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.
This form of church government is wrong because the congregation has the ultimate authority. There are certain issues that are determined by congregational decisions (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 teaching elder. This is contrary to New Testament congregational rule. Each local church elected its own officers (Acts 6; 15:22). At first Paul (Acts 14:23) or an apostolic representative (Tit.1:5) appointed pastors. Later churches chose (2 Cor. 8:19) 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.
Lay-elder rule proponents argue that the two offices of ruling and teaching elders are found in 1Timothy 5:17. The only distinction found in this verse is the difference between pastors who labor diligently in the Word of God and pastors who do not labor diligently. 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 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).
The New Testament allows for a plurality of ordained elders or pastors with one of the pastors being the senior 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.
I agree that a pastor should be both the ruling and teaching elder but this blog almost seems like you are being too dogmatic on the issue. Its not really something to break fellowship over thats for sure. People seem to take a different view of what the Bible says and cramming it down their throats isn’t really going to help any.
I think each type of church government has its pros and cons. An elder rule church has the advantage of not relying on Christians who may be out of the will of God to make their decisions. The elders should be godly men who can be trusted to do the right thing and who have the entire congregation in mind. A disadvantage is that the elders may become power hungry. Congregational rule has the advantage of the entire church having their own voice. The people feel “heard”. The disadvantages though are that some of these members may be living in sin, and thus are not in a place to help determine the will of God. Also, church voting can be taken to an extreme and used on the smallest and most ridiculous issues as someone above said. all in all i think the type of church government should be determined by what works for that congregation. As long as precautions are taken, both have been proven to be very effective. My home church is a mixture. The congregation votes on large issues (hiring a staff member, building programs, etc.), but the elders take care of the minor things. Even if a roof needs immediate replacing, the church doesn’t have to be consulted…they just do it. I think a mix is very appropriate.
I have seen during a congregational business meeting where someone was trying to control the meeting with their “agenda” over issues that truly needed to be done but yet it was held up by this person. That was a case that you must trust who God has sent and you are choosing to fellowship with and follow his leadership within the local body. I too can see the benefits of both–if meshed together properly.
This post is of great use to me personally. I became the pastor of a small church last year, my second pastorate. They have no church constitution or by-laws and we have began discussions on the subject. I favor the kind of set up that you are talking about. Ryrie wrote that the New Testament suggest a combination of congregational and federal government and it sounds like that’s what you have.
This progress in how the church was ran from the apostles to how it was today. This area is still vague in my mine I really need to study more of it to find out what each side promotes.
I have been involved with one of each of the ways to lead. The congregational led church had to include them on alot of things that most were not even interested about. There were a few heated discussions during some of those business meetings that was really unnecessary because of who the person was that was doing the arguing. Of course if the senior pastor even just acted like he was for or against something the group would follow.
The lay-elder led church has been a little hard to get used to. Things aren’t “made public” like I was used to but they really don’t matter if you stop and think of it. We to will have business meetings on large issues but the cool thing is that I have seen elders and deacons “check” the pastor before and it works. You do have to keep the senior pastor or elder in the view to make sure their heart is right
I like what Ryrie said about the New Testament teaching a blend of congregational and federal church government. I believe a totality of scriptural evidence supports a plurality of elders being involved as long as they are accountable to the congregation. I don’t see scriptural evidence to support the local church being a pure democracy with each member, even if they are eight years old, having an equal vote. Elders are called in 1 Timothy 3:5 to “take care of the church of God?” (NASB) You can’t gloss over 1 Tim 5:17 which mentions elders who “rule well.” The word rule means to preside over which tells us they have authority. As to the plurality we can look at Philippians 1:1 and see that it’s addressed to the overseer’s and deacon’s at the church in Phillippi, doesn’t this mean that there were more than one elder at the church?
Charles,
I appreciate the inference of plurality which you site: elders are found in plurality throughout the New Testament. The only exception seems to be in the Pastoral Epistles where Paul is defining the qualifications of the position by which each elder would be measured individually. Although I agree that plurality is the pattern evident throughout the New Testament, I don’t believe it is sin to have only one. I know of a local church that has two pastors and only one deacon because that is all they have. I don’t believe they are sinning – they are serving with what God has provided.
I will say that elder rule definetly has its pros and cons. I like the whole idea of the pastors being on the same level and not having someone try to lead the congregation by themselves. I think that most pastors who are by themselves do not use their deacons as effectively as they could be. They try to take on the responsibilities by themselves and do not realize they have help right their for themselves.
You know in some churches, the Deacons place all the responsibly on the Pastor.
the bible definately calls for delegating. and Pastors sometimes try so hard to run the church correctly that they cannot focus completely on what they are there for and that is to preach the Word of God to the congregation! they are so busy running from hospital to wedding to deacon’s son’s baseball game, that they cant focus on their call!
Church polity is an important study, especially in light of our cultural tendencies toward rugged individualism. The idea of congregational authority rests on the foundation of the priesthood of believers and the pursuit of saved church membership (including discipline of unrepentant, faith-professing members). The greatest difficulty I have observed in congregational church polity is the erroneous assumption of absolute democracy and the resultant emaciation of pastoral leadership. Neither are biblical. The pattern for congregational authority and consent is found in Acts and the epistles. So is the pattern of pastors (bishop, elder, shepherd) leading and deacons serving.
The church is not a political organism. The church doesn’t have three branches of government: pastor, deacons, congregation. Our government has conflict built into its very fiber. Quagmire is mandated by the Constitution. The Church is not like that! The less we operate like that, the more Christlike we are. The church is an assembly of humble servants. Unity is only achieved through that type of mutual humility (Philippians 2).
Having just sounded like a Plymouth Brethren, which I am not…Here is why I believe that churches should also have STRONG leadership from a pastor or several pastors if at all possible.
The Word must be proclaimed and prayer maintained (Acts 2-3, Acts 6).
Opposition must be addressed (Acts 4).
Sin must be confronted (Acts 5).
Problems must be solved (Acts 6) and Godly servants must be identified.
The world must be evangelized (Acts 8-10,13-28).
I believe that the Bible truly does set a pattern for congregational rule under the guidance of the pastor and deacons, and this article does well to defend that. There will always be disadvantages because the church is made up of fallen human beings. If a church truly has a spirit of unity and is seeking to carry out the will of God, then there will not be an issue of contention and a fight for control. If a problem does arise in this area, it is something which should be confronted; perhaps it will provide an opportunity for someone to see an area that needs to be dealt with in their relationship with God and grow beyond this! The church that is under a godly pastor and deacon board will trust them to make some decisions which are unnecessary to call a meeting for because they understand that the pastor is seeking to glorify God, not himself. The huge relief is that the ultimate head of the church is Christ, and he is perfect.
I could not agree more with Dr. White on this subject of church leadership. Again, as I have commented before, Driscoll seems to delude the illustration of Scripture to suit the need of his mega church or view of the NT church. I believe that it is rather important to have a pastor and deacons to rule and serve the church as qualified leaders, but also of even more importance to have a congregation filled with believers in the Lord Jesus Christ who are led by the Spirit to do the will of God. Without the congregation of (believers), emphasis on believers, the pastor has no church to guide and the deacons have no church to serve.
I agree with Mr. Gray. Some sort of combination seems appropriate. As a Pastor’s daughter and a Pastor’s wife, I have seen a congregation-led church hold their authority over the pastor’s head, who would then be hemmed in and suffocated by the choices that congregation makes. It is very hard for a church of several hundred people (or even several dozen) to all share the identical vision. Who is answerable to the Lord for that church? Is the Pastor not the Under-Shepherd? Who, then, are the sheep? On the other hand, I’ve seen Pastors who run a dictator-style rule over their church. Their choices almost always seem self-serving, and not God-serving. In my opinion, a God-ruled, Pastor-led, congregation-approved church seems a Biblical Combination to me.
It sounds like you have been through a lot Becky. I’m glad you haven’t given up. As imperfect as the church is, it is still God’s idea. Since God has not taken the church out of the world yet, we should submit to God’s plan and persist in being the kind of church God wants.
Churches should take time to do a thorough study of the Scripture to learn how to be the church. This should be reviewed often. It would be nice if there was a passage of Scripture that systematically lays out all the details. Since there is not, we should take our time and carefully examine all the passages that relate. The fact that there is no detailed passage argues for some flexibility. I see two clear offices in the church – elder(pastor/bishop) and deacon. I also see congregational participation in making decisions. When the whole church works together in love, problems are minimized. When they don’t, prolblems abound no matter what form of church government.
I believe that whatever church government you have there is going to be pros and cons. With a congregational rule the pro is that the whole church can be heard in the matter. However the con is that more than likely there are going to be baby Christians within the church or actively non-repenting believers that are then voting on major issues. However with elder rule the small group of elders can become power hungry. Same goes with having the Pastor “getting the final say” in church matters. Yet on the pro side they are/should be godly men that have proven themselves.
I agree with Jennifer’s comment. There are pro’s and con’s with a congregational rule. It normally the congregation gets a say on at least whats being brought up. I am convinced that there are non believers in churches today, and they don’t have that spiritual discernment on issues of the church. People are always wanting a say. Even shark Christians. (They grow only as big as their environment). There’s nothing wrong with the Elders rule. If they obey the word of God and seek his direction, and make good decisions after much prayer, it should be obvious to the church that’s the way they should go, or do. God is not the Aurthur of confusion.
I grew up in a congregational rule church and every business meeting we would have some little old lady not like something because the flowers were not the right color or something. that is the problem with congregational rule. In everyrthing in life there is a balance, and it is the same thing in the church. you dont want to let a little old lady to ruin your business meetings, and at the same time you dont want to have a dictatorship over your church.
I agree with your statement that decisions go back to the church, and that the church is the authority. However, I do think it is beneficial that the church elect elders/pastors to rule over the everyday decisions and lead the church. These men are responsible to the church, but the church should trust their leadership as well.
This is a hard issue for me. I was raised in a church that had elder-rule and it was never questioned. I have come to believe that there are two offices – elder and deacon. The elder is supposed to be a pastor. I do not believe there is a difference in a pastor or elder. I Peter 5:1-5 clearly teaches that the elder and pastor are synonymous. I believe that the church is to be gently led by elders or pastor (pastors when applicable), but the decision comes down to the congregation. This could be clearly seen in Acts 6.
I do not see congregational rule as being the Biblical church government. I do believe there are two offices for the church seen in Scripture: elders and deacons. The Bible gives evidence of plurality of elders so why shouldn’t the church have plurality of elders leading the church? I do not know fully where I stand with lay-elder rule, but am totally ok and believe we should have plurality of elders. Deacons should be servants and shouldn’t be making decisions like the elders are. I feel that congregational rule can be done and be done well, but is not the best form of church government.
I think whether the church is led by congregational rule or pastor/dictatorship rule or lay-elder rule, the main thing that is important is that when something is decided in the church that there is a sense of unified consensus around it. The problem most churches have is that they think that man is the one who is leading the church. Enough said.