Entire books have been written about biblical church government. This small article cannot therefore suffice to uncover all truth about the subject.

In establishing His church, Jesus did not have a lot to say about how it was to be organized and governed.
It fell to Paul and other New Testament writers, inspired by the Spirit, to clarify the roles of individuals in the church. In examining these biblical roles, it is important to recognize the dual nature of the ekklesia (church) as both the general or universal collection of the redeemed (see Hebrews 12:23; Ephesians 1:22; 3:10; 5:22-27; Colossians 1:24) and local congregations (see for example, Acts 8:1; 14:23; 15:4; 16:5; 20:17; Romans 16:4; 1 Corinthians 6:4; 11:16; 12:1-31; Galatians 1:2, 22; Revelation 2 and 3). It should not be surprising, therefore, that there are both general/universal roles and local roles in the church
Paul offered two lists of roles:

Prophets are another general role, referring to those with a prophetic (speaking the truth) gift. In Acts 13:1, Luke lists “prophets and teachers” in Antioch: “Barnabas, and Simeon who was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen.” The only other named prophets in the New Testament are Agabus (Acts 21:10) and the daughters of Philip (Acts 21:9)

Evangelists (Greek, euaggelistes, one who announces good news) is a third general role representing those who preached the gospel but who were not apostles. Evangelists were often itinerant, but some remained in cities for extended periods. Philip (Acts 21:8) and Timothy (2 Timothy 4:5) are named as evangelists.

Teachers (Greek, didaskalos) can be either a general or local role.

Miracle Workers: The remainder of Paul’s 1 Corinthians 12:28 list appears to refer to those exhibiting various types of gifts. Some (healings and tongues) are miraculous gifts, which the Apostles clearly possessed and may have been transferred to others through the laying on of hands (see 1 Timothy 4:14; 5:22; 2 Timothy 1:6). The question about the passing away of these miraculous gifts is a subject of some debate. 1 Corinthians 13:8 states that tongues (one of these gifts) will pass away, but Paul does not specify when that would occur. The other two gifts seem more mundane, but may in fact relate to the roles of elder (administration) and deacon (helps).

Pastors (Greek, poimen, shepherd) is clearly a local role. To be an effective shepherd, one must be in close proximity to the flock. Pastors are charged with the spiritual care of the local church, as well as administrative oversight. It is also clear from Acts 20:17-28 that pastor, elder (Greek, presbuteros, an old man), and bishop (Greek, episkopos, overseer, guardian) are one and the same role. While there are instances of cooperation between local churches, there is no biblical implication that any pastor/elder/bishop has authority outside of his local church.
The qualities required of the pastor/elder/bishop are detailed in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9. These qualities fall into three categories: moral, managerial, and doctrinal. Elders must live morally blameless lives, must display good managerial skills (as evidenced by family life), and must be “apt to teach.”
The method for selecting elders of a local church is not detailed. Paul and Barnabus appointed elders (Acts 14:23) and Paul instructs Titus to appoint elders (Titus 1:5), but this is better understood as ordaining rather than selecting, so it appears that elders were probably recognized as qualified by the local church then ordained. The Bible is completely silent on any term for elders, as well as any method for removing elders. There is no advice on the number of elders each local church should ordain, although the number is clearly more than one. Nor is there advice on an age qualification, although the requirements that elders have believing children and not be young seem to indicate an age of at least 40.
Presumably, these are local church decisions.

Priests (Greek, hereus) in the Old Testament are intermediaries between God and the people, but the New Testament clearly states that the church is a “royal priesthood” (1 Peter 2:9). The book of Hebrews details the new relationship between God and Man—that is, Christ is the head and high priest, so that each person serves as his or her own priest, able to individually approach the throne of God (see Hebrews 10:19-25, one of my favorite passages). Not even elders have authority to usurp this direct relationship. All baptized believers are priests of the gospel.

One final role merits mentioning: deacons (Greek, diakonos, servant, minister). The role of deacon was likely instituted early in church history (see Acts 6) to assist the Apostles in routine matters related to the church, freeing them to devote themselves to their apostolic responsibilities. As the apostolic age neared an end, Paul assigned the role to serve the local church, freeing elders to focus on their pastoral responsibilities. While the qualities required of deacons are similar to those of elders, there is no biblical suggestion that deacons are “junior elders.” Their function is clearly described by the literal translation of diakonos, servant—they are to minister to the church in whatever capacity approved by the elders. Since diakonos can be a servant in both a generic or “official” sense, it is difficult to identify named deacons in the New Testament, but it appears that Phoebe (Romans 16:1) and Tychicus (Ephesians 6:21, Colossians 4:7) are so designated.


It should therefore be clear that scriptural local church government consists of a plurality of elders alone. Deacons, while a biblical church “office,” have no direct role in the governance of the church.

Sometime in the second century, however, the role of elder (presbyter) and bishop began to separate, Ignatius of Antioch being the primary proponent. In his letter to the church at Ephesus, he wrote, “…obey the bishop and the presbytery with an undivided mind;” to the church at Magnesia, “As therefore the Lord did nothing without the Father, being united to Him, neither by Himself nor by the apostles, so neither do ye anything without the bishop and presbyters;” to the Trallians, “he who does anything apart from the bishop, and presbytery, and deacons,33 such a man is not pure in his conscience;” (note that not only does Ignatius separate the bishop from the elders, he also assigns unbiblical authority to deacons); and to the Philadelphians, “there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever ye do, ye may do it according to [the will of] God.”

It is a matter of conjecture as to why Ignatius (and later, others) saw fit to alter the biblical roles, but it seems likely that it was an imitation of Roman secular government, where cities were ruled by prefects. The extension to archbishops (governors) and eventually, a pope (emperor) was probably inevitable, even though there is no such suggestion in the first two and a half centuries of the church. The role of deacon was also divided, and soon there were archdeacons and subdeacons. The role of priest was assigned to clergy, and the laity (the biblical royal priesthood) were artificially separated from their God for centuries.

¹ The meaning of Romans 16:7, while not entirely clear, appears to recognize these two people as apostles in Rome. That there were visitors from Rome in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost is certain from Acts 2:10, and Paul tells us that Andronicus and Junia(s) were very early Christians (Romans 16:7). It is possible that they were the first to carry the gospel to Rome. There is some confusion about the gender of Junia(s)—Junias being a male name, Junia a female. The earliest manuscripts have “Junia,” raising the intriguing possibility of a female apostle.

In the majority of churches, the biblical pattern has been altered or lost. There are now four distinct varieties of church government: monarchial (ruled by a universal leader), pastoral (ruled by a local leader), presbyterial (ruled by a plurality of elders), and congregational (ruled by the flock). The presbytery system (elders) is the one which is biblically mandated, but does that mean that believers who are members of churches practicing unbiblical governance are lost? I don’t personally think so. We are saved by Grace, not by elders or any other form of church governance. Nevertheless, I would not be part of a church that was not overseen by local elders. And such churches may be inadvertently opening their doors to Satan.

The problem with hierarchical, monarchial systems is the insertion of several layers of “clergy” between Christ and the flock. Rule by a single pastor introduces considerable risk of fundamental false teaching, since no individual is infallible. Congregational systems, while appealing to an American sense of democracy, can lack the leadership of a mature group of overseers.

Even in the presbytery system, however, debates continue, particularly concerning local church autonomy. Is it necessary to have councils of elders from various local churches to settle disputes between churches? In a Presbyterian perspective, Kevin Reed writes “An especially pernicious tendency in contemporary America is the growth of independency. A multitude of churches exist which militantly proclaim their autonomy. They arrogantly boast of no connection or common government with any other ecclesiastical assembly; it is as though they believe that schism is a virtue.”2

While I think Reed’s characterization of autonomy as “pernicious” is rather extreme, the question remains. Is there value in a “higher” level of authority? The Bible calls for elders to settle disputes between members, but what if the combatants are members of different local churches? Or what if there are fundamental differences in the teachings of two churches in the same brotherhood? One can certainly see the potential value of duly constituted councils of elders in such matters.

But the issue isn’t really about our perspective on such value. The issue is: what does the Bible teach? Those who advocate councils usually point to the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, but this evidence is at least as thin as that which justifies a pope (Peter as “The Rock”). The Jerusalem Council, which is itself probably an overstatement of the event, occurred because of a dispute about the application of the Mosaic Law to new Gentile converts to Christianity. The text tells us that “Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.’ And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabus and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue (Acts 15:1-2).” Paul and Barnabus went to Jerusalem to get the leaders there to tell their people to knock it off, not to seek their advice.

Do you think that Paul would have acquiesced had James and the others continued to insist on circumcision? The issue was so central in Paul’s teaching that I seriously doubt it. The advice in James’ letter—to “abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication” (Acts 15:29a)—has the earmarks of a concession from Paul, particularly when you recognize that he later indicates that the issue of meat sacrificed to idols is a matter of conscience (1 Corinthians 8). Furthermore, the “Jerusalem Council” represented apostolic consultation, although elders were present. It should be clear that the “Jerusalem Council” does not represent a “higher court” than local church authority.

The problem with ascending levels of councilor authority is that it evidences a lack of faith in God’s plan for church leadership. It says that local elders are insufficient, but the Bible teaches otherwise. And from a practical perspective, where do ascending layers end? If regional councils have authority over local elders, who has authority over the regional councils? I find it ironic that some who oppose a hierarchical system of individual leaders seem to believe that a hierarchical system of councils is any better. Obviously, local elders are not infallible, but neither are higher courts. If local elders err, they affect the local church, but if councils err (as they often have), they affect a number of local churches. Sadly, when councils err, it often leads to schism, with some local churches pulling out of their association with the group.

While I recognize that the General Convention of the U.S. Episcopal church is not a council of elders, last week’s approval of a gay, divorced bishop is a case in point. For those Episcopalians who honor the Word of God, this decision was anathema, and division seems almost inevitable. Episcopal bishop Robert Duncan commented that the Episcopal church of the U.S. has “divided itself from millions of Anglicans throughout the world. This body willfully confirming the election of a person sexually active outside of holy matrimony has departed from the historic faith and order of Jesus Christ.”3 The decision of the General Convention of the U.S. Episcopal church is likely to be rejected by Episcopalians outside this country. (Digressing for a moment, a retired Episcopal priest in my area was quoted as claiming this “case was unique because of Robinson’s openness about his homosexuality.”4 Since when did unrepentant openness about sin become a virtue?)
Please note that I am not judging Gene Robinson’s salvation (that’s between him and God), but only his qualification to serve in a leadership role in the church.

This event should serve as sufficient warning that there is no doctrinal safety in numbers or higher courts. God’s plan is for local governance of churches through a plurality of elders. There is certainly a place for meetings, such as elder conferences, where issues—both spiritual and practical—can be openly discussed and debated, but to give such conferences authority over local elders ignores God’s Word and threatens the spiritual health of the flock.

One observation about the required qualities of elders: among groups that take the biblical instructions about elders seriously, the most debated quality is probably “husband of one wife.” This teaching has been interpreted to mean (a) must be monogamous, (b) must not be divorced, and/or (c) must be currently married. It seems to me that, when combined with the requirement that an elder must manage his family well, there are two principles delineated.
The first is that a prospective elder must exhibit integrity in relationships and honor covenants. The second is that he exhibits good managerial and spiritual leadership skills.

Most Christians would admit that the specific one-wife requirement is ambiguous. Clearly polygamy would be a disqualification, but what about a man who was divorced before his conversion and has since remained faithful to a second wife. Wasn’t the sin of his first divorce (if it was that) washed away in the waters of baptism? While a pre-conversion divorce ought to serve as a caution, I don’t believe it’s a disqualification. Is a bachelor disqualified? Since a bachelor probably cannot have demonstrated his spiritual leadership skills in a family setting analogous to the church, perhaps so. What about a man who is widowed after a long, faithful marriage and exemplary family leadership? I have heard that there are churches that force an elder to step down upon the death of a wife—a practice I personally find reprehensible. How did his wife’s death change the example of his life, which is what is really at issue in elder selection? I pray that any churches with such a requirement would rethink their position.

As I said earlier in this issue of ET&N, the Bible is largely silent about selection methodology, and I’d be interested in hearing from my readers what procedures your local church uses in selecting elders. Click here to send an e-mail with your comments.

² Biblical Church Government, http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/BCG_ch00.htm
³ Wilmington News-Journal, “Gay bishop wins approval”, August 6, 2003, page 3
⁴ Wilmington News-Journal, “Vote wins praise in Delaware”, August 6, 2003, page 3

Several responses came in about local church elder procedures. Roger shared this about the process at the Pleasant Valley church of Christ in Little Rock:

1. Nominations are requested from the congregation. A lesson or two on church government and qualifications and responsibilities of elders are usually given at the beginning of the process. Nominations go to the elders. This phase lasts 2-4 weeks. Nominations are submitted on a specific form which asks the nominator to "certify" that the nominee meets the qualifications to the best of his knowledge.
2. The current elders discuss and filter the nominations. Certain individuals come to the forefront, especially due to number of nominations. A pool of candidates is determined.
3. Current elders interview candidates, asking if they believe they meet the qualifications and explaining the duties of the eldership at this congregation.
4. Those who accept the nomination (and with no obvious disqualification from the interview process) are announced to the congregation and a period of 2-3 weeks is allowed for comments from the congregation. If someone feels that a person should not become an elder, that person is encouraged to speak to the candidate personally. If that discussion does not change his opinion, then he should write a letter to the current eldership stating his concerns (the letter must be signed).
5. Those who survive the process (most do!), are ordained as elders in a church assembly.

Edward shared this information about his church:
In our congregation of about 200 people in Houston, Texas, we have seven elders who serve staggered terms of five years. After rotating out for one year, an elder may be reinstated for another term. Each time a replacement is needed, the congregation is asked to nominate all those men who they believe to be qualified to serve as elders. Any individual must receive a fixed number or percentage of nominations to be considered. After the present elders consider any scriptural objections and ask nominees if they are willing to serve, they present the reduced number of names to the congregation to select one or two as needed to fill the term. We then have an ordination ceremony in a Sunday morning service setting apart the new nominees (or reinstating to official service those elected anew after former service). This process allows elders to rest in due time; it prepares a sizeable number of stand-by elders who can serve again later; it maintains continuity and also provides "new blood" to the eldership; it gives a graceful means for exiting those who prove to have been ill-selected.

DS: I think this kind of rotation makes a lot of sense and serves the ekklesia well. Being a faithful elder is a difficult, often stressful job. It would be very biblical if the terms were six years—then the seventh would be a sabbatical.

Concerning widowed elders, Bill M. wrote in a lengthy note suggesting that relationship skills, vital to service as an elder, would atrophy over time without the daily give-and-take in a marriage. I think that’s certainly true if the man isolated himself, but I don’t think it needs to be so.

NEXT ISSUE: Women in the church

© Richard M. Soule, 2003 Unlimited copy and distribution permission is hereby granted on the condition that this copyright notice is included. Website: www.peculiarpress.com
Unless otherwise noted, all biblical citations are from the New American Standard Bible (NASB)
The ET&N subscriber list will never be sold, bartered, or donated to any individual or group.