I once asked a church membership class if anyone knew what polity was. After a long and awkward silence a buddy of mine spoke up and said, “isn’t that what you put on eggs benedict?” As you might imagine, this comment produced an even longer and more awkward silence as I tried to figure out how polity related to hollandaise sauce. Turns out, it doesn’t; my buddy just thought a joke would be the best way to cut the quiet. Sometimes you try to make a humor omelet, but end up with egg on your head.
So, if polity, isn’t what you put on a breakfast food, what is it? Well, you might surmise that it has something to do with politics. And you’d be right. The Greek word πόλις (polis) referred to a city or the inhabitants of that city and πολιτεία (politea) referred to citizenship or governance.
When we speak of polity, we are speaking of governance. In ecclesiology (the doctrine of the church), we mean church governance.
Is the church a monarchy? Democracy? Meritocracy? Autocracy? Examples abound of churches that seem to fit each model. In fact, some churches seem to function like an anarchy.
But how did God design church governance to function?
From the New Testament, there seem to be at least three truths that we should confess.
- Christ is the ultimate authority over the Church.
- Christ has appointed elders to lead local churches.
- The congregation provides a degree of checks and balances to the elders.
Christ is the ultimate authority over the Church
No orthodox, Bible-believing church disagrees with this first point.
And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all. (Ephesians 1:22–23)
And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. (Colossians 1:18)
Christ is the ultimate authority over His body and bride and rules it through His word. As Ephesians 5 declares, “Christ is the head of the church.” That much should be obvious. If God is sovereign over all things (and He is), then this surely extends to the Church which He purchased by the blood of His Son.
But how does He delegate that authority? That is where various churches differ.
Christ has appointed elders to lead local churches
So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. (1 Peter 5:1–4)
This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you… (Titus 1:5)
Depending on your church background, perhaps you grew up with boards and committees exercising authority over the church. Or maybe you had a single pastor who ruled with an iron fist. Or maybe your church was ruled by deacons. Or maybe you grew up in an informal house church with no elders or leaders and everyone simply doing what is right in their own eyes.
Biblically, God has established one office for the oversight of the church (He has also established the office of deacons, but not for the purpose of spiritual authority and oversight). These officers are sometimes called elders, overseers, or pastors. Each of those terms represent different ways of speaking of the same office. A good example of this is found in Acts 20.
In verse 17, Paul calls for the elders of the church at Ephesus. A few verses later, he says this:
Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. (Acts 20:28)
What is interesting about this passage is that he brings together the elders (presbyteros from which we get the word presbyterian) and then calls them overseers (episkopos from which we get the word episcopalian) and tells them to care for (the verbal form of the word pastor) the flock. So elders are also to oversee and pastor the church. Elders, overseers, and pastors are simply three different terms that refer to the same office.
We see something similar in 1 Peter 5 in which Peter tells the elders (presbyteros) to shepherd (verbal form of the noun for pastor) and oversee (verbal form of the noun for overseers). Again, elders are shepherds and overseers. Though some traditions distinguish between elders, pastors, overseers, and bishops, biblically each of those words relate to the exact same office.
Every church that we encounter in the New Testament seems to either have or be in the process of appointing elders. Not only one elder, but indeed a plurality of elders. Those elders are tasked with oversight (thus overseers) and shepherding (thus pastors) of the body. They are to lead the church in spiritual matters through preaching, teaching, godly counsel, and example (Hebrews 13:7). Thus, the members of the church should submit to, honor, respect, and obey the elders (Hebrews 13:17).
That said, the authority of the elders is always a delegated authority. It is a mediated authority. Elder authority is always subservient to the ultimate authority of Christ and His word. This is part of what is meant by the sufficiency of Scripture. For instance, if the elders of a church were to demand that every member of the church must wear sandals and robes to church and excommunicated anyone who didn’t follow their instructions, that would be a violation of elder authority. If the elders were to command a widow to wait one year in order to remarry, that would be a violation of authority.
How so?
Because the authority of local church elders only extends as far as the authority of Scripture. Since Scripture doesn’t demand that all Christians wear sandals and robes, the elders can’t do so. Since Scripture doesn’t command widows to remain single for a year, the elders can’t do so. The elders might suggest certain things that Scripture doesn’t command and that suggestion might be generally wise, but they can’t demand it. To do so would violate the spirit of the sufficiency of Scripture and would overstep the bounds of their God-given authority.
So if elders are to lead the church, where does the congregation come in?
The congregation should provide checks and balances for the elders
First, let’s define what we mean by congregation. What is the congregation? Is everyone who walks into a church a part of the congregation? Is any Christian throughout the world a part of the congregation? What do I mean by congregation? By congregation, I mean those regenerate men and women who are members of a local body (see 1 Corinthians 12 and related passages where the church is described as a body with “members”). Unbelievers and other attendees may participate to some degree in the life of the church, but they are not members of the church and thus not a part of the congregation for the purposes of discussing polity.
Unfortunately, there is no one model that every church follows when it comes to governance. In fact, the names of many denominations express something of their polity. For instance, presbyterians are called such because of their unique view of presbyters (elders) and episcopalians because of their view of episkopos (overseers or bishops in some traditions).
In a Presbyterian model of governance, a local church is led by elders. Some of those elders are also part of a presbytery in which a group of elders from various churches exercise authority over multiple churches. Churches that practice this model include Presbyterian and Reformed denominations. As for Episcopalian, a church is led by one or more elders/priests/pastors, but above the authority of that church is a higher office often called a bishop. That bishop has authority over a collection of churches in his area. Churches with an episcopalian view of governance include Episcopalians, Anglicans, and Catholics. In other words, in both presbyterian and episcopalian forms of church governance, there is an external authority between the local church and Christ. Whether that authority is one man (or woman) or many men (or women), the fact remains that there is something beyond the church besides Christ Himself and His Word to which the church must submit.
However, Scripture seems to imply that there is no hierarchy of authority outside the local church. Rather, the polity of the New Testament seems to be best represented by congregationalism.
Congregationalism is the idea that the local church is not subject to outside governance; it is autonomous (or self-governed). In other words, there is no external authority (besides Christ and His Word) over a local church. To hold to a congregational model of church governance simply means that you don’t have a presbytery, synod, bishop, Pope, or other such figure outside of your local church who has an authoritative position over your church. Your church might partner with other churches or organizations or even align with a denomination (such as the Southern Baptist Convention), but those churches, organizations, and denomination do not have formal authority to dictate policy or doctrine to your local church.
This view of governance is common among Baptist churches (being one of the distinguishing marks of a Baptist church along with believer’s baptism by immersion) and many non-denominational and “Bible churches.” That said, there is a distinction within the broader congregational tradition over how authority within the church itself is structured. Some congregational churches are deacon-led, others are elder-ruled, others are elder-led, but congregationally-ruled. There is no shortage of things over which baptists disagree!
But what is most biblical? We’ve already discussed how elders are given to shepherd the flock and exercise oversight (1 Peter 5:1-4) over it. So it seems like any biblical model must involve some degree of elder-rule. But what if the elders are tyrannical? What if the elders are domineering? What if the elders begin to distort or ignore the Scriptures? What if the elders are morally disqualified?
Here is where Scripture provides checks and balances in the form of the congregation. In other words, the elders do not have absolute power over the congregation, but there is a reciprocal and symbiotic relationship between the undershepherds (Christ Himself being the good shepherd) and the flock. As Stephen and Kirk Wellum say in the extremely helpful book Baptist Foundations: Church Government for an Anti-Institutional Age, “under the lordship of Christ and under the authority of divinely given elders who lead, the last and final court of appeal in matters related to the local church is the congregation itself.”
So what are the arguments for this view?
- The New Testament letters are not written merely to pastors or the presbytery or bishops, but rather to the church itself. When Paul wants to combat issues in Corinth, for example, he doesn’t just rebuke and teach the Corinthian elders, but indeed addresses his letter to the congregation itself. We see this pattern throughout his letters.
- The nature of the New Testament church is different from Old Testament Israel and thus leadership structures are different. This is where it is helpful to understand one of the distinctives of Baptist tradition – regenerate church membership. In Presbyterian circles, the church is an intentionally mixed body of believers and unbelievers (namely the unbelieving children of believers). Presbyterians find a pattern for this in ancient Israel. However, they fail to realize that what is distinctly new about the New Covenant is the fact that all who are under the covenant are believers. That is what Jeremiah and Ezekiel mean when they prophesy of a new covenant in which all will know the Lord and have the law written on their hearts. In Israel, a distinct sacred/secular divide was necessary with established officers to mediate God’s authority to Israel because not all Israel was Israel (to use Paul’s language in Romans 9). However, in the church, given that it is composed of regenerate believers, who represent the priesthood of believers, that is no longer the case. There is no sacred/secular divide when it comes to church officers so elders are similar to OT prophets, priests and kings, but also dissimilar in various ways. One of those areas of dissimilarity involves the fact that they don’t stand over the congregation as mediators, but indeed serve within the congregation under the authority of Scripture.
- The final court of appeal is the congregation. For instance, when it comes to church discipline, the final step isn’t to tell it to the elders, but rather to tell it to the church (Matthew 18:17). In other words, the church itself has the keys of the kingdom to bind and loose in the context of church discipline (Matthew 18:18). Christ hasn’t given the keys to the elders in particular, but to the church in general.
- The congregation is expected to adjudicate disputes. For example, in 1 Corinthians 6, Paul rebukes the church for not being able to work through conflicts within the context of the church itself. Again, it is significant that Paul doesn’t merely say, “the elders should handle it.” Although that may indeed be a wise move in many cases, it is not the only option. Paul’s concern isn’t that elders handle it, but rather that it be handled within the context of the local church. Paul anticipates that local churches will be able to adjudicate their own conflicts and entrusts that responsibility to the congregation itself.
- Elder authority depends on pastoral persuasion. Consider the words of Hebrews 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you. This is an interesting and informative passage in that the word translated obey is not the typical Greek word often translated as obey. In fact of the 33 NT instances where the ESV has the word obey, only 4 of them come from the Greek word used in Hebrews 13. Interestingly, the overwhelming majority of uses of this particular word are translated as trust or rely upon or have confidence in. According to the Word Biblical Commentary on this passage, “this verb certainly demands obedience. But the specific quality of the obedience for which Πείθεσθαι asks is not primarily derived from a respect for constituted structures of authority. It is rather the obedience that is won through persuasive conversation” (William Lane, WBC, Hebrews 9-13). Here is where it is helpful to remember that an elder’s authority is always mediated through the Word. An elder cannot command beyond the word of God because his authority depends on his ability to persuade according to the word of God. For further consideration of this point, think about Paul’s words is Galatians to the effect that even if an apostle were to preach a false gospel, it should be rejected. If even apostles were subject to the Word of God, how much more are local church elders? But how would churches rebuke an elder who began to preach falsehood without recognizing that elders are ultimately accountable to the congregation?
For these reasons, it seems that Christ expects for the congregation to follow the lead of elders/pastors/overseers so long as those pastors are themselves submitting to Christ. However, should they err from Scripture, the congregation not only has the right, but the responsibility to hold the elders accountable. Thus, the congregation has a degree of authority in administrating her own affairs. As Martin Luther is reported to have written, “a simple man with Scripture has more authority than the Pope or a council.”
Conclusion
The biblical pattern of authority that Reformation Church operates under is one of checks and balances. Scripture is the norma normans non normata (the norm of norms that is not normed). In other words, the Bible is the rule by which everything else is assessed, but there is no higher rule to which we submit Scripture; the Word of God alone is the ultimate infallible authority. Under that authority, Christ has given two subservient authorities: the elders and the congregation. A healthy ecclesiology creates a sense of checks and balances between these two authorities, with overlapping spheres of responsibility and authority. A congregation which is unruly (as in Corinth), should be disciplined and discipled by the elders. Likewise, elders who are morally or theologically deficient should be disciplined by the congregation (and the other elders).
Notice what is being implied here. At the end of the day, ultimate authority is not invested in the elders or the congregation, but rather in Scripture (1 Corinthians 4:6, 14:37-38; 2 Thessalonians 3:14; 2 Timothy 3:16-17). Who should win an argument or vote is not dependent on position (elder or congregation), but persuasion. Who has the best argument from Scripture? Who is most consistent with biblical truth? At the end of the day, that is what most matters. Elders who compromise on truth have perverted and abused their authority no matter what form of governance they uphold. Likewise, a congregation who exalts personal preference or something else above Scripture has abused the responsibility and authority that Christ has given to her. In the end, Scripture should always win. The Bible alone is the final appeal and the ultimate arbiter.
At Reformation, we have embedded into our constitution and by-laws certain provisions to protect the elders from congregational abuse and to protect the congregation from elder abuse. Thus, there are things for which the congregation is responsible (attending regularly, discipling others, giving of time and money, submitting to Scripture, obeying and respecting the elders, speaking into certain decisions related to the direction of the church, etc.) and other things for which the elders are responsible (submitting to Scripture, modeling godly character, preaching and teaching the word, equipping the saints, casting vision for direction, etc.). Though no view of polity will guarantee faithfulness and unity this seems to be the one which best approximates the biblical ideal and best safeguards the church for the glory of God and the good of His people.
For more information related to “elder-led congregationalism,” check out the various resources available from www.9marks.org.