By Ken Behr
The New Testament speaks of the rulers in the church by the designations of apostles, elders, overseers, and shepherds. While these different terms are used, they typically refer to very similar roles. The typical roles that are common in churches today (senior pastor, chairman of the board, board member) are not mentioned in the Bible, but that doesn’t mean that they cannot be very effective forms of church structure and organization.
Today, leadership in the church takes many forms. Much of what is considered proper church governance is not necessarily because of what is considered biblical but because of denominational and church tradition. Fortunately, we know that the head of the church is actually Christ (Eph 5:23). While churches have found that often finding a better governance model advances the ministry and mission of the local church, the more important element is often not who is on the pulpit, or who is in charge of spending money, but who has real decision-making authority.
The following is a brief overview of just five of some different organizational approaches. This list is not meant to be considered exhaustive, as there are many varied governance styles. Many churches have hybrid structures embracing some parts of one form of governance for some areas and matters and another form for others.
Episcopal form of government is common in some mainline denominations where regional bishops or denominational heads supported by various church councils have a great deal of authority over the local congregation. This is typical in Catholic, Anglican (American Episcopal), and Methodist churches where the local pastor is appointed and regulated by the directions and rules of a denominational ruler or council. This form of government was the rule in the early church until the time of the Reformation. Many continue to argue the qualities of this system and the biblical merits. At the same time, it was likely the primary reason for many of the abuses that led to the Reformation.
A governing board of elders or presbyters that have the decision-making ability marks the Presbyterian form of government. These elders or presbyters are most often elected by the congregation and hold office for a specific period of time. In the various Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, there are both “regional” elders/presbyters as well as local elders/presbyters. As a denomination, these presbyters are convened on a regular (often annual) basis at a Synod and discuss issues of interest to the entire denomination. In recent times, these decisions have been either accepted or rejected by the local board of elders that acts as the ultimate authority for nearly every aspect of the church including the calling and oversight of the senior/teaching pastor.
A congregational form of government is most common in congregational (hence its name), Baptist and many independent churches. In a congregational form of government, the majority rules. While very democratic in their approach, many local churches have democratically elected deacon or elder boards that administer the affairs of the local church. These boards often work very cooperatively with the senior/teaching pastor but ultimately have the authority to hire or fire the senior/teaching pastor.
Single elder/Pastoral form of government is actually rare in its purest form. While it is not uncommon for an individual to have a very broad span of control, ultimately there are decisions and oversight entrusted to an elected or appointed group of deacons or elders. As has been witnessed on a number of occasions, these groups of deacons or elders have been able to step up and provide oversight when there is a need. This happens typically by “exception” and is not normative but most often coincides with either a moral or financial failure.
Plural elder/Pastoral staff is a relatively recently adopted form of government in the local church and it has strong biblical roots. It is most common in some of the larger and fastest growing megachurches (often becoming small denominations with multiple campuses spread over multiple metropolitan areas). In this model, the elders are typically appointed rather than elected (however, it is not unusual for the existing elders to concur in their election), and don’t necessarily have specific tenures but may have offices that are annually renewed. Unlike other forms of governance, these elders function in a similar manner of a nonprofit board when there is a fully empowered chief executive officer. The day-to-day operations of the church are led and administered by the pastoral staff under the direction of either a senior leader or a leadership team, and the elders provide accountability and oversight. The accountability and oversight is regular and structured and includes doctrinal, directional, moral and financial oversight.
As mentioned above, this list or summary of five noticeable forms of governance is not exhaustive. While some may be interested in debating the biblical merits of various church government forms it is not the intention at this time to fully exegete the scriptures in order to determine the most “biblical” model. However, there are some observations that can be noted:
The concepts of democracy and the election of ministers and leaders to church offices are not found in scripture. In the New Testament, elders and deacons appear to be appointed to their positions.
There is ample evidence to support a plurality of elders. (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5). The qualifications for elders focus on characteristics that must be present, including moral behavior, ability to rightly discern Christian doctrine and the example of good character.
There is much confusion over the rule of deacons in contemporary Christianity. While the standards given for deacons were high, it was not as high as the standards given for elders. While elders were given the task to “rule,” the deacons were primarily given the assignment to “serve.” The word for deacon in Greek is diakonos, which is the word for “servant.” While those entrusted with church leadership all “serve,” many deacon boards are leadership boards, and other churches have co-opted the term “deacon” for a minister-in-training, or “not-quite-a-priest.”
The growth and expansion of the church from a small band in Jerusalem to what happened in the first three centuries and continues today is marked by the ascension of extraordinary leaders (i.e. Paul, Timothy, Clement, Polycarp, Irenaeus) and not by the governance or hierarchy of the church. Often (as in the case of the Reformation) it was extraordinary leaders that were commissioned by Jesus Christ, the true head of the church, who rose up and changed the trajectory of the church forever.
Extraordinary leaders in the local church need to have the opportunity to lead, to cast vision and to change the trajectory of the local church.
Ken Behr is an executive pastor at Christ Fellowship, Palm Beach Gardens, FL. www.gochristfellowship.com
A very interesting and helpful article. I had hoped to hear more about how a similar governance model might apply to baptist churches that have so long not applied a plurality of elders to their structure. However, many are now beginning to move in that direction. Regrettably, I have observed that in traditional baptist polity, the pastor/single elder, deacon and trustee form of governance has led to much disfunction due primarily to power power-struggles. That is not to say that plural elder leadership is not without its problems, including power-struggles, but there is something to be said, in my opinion, that just being aligned more with scripture allows for more grace from The Father.
Interesting article … different from what I expected. Very interesting to apply the biblical lens to the top level of governance.
Our church has moved into a form of the policy governance model in the last few years, as have many in our denomination and elsewhere. This model addresses the structures of authority, responsibility, and accountability within the organization (church, non-profit, business, etc.). I’ve come to believe that many churches and other organizations suffer tremendously from a lack of clarity in these areas, and thus become bogged down and stagnant.