Local Church Government
As many churches today proudly express their allegiance to scripture alone as the sole authority for their Christian lives, it can not go unobserved that there is a seemingly blatant disregard for the authority of scripture concerning manners of church governance in many local congregations around America today. Among younger Christians especially, the concept of how to do church is championed as being recovered from the dry and monotonous church models adopted by their parents and hence put in place are a variety of different styles. Ranging from the consumer mega church, the all-doors-open emergent church, the non leadership house church, to even the weekly bible study held at a local Starbucks. In each case there may be a commitment to the orthodox teachings of Christian salvation and the understanding of God, but what seems to be missing is an allegiance to scripture on what it is a local church looks like. “The church is biblically mandated, the campus fellowship isn’t. The Lord may want you to be involved in a fellowship, but Jesus nowhere promised that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against my Campus Fellowship. But there is His promise about the church.”[i] In seeing the church as Christ sees it, how then are believers to practice the institution of church in a way honoring and glorifying to the Bridegroom? This paper will attempt to answer the question of what a biblical model of a local church government looks like.
There are three points that seem to be crucial in the biblical example of a local church. These are 1) a responsible, believing, local congregation that has an autonomous authority as a whole, 2) a group of divinely selected leaders, or elders, within the congregation that guide, teach, and protect the congregation as a whole, and 3) a commitment between both the elders and the rest of the congregation to be united and of one accord in serving God and each other to His glory.
It should not be surprising that the N.T. church, from which we should derive our example, is seen as an assembly of believing men and women gathered together in different cities and regions, meeting in local houses and other spaces. What should be taken from this though is the degree in which this collected group of believers, this assembly of called out ones, or church acted and dealt with life as group committed to reflecting Gods glory. What is clearly seen is that in times of needed discipline or in some other major decisions, the burden of action falls on the church as a whole and not a group of outside individuals or panel. In Matt 18:15-17 it can be observed that the final burden of discipline falls on the whole “assembly” so that if “he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.” In Acts 6, where a notable dispute between Jewish and Gentile widows had emerged, the Apostles were said to have called all the disciples and bade them to choose seven who would serve fairly among the widows. The decision was given to all the disciples in that immediate context. Again, in Acts 11:22 it says that they, the church, sent Barnabas to go to Antioch. In 1 Cor. 5 charges that the church assemble to discipline their brother who was supposedly boasting in a perverse sin. It was the church who was to administer the discipline. 1 Cor. 16 describes instruction from Paul on matters of collections and what they are to do. The instruction is given to the church as a whole and then Paul asks that the church approve a messenger to take the offering. Paul does not command a separate committee or counsel but that the church makes the decision.[ii]
These scriptures and more, coupled with the fact that the majority of the N.T. letters are written to congregations as a whole and that the charges, mandates, and commands with in them also apply to churches a whole give good evidence that congregations were committed to the life of a church, the decisions it made, the money it used, its own doctrinal integrity,(1 Cor.11:17-34,Gal 1:8-9, Thess. 5:21) even its manner of worship(1 Cor.14:39-40, Phil 4:1-3). As one searches scripture in hopes of being taught by Gods Word, it becomes evident that the congregation as a whole is responsible for its own response to scripture, that is, if any local church were to skirt the commands of scripture necessary for a healthy church the burden of responsibility falls on the church as a whole. The local church is really the first and clearest picture one sees of Christ’s body united in a body of individual believers. “The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ.” (1Cor. 12:12)
The second evident and still just as crucial point is that throughout the N.T. there is a clear imperative to have a leader over the local congregation to act as a shepherd or to be an elder that guides and teaches. In fact, it should be argued that the precedence the bible and N.T. church gives us is that of a plurality of equally important [iii]elders acting as leaders and teachers to the congregation. What this does is now add a check and a balance to the above picture of a democratic congregational rule in that there are now key gifted individuals whom God has placed to guide and instruct their own local assembly in a manner that is glorifying to God and compatible to scripture. But why more than one elder? Because scripture teaches this.
.
The O.T. and Palestinian practice with in Jesus’ day showed that a plurality of elders was usually the case. (Deut. 19:12; 21:1-9, 18-21)
“The other four New Testament authors who refer to Christian elders are James, Peter, Paul, and Luke, and each of them appears to assume a number of elders will be present in every congregation. James instructs his readers to “call the elders [plural] of the church [singular] to pray over” a sick person (James 5:14). Peter writes as an elder to the “elders [plural] among you” (1Pet. 5:1). If 1 Peter 5:5 should be translated “elders” instead of “older men,” it would again appear Peter assumes a plurality of elders in a single congregation—or at least this assumption could not be ruled out. Paul greets the bishops (plural) in the church (singular) at Philippi in his letter to the Philippians (Phil. 1:1). And he exhorts the elders of the church at Ephesus to be “bishops” (plural) to the “flock” (singular) that God had given them (Acts 20:28)…So certainly the churches established by Titus in Crete were at least supposed to have a plurality of elders in each local congregation.” [iv]
What is even more clear are the in depth qualifications given by Paul in 1 Tim. 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9 as to what and who an elder should be. These qualifications by no means are much different from whom any Christian should be but the list does make a distinction in credentials thereby disallowing a number of individuals from becoming and elder. What can not be denied tough is that the office of elder is established and that the clear markings of a church is one that is led and taught by these divinely selected elders. (Heb13:17) Does the final authority then lie with the Congregation or with the Elders? This question seems to be unfair in that the elders are apart of and represent the congregation. What seems to take place is a very open conversation between the elders of a congregation and the rest of the believing body thus securing as best can be a unified and cohesive decision based upon the authority of the congregation as whole, but delegated and confirmed with the elders. This leads then to the third and final point.
That there is a difference between an elder and the rest of the congregation is clear and what relationship they should have to each other should be just as clear. Hebrews 13:17 admonishes the congregation to obey they leaders and submit to their authority. The elders are described as men who watch over the church as men accountable to God. Then the writer tells them to obey them in order that their work will be a joy and not a burden. This seems to promote an environment of humble servitude as well as cautious leadership. A healthy relationship between both parties in which open dialogue must constantly be obtained and practiced. The role then of the teacher is to teach the truths of Gods’ revealed truth, constantly pointing the church to a hope in Christ. The role of a church leader is then to lead as a representative of who the church is; this is no doubt influenced by the teaching capacity of the elder. A cyclical effect is almost seen here; clear and authoritative (more so even expository preaching) teaching guiding the congregation as a whole wherefore the congregation as a whole can make clear and wise decisions on local church matters wherefore, finally, the elders represent its own congregation in giving credence to its congregation and giving final judgment to any matter.
In conclusion, a biblical picture of what the local church government looks like is an multi-elder led church in which the congregation takes no passive role but is constantly aware and active in the discussion of how the church as a whole, fairly represented by the elders, will act and look.
[i] Mark Dever speaking at the 2007 New Attitude Conference
[ii] Each scripture reference was derived from Perspectives on Church Government: Five Views of Church Polity. Daniel Akins essay on the single elder led church, pgs 27-32.
[iii] Perspectives on Church Government. Pg 280
[iv] Mark Dever, By Whose Authority, Elders in Baptist Life. 2006, 9Marks. Pg8-9
Also, “The Anglican scholar and pioneer missiologist Roland Allen came to this same conclusion: “… it seems to be an irresistible conclusion that the elders appointed by St. Paul were definitely appointed with power to add to their number and thus to secure to new Churches a proper order and certainty of sacramental grace. Finally, St. Paul was not content with ordaining one elder for each Church. In every place he ordained several. This ensured that all authority should not be concentrated in the hands of one man.” Roland Allen, Missionary Methods: St. Paul’s or Ours (London: Robert Scott, 1912), 138-139”. (Mark Dever, By Whose Authority, Elders in Baptist Life. 2006, 9Marks.)
Soulah Gratia 