MIDWESTERN BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

THE BODY OF CHRIST: A CASE FOR ELDER-LED CONGREGATIONALISM

A RESEARCH PAPER

SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT

OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE COURSE

CE 8301 CHURCH ADMINISTRATION

BY

CLAYTON MILLER

KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI

MAY 04, 2022

 Introduction

Church polity is vital for all churches. Wherever you go, whatever church you attend,

how the church governs over the cogregation is a matter of importance for all sects of

Christianity. Although everyone agrees that the way a church is run is important, not everyone

agrees on how it should be governed. From different branches of Christianity like Catholicisim

and Orthodox to disagreements with between fellow Baptist, there are many different opinions as

to church polity today. Elder-Led congregationalism is the biblical form of polity for the church

laid out in Scripture. This will be shown by first arguing for blanket form of congregationalism

from Scripture followed by why elder-led congregationalism specifically fulfills what Scripture

says about church polity.

A Case for Congregationalism

In Christianity, there are a few main forms of church government that are practiced.

These types of church polity are episcopalianism, presbyterianism, and congregationalism.

Before giving an argument for congregationalism, the other church polities must be addressed by

looking at the biblical support (or lack thereof) for them.

Episcopalianism is the form of church government that is practiced by the Catholic

Church, the Orthodox church, the Methodist church, and the Episcopalian church. This form of

church governance recognizes three offices of the church: the bishop, the presbyter, and the

deacon. The bishop presides over a diocese, a group of regional churches, and is the ultimate

authority on matters of maintaining the offices of the church. Underneath them, the presbyter is

responsible for the needs of worship, teaching, and preaching in an individual church. Finally,

1
deacons are responsible for assisting the bishop and the presbyters in their needs of

administration or teaching in the church.

Many proponents of Episcopalianism argue for its validity throughout church history.

The Threefold ministry of the bishop, presbyter, and deacon has its beginnings around 100-

150AD with Ignatius writing about the three-fold aspect of the offices of the church. Beginning

in the third and fourth centuries this model put forth by Ignatius became the main model of

church governance. Early Church Fathers such as Cyprian who says that “Whence you ought to

know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with

the bishop, that he is not in the Church.”1 Without a bishop presiding over local church, it is not a

church at its core but something completely separated from the catholic church.

While on the surface of the ample support from church history of episcopalianism, there

lies underneath it little to no biblical support for the view. One main objection raised against it is

that there exists no distinction between the bishop and the presbyter in the New Testament. The

New Testament authors are seen using both terms interchangeably about the same office. One

example of this is in Acts 20 where Paul calls the pastors in Ephesus both presbyters and

epicopats in the same passage. Another objection raised against episcopalianism is that this form

of polity gives a denominational view of the government of the church where the New Testament

authors referred to churches in their local context pertaining to their congregation, not their

diocese of churches.

Presbyterianism is the form of church governance used by the Presbyterian church and

many Reformed churches. In this form of governance there exists two types of elders; teaching

elders whose role it is to provide the spiritual guidance from the Word and administer the

1
Cyprian, Epistle 68.8.

2
sacraments, and the ruling elders who execute church rule and discipline as spokesman for the

congregation. This teaching elder and ruling elders form a session which is the ruling body of

that church. Multiple sessions in an area can form to become a presbytery, where members of

local sessions can review the actions and decisions of other members of the presbytery. From

these presbyteries, a synod can be formed which rules and makes decisions over the presbyteries.

Then ultimately the general assembly of all synods will make matters on doctrine and nationwide

ministries.

One popular argument given for presbyterianism is that Paul seems to separate the role of

teaching and the role of administration in his letters. Places like 1 Timothy 5:17, Romans 12:2-8,

and 1 Corinthians 12:28 give some credence to the possibility of a split between teaching and

ruling elders in Scripture. Another argument for presbyterian polity is the Jerusalem Council in

Acts 15. With the widespread issue that was Gentile circumcision, many churches set their elders

(in the form of presbyteries) to the synod assembled in Jerusalem to settle the issue.

While these arguments may be convincing for some, there are good reasons to not believe

in presbyterianism. One argument against this is that their interpretation of passages like 1

Timothy 5:17 is based on faulty exegeses. Paul exhorts Timothy in 1 Timothy 5:17 to, “Let the

elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in

preaching and teaching.”2 Presbyterians argue that Pauls’s group of elders who rule well and

those who labor in teaching and preaching are two separate groups of people that Paul is

addressing. A better interpretation of this passage is that Paul is addressing one group of elders

and that Paul is exhorting those in that group who preach and teach well with double honor.

Another argument against presbyterianism is their interpretation of the Jerusalem council in Acts

2
Gregg Allison, Sojourners and Strangers: The Doctrine Of The Church (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012), 277.

3
15. Where many Presbyterians believe that the messengers that were sent were members of a

presbytery in places like Antioch, there is no evidence that these messengers weren't just elders

of a local church in Antioch. These passages provide evidence for local cooperation and

engagement with churches but do not prove that these churches combined their elder body to

form a presbytery and then sent one of them to Jerusalem.

Congregationalism is the form of church government that is commonly used by many

Protestant denominations from Baptists, Reformed, Lutherans, and others. In congregationalism,

the local congregation is responsible for most (if not all) decisions made pertaining to the church

body. According to Greg Allison in his book, Sojourners And Strangers, what separates

congregationalism from both episcopalianism and presbyterianism is that the local church is

autonomous and democratic. The local church is autonomous in that it is the local congregation

that is responsible for itself. Likewise, since the authority of the local church lays on individual

members the whole church decides on matters through democratic votes.3

One argument for congregationalism is that there is no reference to a government of body

above the local congregation in the New Testament. In Paul’s epistles to churches such as 1 & 2

Corinthians, Ephesians, and Colossians, there are no references of any structure of bishops or

externat elders above their local churches. It would make sense to see such structures in these

letters especially since these letters are letters of reproof of the actions and beliefs of church

members, but there is no reference to possible discipline or actions by this higher ecclesiacal

authority. Moreover, in the book of Revelation, John addresses the seven churches in Asia

Minor individually. If such a system of synods or assemblies existed, shouldn’t Jesus have

mentioned it when speaking about these churches?

3
Johnathan Leeman, Understanding the Congregation’s Authority (Nashville: B&H, 2016), 11.

4
 Another argument for congregationalism is that congregationalism displays Christ’s

headship over the church as seen in Scripture. Colossians 1:18 says of Jesus that, “He is the head

of the body, the church.” Ephesians 5:23-24 likewise says that, “For the husband is the head of

the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the

church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.” These

passages show that the Church is to submit to Christ as its federal head. In 1 Timothy 2:5 , Paul

shows that there are no other mediators for the church other than Christ saying, “For there is one

God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” This passage,

along with other passages in Hebrews, shows that the ideas of bishops and presbyters interceding

for the church to God are not scriptural.

One common argument against congregationalism is that it leads the church to become

unstable in doctrinal matters and that without a person or system of authority the church can

become heterodox or even heretic. This argument brushes over the fact that this criticism of

congregationalism can easily be used against those of the presbyterian and episcopalian systems

as well. Ultimately a congregation will be judged based upon its beliefs and actions when Christ

returns to judge both the elders that have been charged to care for the souls of the congregation

and the congregation itself.

Another argument used against congregationalism is that by not having a central

government for the whole church there will be no way for separate local churches to cooperate.

Robert Raymond, a Presbyterian theologian, writes against congregationalism in his article,

“Presbyter-Led Church.” In his article, Raymond argues that congregationalism focuses on the

separations and boundaries of churches yet claims that this focus on being independent from

5
other churches of the area is unbiblical.4 The anwser to this objection that congregationalism

limits the potential of cooperation with other churches is that these churches can still cooperate

to work towards and share the

A Case for Elder-Led Congregationalism

Now that it is established that congregationalism is found to be the most biblically

supported church government, it would be profitable to examine the three types of

congregationalism that appear in churches today. These three forms: direct democracy, elder-

rule, and elder-led congregationalism, can develop in many ways throughout a church’s life and

can be changed at times for better or for worse.

Direct Democracy is a form of congregationalism where every and all aspect of the

church is decided upon by a majority vote by the congregation. This form of congregationalism

can be found often in older churches that have become stagnant in their ministry. Direct

democracy is not often a chosen polity by a church at its founding but is developed by a lack of

solid Christian leadership. Whether it is a church that was hurt by a pastor who abused their

power or the lack of strong leadership in the elders, a direct democracy form of

congregationalism is often a compensation for a bad experience in church governance.

One argument used to defend a direct democracy in the church is that it is ultimately

inevitable for a church to become a form of direct democracy. Although this may be true in cases

of churches in the West, that is neither helpful nor true in all cases. All because a church

ultimately leans toward becoming a direct democracy over time does not mean that it is a good

thing. This form of church polity does not age well. Secondly, this shift to a direct democracy

may only be found in the West where democracy is the majority form of government. A church

4
Robert Raymond, “Presbyter-Led Church,” in Perspectives on Church Government: 5 Views, ed. Chad
Brand (Nashville: B&H, 2004), 110.

6
may not fall to direct democracy in a place like Africa or in the East where there is no societal or

cultural pressure to be democratic like there is in the West.

The main argument against a direct democracy form of congregationalism is that there is

no support for the church being a democracy as the world understands it. The government of the

church is not a democracy mainly because the church has a king, that being Christ, and the

church is told to submit to the authority of elders. “Is biblical congregationalism a democracy?

No, it is a mixed government—part monarchy (rule of the one), part oligarchy (rule of the few),

part democracy (rule of the many). Jesus is King through his Word; the elders or pastors lead;

and the congregation has final (human) say on certain crucial matters.”5

Elder-Rule Congregationalism is a form of congregationalism where the elder of the

church or a body of elders are the final authority on matters of the church. The form of

congregationalism says that while the congregation has the ability to vote on some things in the

church. John Hamett says in his work, Biblical Foundations For Baptist Churches, Hammett

explains the differences between elder-rule and elder-led congregationalism saying, “Whereas

traditional congregationalism expected active congregational participation and ensured ultimate

congregational control, some of the newer forms of elder rule minimize congregational

participation and blur the lines of ultimate authority and control.”6

One argument used for an elder-rule understanding of the elder’s authority are passages

in the New Testament that command the church to submit your elders. For example, Hebrews

13:17 says to, “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your

souls, as those who will have to give an account.” Since the elder body is qualified to pastor a

church, the elder (or elders) are qualified to make sound decisions for the congregation to submit
5
John Hammett, Biblical Foundations For Bapist Churches (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2005), 155.
6
Stanley Grenz, Theology For The Community of God (Grand Rapids: Eermans, 1994), 725.

7
to. One problem with this argument is that it puts a larger emphasis on the elder body than on the

congregation. This look to absolute authority in the elders of a church is found nowhere in

Scripture.

One argument against an elder-rule form of congregationalism is that it is a weak form of

presbyterianism. Stanley Grenz in his book, Theology for the Community of God, speaks about

elder-led congregaionalism asking:

At what point does democratic congregationalism become semi-Presbyterianism? We

conclude from what we have said thus far that a congregation may delegate to its leaders
whatever decision-making prerogatives it finds expedient for facilitating its corporate
ministry. The people as a whole, however, must retain final authority for the exercise of
church powers - membership, mandate, and organization (including selection of local
officers and ordination).7

Here Grenz points out that the congregation is the final court of appeals over the power of the

church, that being church membership, church mission, and the appointing of new pastors or

deacons into office.

Elder Led Congregationalism is a form of congregationalism that provides a proper

relationship between the elder body and the congregation. In this polity, the elders lead the

congregation in spiritual and ecclesial matters and guide them to make decisions that are sound

in judgment. Since the keys of the kingdom ultimately rest in the hands of the people of God as a

whole, decisions are made by the church in regards to matters of membership, discipline,

doctrine, ordination, and others.

One main argument for elder-led congregationalism is that the whole of the church is

equip with the keys of the Kingdom. In Mark Dever and Johnathan Leeman’s book, Baptist

Foundations, they give an incredible picture of how the the congregation is active in the life of

the church by saying, “Each member, given who they are in Christ, has a role to play, which

7
Mark Dever and Johnathan Leeman, Baptist Foundations: Church Govenment For An Anti-Institutional
Age (Nashvile: B&H, 2015), 68.

8
means that the entire church is ultamitly responsible as the final court of appeal for her own

affairs under the lordship of Christ.”8 One can see this picture throughout Scritpture, showing

that the people iof the new covenant have all become priests by Christ. In 1 Peter 2:9 it says that,

“But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession,

that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous

light.” Likewise, Jeremiah 31:31-40 shows God’s intent with his new covenant people by

showing that the law will be abiding within them and will be written on their hearts to show that

they are filled with the Spirit to guide them.

One argument against elder-led congregationalism is that the Scriptures do not give

congregations authority but gives authority to elders of a church. An anwser to this objection is

that the Bible gives authority to churches in numerous places. One prime example of Christ

giving the congregation authority is Matthew 18, where Jesus gives the authority to discipline

members of the congregation not to elders in the church but to other members withint the

congregation. This passage shows us that the authority of a local congregation is over that of the

elder body in certain aspects.

Conclusion

In conclusion, elder-led congregationalism passes the tests of biblical and theological

validity. It finds itself within the pages of Scripture and is found to be a church polity that

respects all of what God has said concerning the new covenant people. But why does it matter?

Why does being in a church that practices elder-led congregationalism matter for pastors and

laymen? There are three reasons why elder-led leadership matters for the local church.

8
Colin Marshall and Tony Payne, The Trellis and the Vine: The Ministry Mind-Shift That Changes
Everything (Sydney: MatthiasMedia, 2009), 100.

9
 One reason that elder-led congregationalism matters for the local church is that it brings

about a proper and biblical relationship between the elder and the church body. Elder-led

congregationalism gives a proper place for elders in the life of the church. Colin Marshall and

Tony Payne in their book, The Trellis and the Vine, show how a pastor is not in their fullest a

CEO of a company but as a trainer and discipler of the flock of Christ, saying “Where the pastor

is a trainer, there will be a focus on people ministering to people, rather than on structures,

programs, and events.”9 While structure and government are important for the church, the life of

the church comes from focus of the congregation on mission of proclaiming the gospel in their

lives.

The second reason why elder-led congregationalism is important for the local church is

because the congregation has active participation in the decisions of the church. Elder-led

congregationalism provides a way for the church to not just and consume church events and

activities but to take part in the important business of decision making. The congregation has the

opportunity to decide on who receives membership in the church, who is a part of the elder and

deacon body, as well as how the church’s money is spent. Jamie Dunlop in his book, Budgeting

For A Healthy Church, Dunlop covers how the congregation has say on the budget by saying

that, “The simple fact that the congregation will be doing the giving suggests that they should

have an opportunity to accept or reject the budget – or at the least provide feedback before it’s

finalized.”10

The third reason why elder-led congregationalism is important for the local church is

because it allows the church to be focused on the things that matter and not minor differences in

9
Jamie Dunlop, Budgeting For A Healthy Church: Aligning Financies With Biblical Priorites For Ministry
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2019), 41.

10
Mark Dever and Paul Alexander, The Deliberate Church: Building Your Ministry On The Gospel
(Wheaton: Crossway, 2005), 28.

10
the congregation. With the pastors leading the church though every decision it makes, it allows

for everyone to be on the same page for ministry and evangelism. Mark Dever and Paul

Alexander in their book, The Deliberate Church, show how methods matter for the church by

saying, “The methods we use to plant and water in God’s vineyard must be subserviant to and in

complete harmony with the workings of God’s growth plan– the Gospel, as faithfully preached

by His servants.”11

11
Unless otherwise specified, all Bible references in this paper are to the English Standard Version (ESV)
(Wheaton: Crossway, 2005).

11
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allison, Gregg. Sojourners and Strangers: The Doctrine Of The Church. Wheaton: Crossway,
2012.

Cyprian. Epistle 68. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland
Coxe. Translated by Robert Wallis. Buffalo: Christian Literature Publishing, 1886.

Dever, Mark and Paul Alexander. The Deliberate Church: Building Your Ministry On The
Gospel. Wheaton: Crossway, 2005.

Dever, Mark and Johnathan Leeman. Baptist Foundations: Church Govenment For An
Anti-Institutional Age. Nashvile: B&H, 2015.

Dunlop, Jamie. Budgeting For A Healthy Church: Aligning Financies With Biblical
Priorites For Ministry. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2019.

Grenz, Stanley. Theology For The Community of God. Grand Rapids: Eermans, 1994.

Hammett, John. Biblical Foundations For Bapist Churches. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2005.

Leeman, Johnathan. Understanding the Congregation’s Authority. Nashville: B&H,

2016.

Marshall, Colin and Tony Payne. The Trellis and the Vine: The Ministry Mind-Shift That
Changes Everything. Sydney: MatthiasMedia, 2009.

Raymond, Robert. “Presbyter-Led Church,” in Perspectives on Church Government: 5

Views. ed. Chad Brand. Nashville: B&H, 2004).

12