Advantages and Disadvantages of a Theology of Governance by a Plurality of Elders
Previous posts have looked at the biblical preference for plural leadership and the biblical teaching about elders. We have looked briefly at the most significant passages about church governance by a group of men called elders (1 Peter 5:1ff., bishops, (Acts 20:28) shepherds, (Eph. 4:11) or guides (Heb. 13:17). Having done so, we can consider our cultural and ecclesiastical context, imagining the implementation of a plurality of leadership contrasted with the common single-person leadership of evangelical churches with only one pastor, bishop, or similar position. We should never be so pragmatic that we disregard the biblical teaching. However, it is reasonable to give consideration to the practicality of the theology of governance we are seeing in the Bible.
The Advantage of Following Christ’s Will
Obviously, given my interpretation of biblical information, supported by the history of the early church, I consider the implementation of a plurality of elder-pastor-supervisors in the church to have an unparalleled advantage – the advantage of honoring Christ by obeying his commands. If it is the will of my Lord to design his church in a certain way, with a certain leadership model, then my desire must be to conform my will to his. I want my will to always be transformed towards conformity with his perfect and holy will, this conformity of will and deed being the essence of our sanctification process that the Bible so clearly and repeatedly demands and promotes (see Rom. 12:1-2). May our hearts and minds always be set on this endeavor! With this advantage, for me, no other advantage or disadvantage carries as much weight. However, I am of the opinion that God’s demands have good reasons, and that he asks us to do things that, ultimately, are better than their alternatives.
Do not forget a specific case of Israel in the Old Testament (see 1 Sam. 8:4-22). They were guided by judges and, occasionally, prophets. They saw that the nations around them did not have prophets and occasional judges to lead them, but strong and powerful kings (1 Sam. 8:5, 19-20). The Israelites envied their neighbors and wanted to have what they had. Although, ultimately, Israel enjoyed more freedom and justice and had God as their sovereign King, they began to beg God to give them a king. Although they knew from Deuteronomy (or should have known) the disadvantages of having a king, they chose this path (1 Sam. 8:11-18); Deut. 17:14-20). As God said to Samuel, the Israelites had not rejected just God’s representative but God himself as King (1 Sam. 8:7). If Christ revealed to us in his Word a pattern for his church, let us not reject it! If he has designed the church for a plurality of elders, let us not change it for a senior pastor.
The Advantage of “Speaking Where the Bible Speaks”
Since I am from the Restoration Movement, I would remind churches and ministers in my context, that the plurality of elders is also faithful to the vision and principles of the Restoration Movement, or the Churches of Christ, the biblical pattern is something I must implement. One motto talks about doing “biblical things in biblical ways.” There is also a motto that says “we speak where the Bible speaks…” This also indicates to us that if the Bible presents a clear teaching, we must accept it and do it. The motto always intended to include necessary inferences, that is, inescapable conclusions, even if the Bible does not have a commandment “you shall have a plurality of elders-pastors…”. If the Bible orders it, or if it shows a clear pattern, or if it is understood as a necessary inference, we seek to restore it and observe it. “such a uniformity is the very thing that the Lord requires, if the New Testament be a perfect model–a sufficient formula for the worship discipline and government of the Christian church. Let us do, as we are there expressly told they did, say as they said: that is, profess and practise [sic] as therein expressly enjoined by precept and precedent, in every possible instance, after their approved example…”[1] Alexander Campbell recognized the elders or bishops as the spiritual leadership of churches. He called on churches of the Restoration Movement to have their bishops and deacons at home and their evangelists preaching to the lost and forming new communities. Furthermore he urged each officer to be fully dedicated to the faithful fulfillment of their duties.[2] Thus, if you happen to be part of the Restoration Movement, an advantage of the plurality of supervisors-pastors-elders is fidelity to the principles and history of the Churches of Christ. If you are not from this movement, you may find an interesting argument in chapter four of Who Runs the Church: Four Views on Church Government which argues that from Reformed and Puritan perspectives, the plural-elder view is warranted.[3]
Apart from moral and spiritual advantages, I believe that the plurality of leadership in the Church of Christ has practical advantages.
The Advantage of Avoiding Doctrinal Drift
A practical advantage is being able to care for the group’s doctrine. The idea with this advantage is that if an elder-pastor-supervisor deviates from sound doctrine, the other leaders can correct him, and in more severe cases, they could discipline or expel a brother deviating in heresies and apostasy.[4] When there is only one leader in the church, without peers, and he deviates, he generally takes his whole congregation with him. If he is a bishop or pastor of a group of churches, his heresy tends to infect all his churches. Far from preserving sound doctrine, as Christians like Ignatius of Antioch wanted to do, this system allows a few to contaminate large numbers of Christians. Plurality of leadership and local autonomy allow to keep the cancer localized, and in an outpatient surgery, with local anesthesia, to remove it. Paul knew the danger. In his farewell speech to the elders of Ephesus, he appointed them as his successors.[5] As he did so, he specifically warned the elders of Ephesus that “from among you men will arise speaking perverse things…”(Acts 20:30). Christian leaders can deviate from sound doctrine. Some shepherds betray their vocation and prey on the sheep. This idea draws on strong parallels between Acts 20:28-30 and Ezekiel 33-34.[6] Paul’s solution, however, was not to appoint a pastor who could control the elders, but that all elders had to be awake and vigilant as any decent shepherd would be.
The Advantage of Peer Accountability
A second practical advantage is being able to correct indiscipline of a church leader. This advantage is quite similar to the previous one, but here I bring it to the realm of holiness and morality. Leaders are also human beings, with all the weaknesses of their flesh and blood brothers. Leaders falter in their biblical studies. Leaders neglect their prayer. Leaders succumb to temptation. And who has the authority to correct this? Who can admonish him? Who can reprimand his iniquity? Plurality ensures that no one is without a peer, without another brother with the same power and authority. Simply the presence of such a brother motivates self-discipline. It also provides a real possibility of combating indiscipline if necessary. We all need accountability.[7]
The Advantage of Abuse Prevention
A third practical advantage of plurality is being able to control abuses of power in the church. Again, it is an advantage similar to the previous two, but here I am focused on the realm of ethics associated with the use of authority and power. Unfortunately, along with the many honest and sacrificial pastors, positions of power attract ambitious people.[8] Authority and power also present temptations to the most honest, sincere, and humble. Plurality of leadership is an important tool for prevention, but also correction. When power is concentrated in the hands of one person, problems arise. I want to clarify that I am not saying that all senior pastors are like this, of course. I am also not claiming that all churches run by elders are healthy. We all know churches that suffer under pastors who abuse their power in various ways. It should not be necessary to mention that abuses of power such as nepotism, favoritism, simony, authoritarianism, manipulation, domination, and intimidation, among others, should not be part of the leadership of the Church of Christ.[9] Plurality prevents many of these abuses.
The Advantage of Distribution of Gifts
A fourth practical advantage of plurality, and a little different from the previous three, is the possibility of supplementing the deficiencies of others.[10] Here I am not talking about holiness or doctrine; I’m talking about skills and gifts. The Bible clearly teaches that the Holy Spirit distributes gifts among the brothers and that no one has all the necessary gifts for the functioning of the body of Christ (see 1 Cor. 12). There is, in biblical terms, a diversity of gifts. Biblical leadership of elders-supervisors-pastors involves various responsibilities including teaching, preaching, program administration, financial management, leadership development, discipleship, pastoral visits, pastoral counseling, discipline, and more! No one is gifted in all areas. The corollary of this advantage, stated positively, is that this also allows one to empower oneself by focusing on one’s strengths rather than spending all one’s energy fulfilling duties that are their weaknesses.[11] The diversity provided through plural leadership covers weaknesses and maximizes strengths.
Disadvantage 1: Slow and Difficult
One disadvantage of plural leadership is that it is slower and more difficult. When one is accustomed to making decisions alone, the process of having an idea, formulating the idea in a certain way, convening a leadership meeting, presenting one’s idea, deliberating for a while, and submitting it to a vote is a procedure that seems too slow. Church pastors tend to have a personality and leadership style that prioritizes speed and agility to overcome obstacles and get on the road, any problem can be corrected and adjusted on the way. However, I would answer, other leadership styles are also valuable. We need the voice of the brother who knows, by his gifts, how such action will affect the church members. We also need the voice of the brother who foresees unintended consequences of the action in five years. We also need the voice of the brother who knows the church budget and says… “but we don’t have resources for that.” It is slower, but it is safer. The voice of the decisive, active, and agile brother will be the voice that prevents the other voices from being paralyzed in considerations and deliberations without ever proceeding. The objection that plurality is slower is true, it is slower. But, there are ways to empower plurality so that it does not become stagnant. Our inexperience with the model is an impediment in this regard.
Disadvantage 2: Discredit
Another disadvantage is the discredit we may feel in our evangelical world. Since I do not identify myself as “the pastor” of a church, they do not know how to treat me in other groups. If you will excuse a brief anecdote. I attended an event with refreshments at various tables. Because I did not identify myself as a “pastor,” was barred from the table exclusively for “pastors.” I soon discovered that they kept an exclusive table for “pastors” even though the “brothers’” food had run out, I did not want to eat from the “pastoral” table. This kind of arrogant attitude has no place in the Church of Christ. It is the attitude of the Pharisees… seeking places of honor (Matt. 23:6; Luke 14:7-11). What inconsistency with the message and example of our Lord! Yes, we will be without the same honor in the Pentecostal world, perhaps with less power and influence as well. That does not matter. To paraphrase a hymn “I’d rather have Jesus than prestige or fame, I’d rather be His than to be known by name. I rather have Jesus than crowds filling the stands, I’d rather be led by His nailed scarred hands…”[12] We, as ministers of Christ, seek the honor of our King and Lord, and nothing more. If we have to choose between their newer paths and the old path of the New Testament, the choice should be obvious.
Conclusions about Pros and Cons
There are many advantages and disadvantages to various models of church government. The New Testament presents a consistent view of the church’s leadership – a plurality of elders who also might be known as overseers or pastors. There are some drawbacks to the system, but the weaknesses are outweighed by the benefits of plural leadership. The disadvantages are also more than balanced by the superb goal of honoring Christ by following the biblical pattern set down by example in Acts and confirmed through teaching in the Epistles. Plural leadership by a group of men called elders is both practical and biblical.
“Think carefully about this, my friends. We may be robbing God’s people of the very spiritual guidance so desperately needed in our times, when we actually replace God’s shepherd model with our own corporate model. My dear brothers and sisters, please ponder this carefully: an ecclesiastical system that runs better when it sacrifices its biblical leadership function (shepherding, mentoring, equipping) to protect a non-biblical function (efficient management and administration) cannot be of God! Repeat: cannot be of God!”
Lynn Anderson, They Smell Like Sheep: Spiritual Leadership for the 21st Century[13]
[1] Thomas Campbell, Declaration and Address of the Christian Association of Washington (Washington, PA: Brown & Sample, 1809), 35.
[2] Alexander Campbell, The Christian System in Reference to the Union of Christians: And a Restoration of Primitive Christianity, as Plead in the Current Reformation, 2d ed. (Pittsburg: Forrester & Campbell, 1839), chapter 25, “Christian Ministry.”
[3] Peter Toon and Steven B. Cowan, eds., Who Runs the Church? 4 Views on Church Government, Counterpoints (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2004).
[4] Clement of Rome, Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 44, while not Bible, shows that the early church saw dismissal of elders/bishops to be appropriate in cases where they were not faithful. Clement chastises the Corinthians for dismissing faithful elders.
[5] Christoph W. Stenschke, “Lifestyle and Leadership According to Paul’s Statement of Account Before the Ephesian Elders in Acts 20:17–35,” Hervormde Teologiese Studies 76, no. 2 (June 11, 2020): 1–11; Darrell L. Bock, Acts, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2007)., 735-736, Ebook Central.
[6] Craig S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2012), 3040-3041.
[7] “I began to see accountability as one of a number of important virtues that have application in both the moral life and the religious life…. Perhaps the virtue of accountability, like these other relational virtues, could be studied from many different perspectives: philosophically, theologically, and empirically, as has been the case in recent decades with gratitude and forgivingness. Accountability in particular can help us to see how a healthy spiritual and religious life can connect to the moral life.” C. Stephen Evans, Living Accountably: Accountability as a Virtue, First edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2023), vi.
Evans, C. Stephen. Living Accountably : Accountability As a Virtue, Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2023. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/liberty/detail.action?docID=7147796.
Created from liberty on 2024-02-10 20:35:49.
[8] James Porter Moreland, Love Your God with All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul, 2nd ed (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2012), 336-337.
[9] Lynn Anderson, They Smell Like Sheep. Vol. 1: Spiritual Leadership for the 21st Century (New York: Howard Books : A division of Simon & Schuster, 1997).
[10] John C. Maxwell, “Chapter 7, Positioning Leaders: Team Them Up to Multiply Their Impact,” in Leader’s Greatest Return: Attracting, Developing, and Multiplying Leaders (New York: Harper Collins Leadership, 2020).
[11] See John H. Zenger and Joe Folkman, The Extraordinary Leader: Turning Good Managers into Great Leaders, Rev. and expanded ed (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2009), 144ff. for a summary of why leaders spending excessive amounts of effort trying to strengthen weakness instead of harnessing strengths might not be the best strategy for leadership.
[12] I’d Rather Have Jesus, 1922.
[13] Anderson, Smell Like Sheep, 176.
Leave a Reply