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

1

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.”0

Zahl rightfully writes that “’church’ is a fought-over landscape in the history of

Christianity.”0 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 author’s

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.

1 Robert H. Welch, Church Administration: Creating Efficiency for Effective Ministry (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2005), 26.

0 Ibid., 66.

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

2

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 congregation’s “equal standing before God” in a Congregational model

might lead to abuse “where the practice of church discipline is absent.”0 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.0

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.0 The local body highlights the priesthood of

all believers, a central understanding of Scripture for Protestant believers.0 However, as he

highlights, the priesthood of all believers does not mean “I am my own priest.”0 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." 0

0 Ibid., 28.

0 Ibid., 29.

0 Ibid., 33.

0 Ibid., 35.

0 Ibid., 37.

0 Ibid., 38.

3

To ensure that congregations remain under the arbitration of the final authority of God’s

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.”0 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.0 The leader has to be “based upon spiritual qualification for service.”0

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.”0 Presbyterian church government, in

Reymond’s 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.”0

0 Ibid., 39.

0 Ibid., 66.

0 Ibid., 67.

0 Ibid., 91.

0 Ibid., 93.

4

In Presbytery-led churches, there is an understanding that the men elected to be elders,

while elected by the congregation, are ultimately chosen by Christ’s will and are placed in office

by the Holy Spirit. As such, they are not there to do everything according to the congregation’s

bidding,0 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.”0

One of the primary reasons for a Presbyter-led model is the “connectional government of

graded courts”0, which provide accountability and dependency on each other. Reymond’s 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 15.0 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.0

Reymond sees this model of church government as a direct reflection of the church depicted in

Acts 15.0

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 decision-

making.”0 Garrett provides a broad approach to this type of church governance, as he allows for

0 Ibid., 94.

0 Ibid., 95.

0 Ibid.

0 Ibid., 96.

0 Ibid., 108.

0 Ibid., 109.

0 Ibid., 157.

5

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. 0 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.0

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.0 Garrett does raise the

difficulty of a congregation-led large church, where instead a heavy centering on the pastor’s

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.0

THE BISHOP-LED CHURCH

In Episcopal polity, there are three “orders” (or levels) of ordination: deacon, elder (or

presbyter), and bishop.0 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

0 Ibid., 158.

0 Ibid.

0 Ibid., 176.

0 Ibid., 192-94.

0 Ibid., 226-27.

6

catholicity of the church: preaching the pure Word of God and administering the two sacraments

of baptism and communion faithfully.0

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.0

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.0 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.” 0

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.”0 Much of White’s argument centers

on the self-sufficiency of the local body of believers. White cites examples such as the church at

0 Ibid., 228.

0 Ibid., 231-34.

0 Ibid., 238-39.

0 Ibid., 240.

0 Ibid., 259.

7

Ephesus, which does not appear to exercise jurisdictional control over another church in the

area.0

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.0 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.0 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

0 Ibid., 262.

0 Ibid., 280.

0 Ibid., 283.

8

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 congregation’s 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 author’s 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

9

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.”0 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 re-

investigate what the best model of church governance is for them. In it all, may Christ be

glorified!

0 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.