by There is not enough biblical support that clearly confirms one model, or way, of organizing the church.[1] The New Testament evidence is simply too diverse as there is no one governing New Testament ecclesiology.[2] All the models declare Christ as the head of the church. They all have comparable definitions of pastor, elder, overseer, bishop, and deacons with parallel citations from the Bible on those qualifications (Timothy and Titus). Each model has adequate biblical support, but the interpretation of the Scripture and the weighting of other factors changes the model. Some models are better suited depending on the size, spiritual maturity, qualifications, and proficiency of spiritual gifts with the leadership of the church.
Bishop-Led Church
The episcopal model is where the bishop stands at the top of the community with pastors and deacons underneath. Episcopacy is the institution by which bishops, episkopois, govern the church with three levels of ordination.[3] The first level is deacon, diakonos, that aids the second level of presbyter/elder, presbyteros, and the third level is overseer/bishop, episkopos. This model values continuity and the virtue of tradition.[4] A unique aspect of this model is the “three-legged stool or tricycle” approach to determining truth. Scripture is weighted heavier than tradition and reason, but all three are used in the evaluation. The Anglican Church has bishops that report to the Archbishop. Some Lutheran and Methodist churches have bishops (with Archbishops as the senior), but this is optional.
One of the biggest strengths of this model is the protection and guarantee of the church’s gospel and Bible. The bishops are servants of the Word and not anyone else.[5] Another strength is the ability of one bishop to sufficiently evangelize (convert) and disciple (mature) people into a body of Christ, a church, by himself.
One of the weaknesses of this model is the potential of prelacy, which is the authoritarian rulership of one man.[6] History has proven that this risk came to realization more than once within the Anglican/Episcopal church where the bishops became tyrants. Another weakness is the classification of “high church” which has a lot of “church” within its culture including the building, statues, stained glass, vestments, mitres, liturgical services, chants, etc. Another disadvantage of the model is the inability to discipline the bishops when necessary. Unfortunately, history has proven that this has occurred multiple times.
Presbytery-Led Church
Leadership and authority reside with the elders and there are no bishops as there is only one level of ministers.[7] Their interpretation of the New Testament tells them that bishops and presbyters are the same (Titus 1:5). They identify many instances in the New Testament where overseers and deacons are plural and not singular. The elders/overseers are elected by the congregation but only in the view that the Holy Spirit has endowed them as the gifts to the church and with spiritual gifts that are in alignment with Christ’s will.[8] The elders are not bound under the congregation as they are to rule and oversee in agreement with the revealed Word of God over the congregation (1 Thess 5:12-13, Heb 13:7, 17, 24). Some churches have the elders split between teaching elders and ruling elders. As with the other models, deacons are not of rule but of service to the physical and spiritual needs of the congregation. There is a “connectionalism” that exists between the local churches as the New Testament teaches this in Acts 15, Ephesians 4:3-6 with the seven “ones”, and the other epistles that teach Christian unity.
One of the strengths of this model is that it is the most trustworthy, just, and peaceful way for the church to shape its principles, its practices, its priorities, and to resolve its conflicts.[9] This minimizes the risk of hierarchical tyranny on one end and congregational anarchy on the other. Another strength is the amount of Scripture that supports the plurality of church leaders by virtually every New Testament author that wrote about church leadership. With qualified leaders, there is no dependency on one person to be everything for the church.
One of the weaknesses of this model is the assumption that there was pluralism of leadership within a church based on the interpretation of Scripture. There is no definitive answer to understanding if there are multiple churches with one leader each or one church with multiple leaders. Another weakness would be similar with the “connectionalism” assumption that there were multiple churches in an area to connect with. As a larger entity of Presbyterian Church (USA), it has been difficult to be decisive on issues such as homosexuality and abortion.[10] Dealing with church discipline is another risk as the small group of elders do not report to the congregation and could be unconsciously bias and have a clique that divides the congregation or excludes those that do not fit their profile of a member.
Congregational
The congregational models have no bishops as the congregation is the locust of authority as they are autonomous from other churches. There are associations but there is no upper level of management or oversight. Each member in the congregation has a responsibility to discern the work of the Spirit and to ensure that the Church acts accordingly.[11] This does not mean that each member has the same role of participation in the church. One common weakness of this model is the possibility of false teachings as anyone can start a nondenominational, congregational church and start teaching without any biblical oversight or correction. This also means that each church might have different biblical interpretations regarding LGBTQ+, speaking in tongues, apostles, prophets, women as senior pastors, etc. Baptists, some Methodists, non-episcopal Lutherans, and other churches adopt this model. There are three different leadership styles of the congregational model (Congregation-Led, Single-Elder-Led, and Plural-Elder-Led).
Congregation-Led Church
This model has the congregation as the authority of all decisions when they meet for formal decision-making. The congregation votes on membership, leadership, doctrine, worship, conduct, missions, finances, property, relationships, and the like except when delegated by the congregation to individual members or groups of members.[12] Pastoral authority is more authority of influence than an authority of office as the congregation has final authority. The pastor, who is elected and reaffirmed by the congregation, has an increasing influence the longer he is in the position. When there is a need for discipline, the congregation, not the elders, are responsible for exercising church discipline and exclusion. This confirms the model that the congregation is responsible for members in and out of the church.
A strength is that the internal structure is flexible to the organizational structure between the pastoral leadership and the Congregational polity. Another strength is the opportunity for every member to participate in the decision-making process. This could increase the engagement and spiritual maturity of the members as they feel the church is “our church.”
A weakness of this model is the energy and time needed for a pastor to move the congregation in a different direction. The pastor needs to “cast a vision” to the congregation and then get them to “buy into it” before implementing. This can be difficult for a new pastor who was brought into the church to revitalize it but has not authority to change anything without consensus. Another issue that has happened in recent years is the role of the deacons. They moved from “temporalities” such as offerings, buildings, communion, sick, etc. to more spiritual affairs and leadership positions. They were equivalent to a board of directors which is a clear violation from Congregational polity.
Single-Elder-Led Church
One of the most important aspects of a single-elder-led church is the qualifications of the elder. He must be biblically qualified as nothing is more important. He is recognized by and granted by the congregation as they deem him worthy of respect and honor. This should only be possible because of his moral authority, integrity, and standing in the community.[13] The elder must meet all the qualifications and not just some of them.
One of the weaknesses of this model is the limitations of time for the elder to do all eight of the functions required from the New Testament. These include the overall responsibility for the oversight and direction of the church, seek the mind of Christ through the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the Word of God on all matters, apt to teach, exhort, and defend sound doctrine to the church, provide instruction for the maintenance of healthy relationships, exercise general oversight of financial matters, lead in the appointing and equipping of the deacons, lead by example, and lead in the exercise of church discipline. This pastor will only ordain someone that is qualified/skilled similarly and their replacement will also need to be similar as that is what the congregation needs. Another weakness is the invisible ceiling given to those that are gifted as pastors as they will not be able to be a pastor at the church they started in because there can only be one lead pastor. This could cause unnecessary turnover as those that are gifts of pastors will need to leave and plant a new church or be a pastor at a different church. Another weakness is that there are little to no controls to hold the pastor accountable. This is why there is a need for an “inner circle” for accountability and good counsel.
There are several strengths to this model as the pastor can add elders and deacons as he deems appropriate (with congregation approval). The pastor can have multiple pastors if they are under his leadership as associate pastors of functional pastors like discipleship. This enables him to focus on his strengths and have others compliment him with their strengths. The long-term senior pastor will have deep relationships with the congregation. He can make changes to policies and procedures quickly along with any other decision-making items.
Plural-Elder-Led Church
The difference between plural-elder-led and single-elder-led is that this model has all the elders as equal with none of them over the other. There is a sufficient amount of Scripture that supports the apostolic work that involved the appointing of elders (plural) in each church (singular).[14] This model also emphasizes the combination of pastors and teachers as it is impossible to pastor the sheep without teaching, just as it is impossible to teach God’s truth without application and exhortation.[15] Another viewpoint of this model is that God did not gift any one man with all the gifts necessary to minister to the flock. It is wise in the extreme to recognize the plurality of elders as a gift from God whereby the full spectrum of needs of the flock can be met properly.[16]
A weakness of this model is the potential for conflict among the elders as they all have similar gifts and want to maximize their usage even when that function might be assigned to another elder. Fortunately, the congregation has voting power and could alleviate these issues as they arise. Another risk is where there is a difference of opinion on interpretation of Scripture and the congregation starts to get confused or mixed teachings. Not having one person as leader could engage the congregation more than it should to resolve disputes among the elders. This model also assumes that there is more than one qualified elder within the church. This gets difficult specifically when the budget might only support one elder and the others are unpaid.
One of the strengths of this model is that those that mature in the church can reach their potential as the gift of pastor within the same church and not have to leave and go somewhere else to be a full pastor. This also provides the existing elders with opportunities to mature replacements into leadership without leaving the position. An example would be where a pastor ages to the point where he can downsize his functions while still being equal with the other elders. Another strength is the amount of biblical evidence that supports this model is very convincing. This model minimizes the negative possibility of a single-led tyrant and a congregation that leads into anarchy.
Note from Professor: This is very nicely done. So far the only 150/150 I’ve given. No issues at all for me. – Dr. Bob Bayles
Bibliography
Akin, Daniel, James Leo Garrett Jr, Robert L. Reymond, James R. White, Paul F. M. Zahl, Chad Owen Brand, and R. Stanton Norman. Perspectives on Church Government: Five Views of Church Polity. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2004.
Cockayne, Joshua. Explorations in Analytic Ecclesiology: That They May Be One. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2023.ProQuest Ebook Central.
Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. An Introduction to Ecclesiology: Historical, Global, and Interreligious Perspectives. Westmont, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central.
[1] Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, An Introduction to Ecclesiology: Historical, Global, and Interreligious Perspectives (Westmont, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2021), 204. ProQuest Ebook Central.
[2] Daniel Akin et al., Perspectives on Church Government: Five Views of Church Polity (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2004), 212.
[3] Akin et al., Perspectives on Church, 225.
[4] Ibid., 236.
[5] Akin et al., Perspectives on Church, 230.
[6] Ibid., 231.
[7] Kärkkäinen, An Introduction, 207.
[8] Akin et al., Perspectives on Church, 94.
[9] Akin et al., Perspectives on Church, 135.
[10] Ibid., 149.
[11] Joshua Cockayne, Explorations in Analytic Ecclesiology: That They May Be One (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2023), 66.ProQuest Ebook Central.
[12] Akin et al., Perspectives on Church, 157.
[13] Akin et al., Perspectives on Church, 41.
[14] Akin et al., Perspectives on Church, 271.
[15] Ibid., 278.
[16] Ibid., 283.