35

Ibid., 209.

10

BIBLIOGRAPHY Akin, Daniel, James Leo Garrett Jr., Robert L. Reymond, James R. White, and Paul F. M. Zahl. Perspectives on Church Government: 5 Views. Edited by Chad Owen Brand, and R. Stanton Norman. Nashville, TN: B & H Academic, 2004. Welch, Robert H. Church Administration: Creating Efficiency for Effective Ministry. Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2005.