Church Government

by Steve Atkerson
A study of church "polity" is a study of the form of government of a religious body. Several different types of church government exist today. Some churches are ruled by a single man (the pastor, pope, or archbishop); perhaps such churches could be pigeonholed as benign "dictatorships." Other churches are controlled by the ultimate authority of congregational vote; these could be referred to as "democracies." Finally, many churches operate under the guidance of a plurality of elders. Which system is the one God designed for his body?

It is an odd fact that the New Testament does not expressly command any particular form of government for the church! However, there are some definite patterns of government evident in the Scriptures. One's view of the importance of such patterns obviously comes into play at this point. For instance, Fee and Stuart in How To Read The Bible For All It's Worth assume that "unless Scripture explicitly tells us we must do something, what is merely narrated or described can never function in a normative way" (97). The problem with this assumption is that the Bible explicitly tells us that we must follow apostolic patterns, examples, and traditions (1 Co 4:16-17, 11:1-2, Phlp 3:17, 4:9, 2 Th 2:15) (see my article entitled "Apostolic Traditions," NTRN Vol 1 No 4, June 1991). What then is the NT pattern for polity?

All are agreed that the Lord Jesus is the head of the church (Col 1:15-20). Thus, the church ultimately is a dictatorship (or theocracy) ruled by Christ through His written word and the influence of the Holy Spirit (Jn 14:25-27, 16:12-15, Acts 2:42, Ep 2:19-22, 1Tm 3:14-15). Once we follow the organizational flow chart down from the head, where does the line of authority go?

In speaking to the "elders" of the Ephesian church (Acts 20:17), Paul said, "Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God which he bought with his own blood" (20:28). The presence of the terms "overseers" and "shepherds" certainly suggests a supervisory position. When writing to Timothy about the qualifications for an elder, Paul asked, "If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?" (1 Tm 3:5). This again implies a management role for elders. Peter asked the elders to "be shepherds of God's flock that is under your care, serving as overseers . . ." (1 Pt 5:2); once more elders are painted in a leadership mode. 1 Tm 5:17 refers to elders who "direct the affairs of the church well . . . ." 1 Th 5:12 asks the brothers to respect those "who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you." Hebrews 13:7 commands, "Remember you leaders." Hebrews 13:17 reads, "Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account." All of this indicates that there are to be human "leaders" in the church, and these leaders are most often referred to as "elders" or "overseers."

As to the difference between an elder, overseer ("bishop" in the KJV), and pastor (shepherd), an examination of Acts 20:17, 28-30, Tit 1:5-7 and 1 Pt 5:1-3 will show the synonymous usage of the words. All three refer to the same office. Any modern distinction between them is purely artificial and without Scriptural warrant.

Is there then to be one elder per church, several elders per church, or several churches per elder? In Acts 14:23, Paul and Barnabas "appointed elders in each church . . . ." From Miletus, Paul sent to Ephesus for "the elders of the church" (20:17). James told the sick to "call the elders of the church . . . " (Ja 5:14). The biblical evidence seems to support a plurality of elders in every church. However, a bit of confusion arises over the NT pattern of having a plurality of elders per church. From the NT perspective there is only one church per city! Acts 8:1 mentions "the church at Jerusalem," Paul wrote to "the church of God in Corinth" (1Co 1:2) and to "the church of the Thessalonians" (Ths 1:1). Jesus told John to write to the church in Ephesus, the church in Smyrna, the church in Pergamum, etc. (Rv 2:1, 8, 12, 18, 3:1, 7, 14). Thus, Scripturally speaking, there is but one church in Atlanta, one in Chicago, one in Kansas City, etc. Then, as a subset of the city-wide church there were the churches that met in various homes within each city (Ro 16:5, 1 Co 16:19, Phln 2, Col 4:15). In The Normal Christian Church Life, Watchman Nee observed that, "in the Word of God we see no church that extends beyond the area of a city . . ." (48). When referring to large geographical areas, the Bible uses the word "church" in the plural. For example, "He went through Syria and Cilia, strengthening the churches" (Acts 15:41), "the churches in the province of Asia" (1 Co 16:19), "the Macedonian churches" (1 Co 8:1), "the churches of Galatia" (Ga 1:1), "the churches of Judea" (Ga 1:22), etc. Thus, there is no such thing in the NT as a national church, nor a regional church; there are simply city churches and house-churches. The only reason for division among churches is geographic location. Mention is made, of course, of the universal church (Ep 1:22-23, 3:10, 21, 5:23-32, Col 1:18) to which all believers of all time belong, but the universal church is invisible and spiritual, with no universal earthly organization. An examination of the NT will reveal that, though all churches were united under Christ as head, there was no outward ecclesiastical organization uniting them. Though cooperating voluntarily together, each church was autonomous. Their's was a strong inward bond, a spiritual oneness of life in the Lord. Though independent of outward government, they were interdependent in responsibility to one another (see 2 Co 8-9).

So, did the plurality of elders govern the city-wide church as a whole, or only individual house-churches? That elders worked together is clear from 1 Tm 4:14, but no indication is given as to the geographic extent of their authority. Philippians 1:1 and Titus 1:5 hint of a city-wide presbytery, but this is not conclusive. As Scripture is vague about this, there seems to be liberty to create the plurality from whatever combination is necessary (within each house-church or city-wide). Either way, the NT focus is against any "one man show" and in favor of a body of brothers leading the church, depending upon one another, accountable to one another, submitting to one another and living out a mutuality in ministry.

Given that each church is (ideally) to be governed by a plurality of elders, what management style should they employ? Jesus made this clear when he said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave . . ." (Mt 20:25-28). As regards false teachers, the elders must still "refute" those who oppose sound doctrine (Tit 1:9), but even this coercion should ultimately follow the check and balance process of Mt 18:15-35 (Christian discipline). Elders must not be guilty of "lording it over those entrusted" to their care, instead "being examples to the flock" (1 Pt 5:3). Having a plurality of elders (all of whom have equal authority) also tends to prevent any modern Diotrephes from arising (3 Jn 9-10). However, despite any church's best efforts, we need to realize that "even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard!" (Acts 20:30-31).

How should elders be appointed? Paul required all potential overseers to have a desire to serve as an elder and to be able to meet a lengthy list of requirements (1 Tm 3:1-7, Tit 1:5-9). That a man is willing and able to be an elder is obviously the work of the Holy Spirit (Acts 20:28). Once these prerequisites are met, the would-be elder must be appointed. In Acts 14:23 Paul and Barnabas did the appointing, and Titus was left in Crete by Paul to appoint elders (Tit 1:5). As Nee pointed out, "they merely established as elders those whom the Holy spirit had already made overseers in the church" (41). After the apostles (missionaries) appointed elders and moved on, the NT is silent as to how subsequent elders were chosen. Operating from the principle of apostolic appointment, one could be led to conclude that the existing elders were to appoint new ones based on the requirements laid out in 1 Tm 3:1-7.

In conclusion, the word "church" in the NT is used to refer to the universal church, city-wide churches, and house-churches. No organized church is any bigger than a single city, and has no official jurisdiction or authority over any other church (though there naturally will be inter-church cooperation and assistance). Each church is ideally to be governed by a plurality of elders, all of whom are equal in authority. These elders are to lead by example, not "lording it over" those sheep entrusted to their care.