Mark Driscoll makes a distinction between ruling elders, which he is not, and the teaching elder or as Driscoll calls himself, “the primary preaching pastor.” He also says that elders “should be voted in by the elders and installed as an elder by the laying on of hands by the other elders.” I disagree with Driscoll’s lay-elder rule which eliminates congregational rule, which I believe is the Biblical church polity.
Lay-elder rule means each church is led by a session made up of ruling and teaching elders. The pastor is the teaching elder or the ordained minister. The session has governing authority over the congregation. Some of the members of the session are also members of the presbytery. Some of the members of the presbytery are members of the General assembly.
This form of church polity is wrong because elders in Scripture only have leadership over a single congregation and not multiple congregations as in the presbytery and General assembly. At the Jerusalem Conference, the elders did not exercise authority over other churches. The “whole church” was a vital part of the decision making. The decision of the Antioch church to go to Jerusalem was purely voluntary. Acts 15 does not show the supremacy of one church over another but the cooperation of two churches of like precious faith as in 1 Cor. 16:1-3.
The congregation has the ultimate authority. There are certain issues that are determined by congregational decisions such as church discipline (Matt. 18:15-17; 1 Cor. 5:13; and 2 Thess. 3:6). The buck stops with the congregation. The congregation is the final court of appeal. Denominationalists argue that there are no independent churches in the New Testament because all churches are under the apostles. There are no official apostles today. There is evidence from Acts 15 for congregational rule. The local church at Antioch voluntarily sent Paul to Jerusalem (Acts 15:3). The local church at Jerusalem received Paul (Acts 15:4). James the pastor/moderator presided over the meeting. The “whole church” at Jerusalem made the final decision (Act 15:22).
With lay-elder rule the authority is the hands of the elders who appoint the deacons and the teaching elder. This is contrary to New Testament congregational rule. Each local church elected its own officers (Acts 6; 15:22).
Mark Dever, who believes in congregational rule says “in Acts 6, we see these very apostles handing over responsibility to the congregation” (Nine Marks of a Healthy Church, page 222). The apostles, like Jesus in Matthew 18:15-17 in reference to church discipline, endorsed congregational rule in regard to the appointment of church officers.
At first Paul (Acts 14:23) or an apostolic representative (Tit.1:5) appointed pastors. Later churches chose (2 Cor. 8:19 “chosen by the church” [Gk cheirotonesantes] and Acts 14:23) those chosen by the Holy Spirit (Acts 20:28; Eph. 4:11). The fact that the Head of the Church is Christ (Eph. 4:15-16) and each believer is a believer/priest (1 Pet. 2:5, 9) both argue for congregational rule.
Dever makes the point that all churches practice congregational rule no matter what their official church polity: “Every local church in Christendom, from Greek Orthodox to Pentecostal, from Roman Catholic to Baptist, from Episcopalian to Lutheran, from Presbyterian to Methodist, is congregational in nature. They exist only as the people continue to participate in their activities. When the people vote—whether at a congregational meeting or (where that’s not allowed) with their funds or their feet—the leaders of the congregation must listen” (page 225).
The advocates of lay-elder rule believe that the three terms for pastors in the New Testament are interchangable based on these texts: Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Peter 5:2; 1 Timothy 3:2, 17; Titus 1:5, 7. Wayne Grudem writes, “Elders are also called ‘pastors’ or ‘bishops’ or ‘overseers’ in the New Testament (Systmatic Theology, page 913). This is also Dever’s position (page 229).
I agree that the New Testament makes no distinctions in the office of the pastor which is seen in Paul’s meeting with pastors from the Ephesian area in Miletus. In Acts 20, the pastor is called the elder in Acts 20:17 (Gr. presbuterous), overseers in Acts 20:28 (Gr. episkotous), and pastor in 20:8 (Gr. poimainein).
And yet both Grudem and Dever also advocate that the elders be divided between ruling elders (lay elders) and teaching elder (ordained elder) 1Timothy 5:17. The Scriptures do not make this distinction. The “bishop” in 1 Timohty 3:2 is to be able to teach (1 Timothy 3:2) and rule (3:4) and so are the interchangable elders in 5:17 to rule and labor in the Word. The only distinction found in 5:17 is the difference between pastors who labor diligently in the Word of God and pastors who do not labor diligently. Paul in 5;17, also teaches remuneration to local church elders. In lay-elder rule the ruling elders are not remunerated.
The context of 1Timothy argues that there are only two offices in the local church. The two offices are the office of pastor and deacons. In 1 Timothy 3, Paul uses the word “office” two times to describe the qualifications of the church’s two officers who are pastors in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and deacons in 3:8-13. There are two offices not three offices of ruling elders, teaching elders, and deacons. 1 Timothy 5:17 mentions pastors who rule and teach or labor in the word. Those same two ministeries are also found in 3:2 and 4 as qualifications of the pastor. The pastor is to perform both duties of ruling and teaching. These ministries are not divided between ruling and teaching elders.
The New Testament allows for a plurality of ordained elders or pastors with one of the pastors being the senior or lead pastors but not a plurality of lay-elders. The plurality of ordained pastors was possibly seen in Acts 14:23 and Acts 20:17. The singularity of a senior pastor is also seen in the qualification of the bishop (singular) in 1Timothy 3:1-7 and the qualifications of the deacons (plural) in 3:8-13.
“…he fact that the Head of the Church is Christ (Eph. 4:15-16) and each believer is a believer/priest (1 Pet. 2:5, 9) both argue for congregational rule…”
I like these points that support the congregational rule for the church. The Lord is the ultimate and final authority. The pastors/deacons follow the instructions from the head of the church; Christ. Any other policy or rule made by the pastors should solely be based upon the instruction and principles from the word of God. The believers are the group of priests who are able to pray and receive revelation from God individually. They are not to speak out against or try to discourage the pastor, but are to submit to his leadership under Christ, that things may be done decently and in order in the Lord. The congregations should have say in matters pertaining to major major decisions in the church by vote. .
I agree with you. This is a great set up as it makes sure to have Christ at the head, as He should be. It also calls the people to respect the level of leadership set forth in the church with the elders set in place. But still creates a sense of unity for the believers.
Caitlin, I agree with your comment here. Christ is and must be the head of all bible-believing churches. And because God Himself is a God of order (1st Cor 14:40), it only seems logical that there would be leaders in the church to ensure the proper conducting of services, ordinances, etc. The leaders, whatever people refer them to be called, are not to abuse or misuse their responsibility, but realistically speaking there roles are actually that of servants to either the pastor’s flock or as helpers as in the role of the deacons.
I agree with this line of thinking especially with what Mark Dever states in that all churches in all types are ultimately congregational in nature. This is an interesting way to view this argument in that there is no argument left. This is a logical belief supported by the churches of the New Testament. Although I would agree with congregational rule I would however not hold to a strict congregational rule only mentality. I see both congregations and elders ruling and appointing all over the New Testament (Heb 13:17, Acts 14:23, Titus 1:5, 1 Tim 4:14). I see the inclusion of both so one cannot fully exclude one or the other for they both have different facets in the church ministry and are both present there. Great blog Doc.
I go to a really small church. We do not refer to our elders as “pastors”, rather, they are our elders. Once, our lead elder wore a jersey that had “Bishop” printed on it, so I guess they’d agree that that office is the same. We have deacons, and membership is a process to enter into. We did at one time have a different elder for different roles, but since then we have resulted in their being kind of a lead and assisting elder. So when reading about the way church government was looked at and viewed in churches today I struggled on where mine fit. I would say we tend to lean more towards the congregational rule as a lot of decisions are left up to the people. But it is only after these decisions and their outcomes have been looked at by the elders in the church. This is because if they are going to be leading us into a decision, they want to make sure it is one that is honoring to the Lord and gives glory to the gospel. I do appreciate this and how they are careful to protect and guide the people. But I do also appreciate the fact that with the congregational system, as it really gets across the idea of there being unity in the body.
I agree with you Caitlin, while it is important to stress involvement with the congregation, the appointed men(elders and deacons) to rule are men and women that are trusted to make godly decisions and to shepherd the flock of God. They cannot allow certain decisions to be made if they are contrary to Scripture.
This is the way I see the chain of command fall. The head of the church is the pastor. Under that pastor are department pastors (music, ministry, membership, missions). There are deacons that assist the pastor with the follow through of decisions that have been made by the pastor and department pastors. The deacons can voice their opinions but for the most part their job is to implement a new idea or plan. When it comes to a change of a major doctrine issue the congregation is made aware and do have an assemble vote, however two “I’s” and the motion is passed. Therefore I don’t believe that the congregation has much say in the change of policy nor do the deacons. Like the statement says everything rises and falls on leadership.
Wow, I have been waiting for these chapters for a while now and am still shocked by much of what people have to say concerning the leadership concerning churches in the twenty-first century. I love when Dever says, “Every local church in Christendom, from Greek Orthodox to Pentecostal, from Roman Catholic to Baptist, from Episcopalian to Lutheran, from Presbyterian to Methodist, is congregational in nature. They exist only as the people continue to participate in their activities. When the people vote—whether at a congregational meeting or (where that’s not allowed) with their funds or their feet—the leaders of the congregation must listen” I agree that this statement is true to a point, but I also don’t know if that in fact makes them leaders of the church. Often decisions are made or votes are cast by congregants simply because they think that “is the way it has always been or that they don’t want to upset so-and-so that sits in the third pew.” Is that truly leading a church or simply allowing it to sustain as long as it can before the congregation is called upon again to “fix” the problem that was never resolved in the first place because people simply are not involved enough to make well thought out decisions.
I rarely ever hear of any group or person in a church referred to as an elder, but rather that there are two offices. These two offices include the preacher and the deacons which are voted in by the congregation. In the New Testament, Christ is said to be the head of the church and I agree with your statement that “The fact that the Head of the Church is Christ (Eph. 4:15-16) and each believer is a believer/priest (1 Pet. 2:5, 9) both argue for congregational rule.” At my church, we always recognize that every member is a minister and I believe that as a church and as a unity as the body of Christ, the congregation should be able to vote as a whole.
I grew up in an independent baptist church in Pennsylvania. We had about 150 people or so. I never heard the word “elder” until Bible college, unless it was in reference to someone older than me. So, this whole line of thought is new to me. However, I know that I have never felt right about the presbytery idea of one group of men making decisions for churches that they may not even attend, but happen to be part of their group. The local church is to be run by its own pastor and deacons in service to the congregation. Congregational rule only makes sense Scripturally. I agree, Dr. White, that there is significant evidence in Acts 6 and 15 of the church choosing their own leaders. I also agree with Dever’s idea that the congregation will ALWAYS be heard, even if not through their votes. Their choices of which things to participate in and which things to give to or whether to even attend a particular church or not will inevitably make more decisions than any group of lay-elders anywhere. All in all, though, I believe the church should govern itself under Christ, in submission to the pastor and deacons the congregation chooses for itself.
I think you allude to a good point. That is, that ultimately Christ is the head of the Church, and the job in question is how to govern under the rule of Christ. I think that the biggest difficulty with congregational governance is that unbelievers are given the ability to vote on issues. Perhaps not unless made a member, but not all church members are regenerated, and so there is a possibility that a great number of votes come from unbelievers. I do think that the congregation will inevitably rule the church though.
I hold to a congregational rule/government of the Church, as long as Christ is the head and the local church body is ruled primarily by Pastors/elders. Not in the sense of a presbytery, but as tough decisions need to be made and personal preferences come into play, a group of elders making a prayer-filled, Christ-centered decision. In personal experience, the problem with churches that claim to practice a congregational rule find members making themselves of equal authority as the elder or pastor. In a congregational rule, Ryrie states that “responsibility is delegated to officials and leaders.” Often times “congregational rule” is selfishly translated as “autonomous rule” from which church splits and divisions derive. A safe, and healthy congregational rule allows for congregational input and decision-making, not selfish motivations and personal preference seeking. Christ must remain at the head of the Church for every single believer, and that will allow for biblical congregational rule and leadership.
I appreciate your post. As to a solid decision as to whether or not I agree with you on the congregational rule I do not know.
Some areas I believe should be considered. Passages such as Acts 14:23, the “they” is a pronoun which in context the antecedents are Paul and Barnabas, not the congregation. I believe that to say “cheirotoneo” implies the congregation may be forcing the word.
I must comment on the use of Acts 6 as well, though the congregation did play a role in the decision in choosing the 6 men, these men were not elders, but were servers who were to lighten the load of the Apostles to do the work of the Lord. You mentioned that the church had the role of electing the “offices”.
The use of 2 Cor 8:19 has the plural form of “church”, which can be a representation of the leaders of each church.
Titus 1:5 specifically tasked Titus with the ordination of elders.
1 Timothy 4:14 states that the elders ordained other elders. Timothy was laid hands on by the “presbytery” or elders.
While I am not saying I disagree, these are some areas I have come to consider on the matter.
I think that the governance of the local church is less of a question of orthodoxy and more of a question of practicality. Just like Monarchy, Socialism, Capitalism, and Anarchy have all been tried before as forms of government, in the same sense I think that pastors and congregations govern with whatever model they see as best. I do agree that regardless of the official stance of the church, it will inevitably be a congregation-led church.