The Case for single elder-congregationalism

The goal of this paper is give a Biblical, theological and philosophical defense of the form of church government known as single elder congregationalism.
When Christians approach the subject of leadership, the question must eventually asked “What is the best way to lead our church?” How should our churches be governed, and by what authority? What is the best way to accomplish the great commission and grow a healthy congregation?
Many Bible believing congregations are willing to debate over the scientific accuracy of the Bible, yet do not even consider Biblical authority in the area of following in the Lord’s ministry. The irony is that the Bible is legitimately argued against as a scientific authority, because the focus of the Bible is not on science. Yet ministry in God’s house is an obvious topic of scripture. But, in our biblically ignorant post-modern world, the subject is easily ignored if not rejected. However, the Bible clearly teaches that ministry is to be done upon the authority of God. (Matt. 15:3,8-9,28:20, 1Cor.14: 33, 40, 1Tim3: 15, 2Tim 3:16-17)
From this point, we should ask ourselves what form of church government is ideal in following the scriptures? This paper will start at the argument for congregationalism and then move to the debate surrounding single-elder verses plural-elder congregationalism. Then, there will be a philosophical defense of Single-elder congregationalism; ending the paper in suggestions on how to achieve that.
Biblical basis of congregationalism
The New Testament gives us several principles that lead us toward democracy in our dealings with one another. First, all Christians were sinners worthy of hell, who have been declared righteous by the very righteousness of Christ. Therefore, we all have equal spiritual standing before God. (2 Cor.5: 14, 16, Rom.3: 27)
Secondly, Christians are called to a lifestyle of humility. The gospel points out on multiple occasions that this implies that we are not to abuse authority over others. (Matt. 20:25-28) Thirdly, the Bible declares Jesus to be head of the church. Since Christ is the head, his authority is direct over every individual without the need for intermediaries.
Fourthly, the Bible proclaims that every believer has priesthood. (1Peter 2:9-11) Therefore, all the church members are directly responsible to God for the church’s actions. We can see this in the Judgements of the churches in revelation as well as judgements on Israel. The entire community is responsible for the sum of its parts.
Fifthly, the nature of the Holy Spirit is given to all believers, giving us all counsel from God. E.Y. Mullins stated this principle as follows:
“Centralized authority is also necessary in the state for the exercise of force, a function always improper for the church. On the contrary, the central authority in Christianity can not be localized. Christ said it was expedient that he go away in order that the Holy Spirit might come. Thus he ‘exchanged His presence for His omnipresence.’ It might be a logical procedure for a given community owning a large body of real estate in common to delegate the control of its mines and the distribution of the coal to a commission. The nature of the case would require some administration perhaps. But it would be absurd to appoint a commission to control and distribute the sunlight. In this respect the inhabitants would only need to keep put of each other’s light. Every man would simply have to avoid building his house or ordering his life so as to obscure the sun from his brother. As the Baptist sees it, papacies and episcopacies are commissions to control the sunshine.” ( Mullins The Axioms of Religion pg119. 1997)


Catholic/Episcopalians argue bishop authority is inherited from the Apostles. First, the office of Apostles has ceased in the sense that the qualifications included those who were discipled by Christ in his earthly ministry and demonstrated powerful miraculous authority. Bishops contain neither attribute. There are no scriptures known that imparted this authority. In fact those who requested it were asked to repent. (Simon the sorcerer) The emphasis upon divine authority was upon the Bible. (2Peter 3:2)
Many have argued for top-down authority based upon the Counsel of Jerusalem in (Acts 15). However, the counsel included the Apostles who had special apostolic authority. The counsel does not even make demands based on force but instead humble request. The body had apostles and elders, but was also composed of the general church of Jerusalem. The action was actually releasing them of the authority of the Judaizers who claimed apostolic Authority over them to change their doctrine. Jerusalem asked them to only abandon obvious acts idolatry, which were most likely universally agreed upon. Therefore, this was an act of encouragement not an abuse of power.
Some have argued that since Titus was commanded to appoint elders that he had top down authority. However, the passage explains the situation:
Tit 1:1 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness; [emphasis added]
It can be seen here, that saints who acknowledged Paul’s message as godly and democratically elected Paul’s ministry.
Tit 1:3 But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Savior;
The only ministry performed in the area was the preaching of Paul. Though there
-Were Christians there, churches were not completely established. Therefore Titus was not to rule over churches but help churches to get on their feet.
Single-elder verses plural elder
Many have become confused over the nature of this debate. From the title single verses plural elder churches may seem to be a debate over whether a church should have just one or many ministers. Yet in fact that is not the situation. Most on both sides of the debate would accept a congregation if they had no pastor, multiple elders or just one.
The debate ranges over whether or not we should have a parity of elders or a leading/head elder as the ideal model for congregations.
This debate is of high importance for congregational churches since they believe themselves to be autonomous. If a church can not successfully govern itself on all matters, then it is forced to become dependent on other bodies and lose its autonomy.
It appears this model has become a recently popular alternative to the tradition single-elder congregation for the following reasons.
a. The rise of Reformed theology
The ideas of multiple elders and a top down church government were essential parts to church government. It is interesting to note that until the Baptist most predestinarian church leaders advocated top down government, connected to local government. This could be seen with Augustine in his persecution of the Donatist, Luther in his relationship to Germany and the Peasant Rebellion, Zwingli in his ties to the Swiss cantons, Calvin in his dominance over Geneva, and Knox in his revolution of Scotland.
I believe this is due to the fact that their views of God were that of a God who dominates others, therefore they considered the abuse of power a godly quality. Assuming this not be abusive, but instead an establishment of order. Now that Reform theology is becoming popular in the contemporary market, there is once again the tendency for top down leadership.
b. The rise of the mega-church model
The more people in a congregation the greater need for leadership. The church growth model of the twentieth century emphasized having more people coming to a congregation and then leaving static without ant plans to multiply. This tendency would leave successful the proponents with city sized congregations. This obviously left the idea of a single elder out of the picture. Therefore, came large and larger pastoral staffs. The result was top down church governments, even if these churches were Baptist congregational church governments became almost meaningless. Therefore, multiple elder models have become popular once again.
c. The convenience of multiple elders
It is very relaxing to have a church government structure where you know there are people there to take up for your responsibilities. The problem is that once a congregation loses its responsibilities, it also loses its freedom. Yet like much of America, and more so with Europe, this trend of top down authority has encouraged many to release their authority and slip into lackadaisical Christianity.
d. The rise of ministry calling
By God’s grace Christianity is making a comeback. Atheistic Modernism has run its course leaving a huge vacuum of spiritually hungry people. This has led a lot of people not only back into church but a lot of others who feel called to be full-time ministers. But there is a great deal of sacrifices to be made in following God’s Call you must be ready to leave everything. But it would be so much easier if you could simply stay in your own congregation and get hired on as staff. Therefore, that is what many are trying to accomplish and this is a common tendency in mega churches.
It must be understood that the model of multiple elders can never defend the authority of the local congregation. The work of the multiple elders wedges out the responsibility of the whole of the congregation. If there are many elders, then they need to do work. If they need to do the work, then the congregation doesn’t.
Plural elder congregation proponent Samuel Waldron appears to agree.
“Furthermore it seems to me that biblical appreciation of a plurality of elders in the local churches must logically and practically tend to modify and restrain the radical democratic tendencies of many evangelical churches today. Even if we reject the Presbyterian version of elder rule, there is a kind of tension between a democratic view of church government and plural elder view of church government.” (WaldronPg.189 2004)

Biblical basis of the single elder
The term elder draws back to the elder/judges of the Old Testament. These men were individual rulers of there tribes. Some would refer to the overarching authority of Moses. Yet Moses authority translates in the New Testament upon Christ the Chief shepherd and King of the Kingdom of Heaven. If we understood the position of Moses as translating to Christ and his kingdom, then what authority would be over the elders? (Matt. 23:2, Mark 9:5-8, Acts 3:22,Heb. 3:1-3, 2Pet.1: 17-18)
There are several hints in the New Testament as to single-elder authority. First, the nature of Christ in the Gospels portrays him as the first Christian Single-elder. Although it is a popular belief that Christian churches did not start till the book of Acts, there is little or no proof of this. It is obvious in the gospels; Jesus had a baptized congregation. He referred to the term church twice, and the second time referred to the church as a current reality. Therefore, Jesus was the head-pastor of the first Christian Church. After the ascension, Peter was the second single-elder. After the dispersion of the church at the council of Jerusalem, it appears James took the role of head pastor over Jerusalem.
In the book of Acts we see several plural elder models. (Acts 20:28) However it never states any rule of plural elders, and these were all in the midst of new transitions. It also says that the holy spirit made them bishops, which could have been referring to an inward calling as oppose to an official church ordination. The book of Acts is written in a historical genre. History tells you what happened at a certain time but not what is supposed to happen every time. Luke doesn’t take the time to graph the makeup of the churches in their numbers, nor does he detail how many house churches were established in a city and how many elders per congregation. Most importantly there is no suggestion of a doctrine a specific number of elders per congregation.
Tendency of the smaller congregations
One factor that needs to be in place with these congregations is an attitude of multiplication. If not congregational churches have a tendency to die like physical bodies. Some die through lack of numbers. Yet some can corrode through too much growth. When a congregation gets to large, the authority moves to the upper levels. This happen because there will tend to be more people ready and willing for leadership. They will move to the top while there will be a massive group of immature Christians at the bottom with no responsibilities. Top down models kill off the life of the church because the congregation gets a lack of empowerment.
Philosophical arguments for the model
A. Unity of vision
It is obvious that any organization needs one unified vision. Otherwise the organization would contradict itself. It is also obvious that one of the best ways to communicate the vision is to have someone who personifies that vision.
“Another way the leader communicates a new vision is by consistently acting on it and personifying it. Think of the way Martin Luther King, Jr., embodied and communicated the vision of the civil rights movement, or the way Ted Turner showed by his own personal sense of adventure in the Americas Cup races the extent of innovation and risk-taking he expected in his company, Turner Broadcasting.” (Bennis and Nanus Leaders: Strategies for taking Charge pg100 2003)

A single elder is capable personifying the vision for one church or community. Therefore an effective single elder can effectively communicate a movement better than an oligarchy or group leadership.

B. Deacons are empowered for ministry
Multiple elders tend to take ministry away from the deacons. In many of these arrangements the question comes up, what is the role of the deacons? If elders are in control of the ministry and the teaching, then what is there for a deacon to do?
When a single-elder system is in place, the deacons are empowered with the backbone of congregational ministry. They empower the pastors to teach and rule, while also becoming ministry role models for the rest of the congregation. Therefore they perform the functions of ministry, help the head minister, while leading the flock by example.
C. Empowerment of the Congregation
When the congregation understands their own responsibilities and freedoms, and then understands their role in the church, they become empowered to do ministry. The affect of an entire congregational body changing from the ministered to ministers is staggering. A minister or a ministry staff can only make so much of a difference in the church and community. Yet an empowered congregation can and will make a direct effect on the community. (Romanuk 2006)
D. Greater since of urgency
Multiple elders can have a tendency to let the church feel like it is being taken care of. When the congregation is not doing the ministry, it is not aware of the troubles going on in the ministry. They feel that any problem with the church is not their responsibility, but the problems of the staff. So the congregation becomes lackadaisical in this process. (Bennis 2003)
The initial practice that can harm any organization is a lack of urgency. Because the congregation is unprepared and usually ceases to do ministry of it’s own. Instead it becomes a daycare center were people come only to get there needs met.
E. Disposal of oligarchies
In the world of business it has been shown that two many managers can slow down production. Leadership must be swift and an oligarchy is rarely swift.
“In the kind of benign oligopolistic world that existed in many industries for much of the twentieth century, the relatively stable and prosperous environment allowed organizations to minimize internal interdependence. …
“This way of running a business is disappearing for a number of reasons, particularly because of increased competition. With the exception of a few monopolies, organizations cannot afford big inventories, slow and linear product development, and foreign operation that goes its own way.” (Kotter pg.134 1996)
Kotter speaks about adapting to change in the business world. Apparently Oligarchy styled business are too slow to counteract global economic competition. The same can be easily applied to church government. There has been a great deal of religious competition in America starting in the 1960’s. Top church government is slowing down and fading away. While Baptist congregational bodies have been steadily growing.
F. Accountability of the leader When one leader faces the congregation that is mature, he must live up to high expectations. When a group is ruling, they can intimidate members of the congregation. However if the congregation is fully aware of the church business, then it is hard to live a double life. While the Private life of the pastor should be preserved in some sense, it should not be so private that they are able to pull off a Jekyl/Hyde lifestyle. There is always the need to protect the Pastor from a legalistic lifestyle. Yet, this need, will always be in submission to the protection of impressionable members of the congregation. (Mcneal 2006)
G. Discipleship and evangelism focus on short-term winsIf one is in a smaller concentrated group there is a higher acknowledgement of change. Yet small changes are more noticeable. Therefore, it is more possible to focus upon short-term wins. When people have changed their views it is more noticeable in a more focused environment. When ministries are accomplished, they are more noticeable. If they are emphasized at greater level then small wins can be focused on. If there is a focus on short-term wins then momentum can be built. This can lead to larger wins rather easily.

How as a preacher to go about producing single-pastor congregationalism
a. Find an open minded congregationA congregation needs to find a sense of awareness that they need to become autonomous. They also need to respect the authority of the pastor. If a congregation has respect for the pastor, a pastor can work to develop the maturity of the congregation. If a congregation does not respect the authority of the pastor, it would seem more difficult, yet could be done with patience and sensitivity. Also, when all else fails congregational bodies are easy to start up, since there is no need for any foreign bodies just a group of assembled Christians.
b. Preach strong Biblical sermons
Biblical sermons are always going to mean a great deal for the life of the church. Yet they are especially essential to single elder congregationalism. Good preaching that is well understood helps the congregation to move on to maturity. Also, if the pastor becomes trustworthy as a preacher his authoritative standing in the church rises immensely. He could also preach on this subject in order to win over the congregation. However, just as with a subject like tithing he must be careful not to abuse this right and be seen as using a bully pulpit.
c. Serve the congregation (prayer ministry visitation etc.)The Bible admonition is very clear, Christian leaders lead to serve. If the congregation gets the impression that you desire to acquire power then they will never respect and probably never follow you. The Bible is clear “the first, shall be last”. We must never resort to force. We must never be too proud to serve and we must teach people to follow through our example.
The only way a minister can have authority is if they have respect. The only way to have respect is by earning it. The only way to earn it is to serve. Christ did not only follow this example, but he taught it as well. Specifically, as he washed the disciples feet in John thirteen and general in his life’s ministry and passion.
d. Make sure that the current roster of the congregation has all been accurately evangelized.It is impossible for a congregation to be the body of Christ if their members are not members of the heavenly body of Christ. Salvation connects a person not only to the saving power of Jesus Christ, but also seals them with the presence of the wonderful counselor the Holy Spirit. The salvation of the members of the church is almost as important as the salvation of the individual. We should not be afraid to have confrontational witnessing to members of our congregations in this area. If they are committed to the church they will stay and be saved. If not then at least they heard the gospel and will no longer stand as an obstacle to the movement of the Spirit.
In conclusion, it seems the model of church government recommended by the New Testament is single elder congregationalism. This administration is the most simple, adaptable and bottom up powered of all the presentable models. The New Testament need such a simple model to be able to handle rapidly changing times. Now in our day we are experiencing similar rapid change. Therefore now, more than ever we need to make a return to the values that set Baptist churches on fire. We must stay in tune with single-elder congregationalism.