Why Elders? Why Not?

Why Elders? Why Not?

I’m convinced that plural-elder-led congregationalism is a healthier alternative to four polities that are very common among Free Church evangelicals. Now we are going to take months of seminars and small groups and Sunday teachings to go over this. Our deacons began reading up on this last year. We’re going to take the time talk and pray and fast and where we land will be good and biblical and healthy. We have to do this together. So here are some options:

Option 1 is pure democracy. In this polity, the whole congregation votes on nearly every decision. The pastors and church staff are often treated as mere employees of the church who direct various ministries, but who have no real authority in the church. This doesn’t happen all the time, but it was s harder to model Hebrews 13, Ephesians, Acts, Timothy or Titus, but we will look at the arguments for it. In this model all of the authority rests in the whole congregation assembled in a church conference or members meeting (often called a “business meeting”). One of the challenges here is you could get young Christians, and nominal, and everything in between voting on spiritual matters and not be in a place to do that. Keep in mind when choosing elders and deacons you shouldn’t lay hands to quickly, but the former could allow for that among the congregation making every choice.

Option 2 is committee-led congregationalism. You can have a lot of the same pros and cons as option 1. In this polity, the church uses “democratic” processes to make key decisions. We put that in quotes because even our political system appoints representatives to vote for us to pass laws and make democracy work. It takes long enough for senators to make up their minds. Imagine how long it would take if we we all had to vote on everything. In this option, the real authority rests with certain key committees or similar small groups that are compromised of influential church members. In many churches, the committee that runs the church is the so-church council. In others, it might be the personnel committee, , since these team typically the requirements for such committees are far Less than that of other staff. Especially when you weigh in Scriptural requirements and church attendance. This is not always the case, but it requires a lot more accountability to work this system out. Again, The pastors and staff go through an in-depth process to lead the church, the question is should those overseeing staff and pastors also be called and vetted to do so? In that case, who is holding them accountable? This crease a cascading effect unless you make scripture have the final say over your bylaws. (Again this is my take after serving on pastoral staffs for 25 years). AnOther challenge is the committees will over time, become compartmentalized and communication becomes difficult which can inhibit the oneness Ephesians is calling the church to live out.

Another author describes another very common variation of this polity is deacon-led congregationalism, “where the deacons function as the chief committee in the church’s hierarchy. In many instances this is pre-supposed and not even stipulated in the bylaws of specific churches.” (His words not mine).

Option 3 is single-pastor-ruled benevolent autocracy. In this polity, the solo or senior pastor is called by the church, but after that, he wields most of the authority. In a larger church, he typically hires and fires all ministry staff, including other pastors. The lead pastor is as much a CEO as he is a shepherd. Members meetings are kept to a minimum; in some churches, only once a year. The pastor is the leader and the people follow his lead. (I am not an advocate of this method. However it is in many churches in America now if not as much as congregationalism including many SBC churches. So trying to use the argument,if it’s used somewhere it must work could be used on this one also. However, you have to ask is it the best one for who is leading and for those who are currently in your church)?

Option 4 is plural-elder-ruled benevolent oligarchy. In this polity, a plurality of elders rules the church in much the same way as the single-pastor-ruled option. The difference is that the authority is vested in a small group rather than a single pastor or committee The church is ruled by her elders, but there is no presbytery or classis beyond the local congregation in some cases. This polity also frequently makes a presbyterian or Lutheran like distinction between teaching elders and ruling elders; only the former are considered pastors (in most cases, but there are churches blending this using both outside and inside groups to hold these elders accountable.

These are basic summaries  of 4 but there is a fifth. I’m personally acquainted with many  SBC churches and served in SBC churches that covered all four as I’ve described them. Options 1 and 2 are very common among traditional-minded, small and medium-sized churches in small towns and rural areas. Options 3 and 4 are more common in contemporary-minded, larger churches in suburban areas, as well as newer church plants. I’ve served on non-denomination church staffs that are run more like a corporation.

Option 5 – Plural-elder-led congregationalism “differs from each of these polities in various ways. Unlike Options 1–3, there is a plurality of pastors. Unlike option 4, all of the pastors are elders, and vice verse; the terms are synonymous. All may be paid staff, or some may be paid and some may be voluntary (this is biblical as there were full time and professional working church leaders. Even Paul was a tent maker and took support from individuals and churches.

Unlike Option 1, the elders/pastors have the freedom to exercise biblical pastoral authority over the congregation in matters of teaching and shepherding. Unlike Option 2, no committees or deacon “boards” are elevated to an unbiblical level of authority in the church. Unlike Option 3, all pastors are equals, even if, based upon prudence and giftedness, different pastors have different roles within the leadership team. Unlike Option 4, the final earthly authority still rests with the whole congregation as it corporately seeks God’s will under the lordship of Christ as it is revealed in the Scriptures.”

If you are interested in reading more about plural-elder-led congregationalism, including the biblical justification for the view, I would recommend the following books.

Grudem’s Systematic Theology will go through all of the above and hit all the pros and cons of each.

Mark Dever, Polity (Free PDF link)

Mark Dever, Nine Marks of a Healthy Church, 2^nd ed. (Crossway, 2004), especially chapter 9.

Mark Dever, A Display of God’s Glory (Free PDF link)

John Hammett, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary Ecclesiology (Kregel Academic, 2005), especially chapter 7.

Benjamin Merkle, 40 Questions about Elders and Deacons (Kregel Academic, 2007).

Phil Newton, Elders in Congregational Life: Rediscovering the Biblical Model of Church Leadership (Kregel Academic, 2005).

Here is a Book Review by Aaron Menikoff on  Benjamin L Merkle’s book,  Why Elders? A Biblical and Practical Gide for Church Members. Kregel, 2010. 112 pages.

Many of us were introduced to the topic of elders through Alexander Strauch’s book, Biblical Eldership. Then in 1999 John Piper published the booklet Biblical Eldership. This was followed by Mark Dever’s Nine Marks of a Healthy Church in 2000. A few years later, in 2005, Phil Newton wrote a book with Baptist churches specifically in mind: Elders in Congregational Life. That same year, John Hammett, another Baptist, came out with Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches, where he supports plural elder leadership. Timothy Witmer, a Presbyterian, just wrote a very practical guide to eldership in the Shepherd Leader. Merkle’s books, 40 Questions About Elders and Deacons and its child, Why Elders?,are important additions to the conversation.

If you are new to this conversation, it may be hard to understand why Merkle’s contribution is so important. First, Merkle is a New Testament scholar. He has studied the Greek text closely in an attempt to provide fresh, biblical arguments. Second, Merkle is a Baptist who teaches at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. For some, seeing a board of elders in a Baptist church is a little like seeing a Tyrannosaurus Rex in Central Park-and about as welcome. Piper, Dever, Newton, Hammett, and now Merkle, are helping Baptists understand that plural elder leadership is consistent with Baptist ecclesiology. Finally, in Why Elders?, Merkle writes for the pew. This is a book pastors can put in the hands of church members to help demystify the arguments for plural elders.

When I read Why Elders? I was (and am still) in the midst of leading the Baptist church I serve to adopt plural elder leadership. (This church is unique in that the topic of elders came up years before I came. Furthermore, several Baptist churches in the area already have elders.) I have served at two other Baptist churches that have moved this direction, so I know very well the opposition that some have to this model of church government. Seeking to change the leadership structure of a church raises serious questions:

• If this is biblical, why aren’t more churches doing it?
• How can we be congregational if we have elders?
• What are our deacons going to do?

These are the types of questions that Merkle addresses. Why Elders? has four chapters, each one offering a defense of plural elder leadership.

First, he argues that elder leadership is the pattern of the New Testament church. Merkle does not address whether the pattern of leadership is a prescription for change. But the evidence he offers begs the question, “If this is how the apostles organized the earliest churches, why wouldn’t we want to follow suit?” It is in this chapter that Merkle insists plural elder leadership is consistent with congregationalism.

In chapter two, Merkle argues that plural elder leadership is important to give the main pastor help and accountability. Merkle explains how each elder has equal authority while one pastor, by virtue of gifts and calling, may be the first among equals.

Merkle writes in chapter three that elder-led churches are healthier churches. Here he answers why more churches don’t have elder leadership, works through the qualifications of an elder, and explains why it is appropriate, but not necessary, to pay one or more elders. It is not clear to me how the content of this chapter fits the title of the chapter, “It Produces a Healthier Church.” But this is a small criticism given the important topics addressed.

Finally, in the last chapter, Merkle shows how a healthy elder board empowers the deacons. Deacons exist to serve the church in practical, task-oriented ways. Just as the deacons of Acts 6freed the apostles to devote themselves to the ministry of the Word and prayer, so churches, in a twenty-first century context, are “free to define the tasks of deacons based on their particular needs” (98).

To save space, several important questions are not addressed in Why Elders? Readers will need to turn to 40 Questions for more discussion of whether women can serve as deacons or whether divorce disqualifies a man from serving as an elder. Also, though we know Baptist leaders advocated for plural eldership in the early nineteenth century (including the first president of the Southern Baptist Convention) we would be helped to know why so many churches did not heed this counsel and why the practice seemed to die out. Merkle’s three answers (lack of qualified men, lack of biblical knowledge, and fear of change) explain where we are now but not how we got here.

Baptist pastors especially will want to give this book (as I already have) to church members in order to fight against the prevailing thesis that having elders is, somehow, not Baptist.

So if you haven’t considered this before you’re probably thinking that’s a lot. This is a good starter point for you. I believe Scripture will simplify it for us as we work through this together.