More on Elders and Baptists

My friend Randa asks a good question in the comments on my last post. Where do I find in scripture that elder leadership should be in a congregational context? Where does the Bible teach that the whole church ultimately has responsibility for issues of discipline and doctrine? I thought the answer was worth a blog post in its own right, as it's a bit more lengthy than would suit a comment.

I draw a distinction between normal leadership and ultimate authority. God has indeed given elders to his church to lead and shepherd the flock. Those who are Godly men, apt to teach, especially those who normally have the responsibility of publicly teaching the Word of God, are to be the ones who lead, shape and guide the church in its normal life. Church members, in turn, have an obligation to submit to and obey the leaders God has given them, so long as they don't teach or practice contra the Scriptures.

That said, however, the congregation--the church as a whole--still bears responsibility before God for what goes on in the church. This matters in three principal areas: doctrine, discipline, and, by inference, membership.

First, the church as a whole is responsible for ensuring that the Gospel is clearly preached and that heresy and false doctrine are kept out. Hence, Paul's taking the members of the church in Galatia to task for having allowed false teachers to creep in and spread a false gospel. The whole letter is written to the church as a whole, not to some group within the congregation--not just the men, not just the elders, not just the pastor. The implication is clear: the whole body has responsibility to see that disease does not gain a foothold.

This carries over to the area of discipline, as well. In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul screams at the entire church for allowing the immoral man to continue as a member of the body. He tells them how to deal with such sin in the assembly: cast the offending member out! Whether it took an action of the whole membership or not to effect the punishment, Paul clearly is speaking to the whole congregation when he tells the Corinthians they've done wrong in failing to admonish their brother properly.

Here it may be helpful to raise the old distinction between formative and corrective discipline. The kind of discipline we see in 1 Cor. 5, Matt. 18, and 2 Thess. 3 is corrective discipline. It takes affect when a member of the church has sinned or offended a brother, and it is aimed at restoring him, by his repentance, to fellowship and "walking orderly." This corrective discipline is, as we saw above, the responsibility of the whole church. But by far the most common type of discipline that takes place in the life of the church is formative discipline. This is the training and spurring on to spiritual growth that comes by preaching, teaching, and iron-sharpening fellowship amongst the members of the church. Formative discipline, as well, is the responsibility of the whole church, though the elders will naturally take the lead in it. All the members of the church have responsibility before God for their fellow members, to know them and build them up by conversation, teaching, and fellowship in the Gospel.

This implies a third area for which the congregation has responsibility: church membership. in 2 Corinthians 2, Paul refers to a sinner who had been disciplined by the church, telling the members of the church to forgive him. He says, "The punishment inflicted on him by the majority [of the church] is sufficient for him." Whether this refers to the man from 1 Corinthians 5 or another who had been disciplined and removed from fellowship, it's clear that the previous action had been done by a vote of the whole congregation. That's why he speaks of "the majority." If members of the church are removed by a vote of the congregation, this implies that there's a clearly defined membership, and that the congregation is the body that takes members in as well as seeing them out.

For more on this topic, see 9marks.org, Phil Newton's book Elders In Congregational Life: Rediscovering The Biblical Model For Church Leadership , and Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary Ecclesiology by John Hammett. For a look at what Baptists from the sixteenth to the twentieth century have had to say, check out Polity; Biblical Arguments on How to Conduct Church Life (A Collection of Historic Baptist Documents) by Mark Dever.

Baptists and Elders

Another essay from my recently-completed internship at Capitol Hill Baptist Church


In today’s evangelical world, it seems most people don’t give a lot of thought to how the Bible says that the church should be governed and led. For those in established denominations, those conversations are several hundred years in the past. For those in non-denominational churches, the assumption seems to be that whatever works or is most effective is generally what should be done. As Mark Dever makes clear in the last chapter of Nine Marks of a Healthy Church, however, God has in fact given us a pattern for church leadership in His Word, the Bible. Those of us who value the Bible and intend to submit to its rule in all of faith and life would do well to understand and follow the Biblical model of church leadership.

First of all, leadership within the church is to be understood in a congregational context. That is, the congregation as a whole has final responsibility and authority for the most important and clear things in the life of the body, such as matters of doctrine and discipline. Within this congregational context, however, we are to submit to the leadership of a plurality of godly men—elders—who demonstrate good and godly character, knowledge of God’s Word, ability to teach, and concern for the good of the whole church. These men should have spiritual gifts that they are dedicated to using to build up the congregation. They exercise various roles in relation to the church—bosses, examples, suppliers, and servants. Biblical church leadership reflects God’s character as it shows a model of Christians submitting to the authority God has in himself and the authority he has delegated to church leaders on earth.

So, if your church doesn’t have elders who lead in this way, is that really such a bad thing? What’s the problem with, for example, the way most Baptist churches are structured with a pastor (the sole elder, in a sense) and deacons which serve with a mix of spiritual leadership and meeting physical needs? Are there any good reasons for a church to undertake the challenging task of changing its leadership structure? As a matter of fact, there are several real and potential problems with such a structure, not all of which are listed here.

First, and most importantly, it simply isn’t the model that Jesus has ordained for His church in the Bible. If we believe in the inerrancy, authority, and sufficiency of Scripture, we have a duty to follow its dictates in every area where it speaks to our lives and our churches. Polity—church government and leadership—is one area where the Bible does clearly tell us what to do, and we should obey. Remember that because of the congregational nature of the church, obeying the Bible as a congregation is something for which we all are responsible, and for which we are all to blame if we don’t.

Second, when men—like a board of deacons—who are not recognized by the congregation as elders have a share in the leading of the congregation, there can be an unhelpful confusion regarding who actually is in charge. On one hand, the pastor, who has the responsibility of preaching God’s word as an elder, should naturally be seen as one who should be looked to and obeyed as a leader. On the other hand, God never intended that a single man should bear the whole burden of leading a congregation, and a pastor who is appropriately humbled by God’s word will naturally turn to others—such as deacons—to help him with that burden.

Third, there can be an unhelpful confusion regarding the role that deacons are to play in the church. The New Testament is fairly clear—and Baptists historically understood—that deacons are not the ones who are to be in charge of the teaching and leadership of the church. They aren’t required to be skilled in understanding and teaching the Word of God as elders are, and they have another role that is clearly outlined in the Bible. They are to serve the physical and organizational needs of the church, taking the burden of “waiting tables” off of those whose duty it really is to devote themselves to prayer and the ministry of the Word.

Fourth, when the pastor and the deacons both have a degree of spiritual leadership, it can sometimes produce a tension—at worst, an outright struggle—between them over the leadership of the church. While this is certainly possible with elders as well, it is less likely where the pastor understands himself to be—and is understood by the congregation as—only one of several elders, each with an equal share of the burden of ministry, and each with a duty to respect and submit to the others.

Fifth, when there is not a plurality of elders in the local church, the pastor almost always finds himself with an impossible load, as the entire burden of the ministry is on his shoulders. He is particularly vulnerable to criticism for initiatives he might take to lead the church in new directions. If the church is larger than even just a few dozen members, it can be nearly impossible for the pastor to know the congregation well enough to care for them spiritually as an under-shepherd of the flock should.

So, for obedience to the Bible, for clarity on who’s in charge, for clarity regarding the role of deacons, for unanimity in leadership, and for the relief of the pastor, consider leading your church to adopt a plurality of elders. These are just a few reasons, and there are many more. Making that sort of move may be difficult, and so it should be approached deliberately, with great wisdom and much faithful teaching of the congregation. If done wisely, however, regaining the Biblical model of plural eldership can have great fruit for your church and for the whole Bride of Christ.