A Constant Question⤒🔗

One of the questions that crops up from time to time in the life of the church has to do with its governance. Who rules the church? Who is responsible for its leadership and direction? Who is in charge?

Of course, different churches have and continue to answer this question in different ways. The Roman Catholic Church is convinced that the Pope as the supposed successor to the apostle Peter has the ultimate authority. The Anglican Church insists that a college of bishops, with the archbishop of Canterbury as first among equals, should make the final decisions. Most congregational churches are firmly established in their view that it is the membership that must have the final say.

What this brief overview shows you is that church government takes on different forms. It varies from the very hierarchical to the very democratic. It can be very concentrated or very diffuse. It is sometimes very centralized and at other times very decentralized.

There are also many variations on the above. Take the modern North American evangelical mega church where the senior pastor leads the church. Probably it is due to his dynamic personality and organizational skills that there even is a church. He will often have an advisory board, but in actual fact everyone knows who is really giving the orders. Today there are more popes in Protestantism than in Rome.

Another model that is popular today on this continent is the co-operative one in which government of the church is a shared and fluid thing. Together, pastors, members and denominational authorities direct the affairs of the congregation. While attractive in a way, this model suffers in times of crisis when clear leadership is needed and all three are contending for it.

Indeed, when one studies church government the impression is often conveyed that there are many choices, styles and forms, and that it is up to each church to determine which it likes best. Some would even say that it is up to each to choose their own brand of “poison” believing that no matter which one you take they all have their down sides.

The Form of Government: Arbitrary or Divinely Ordained?←⤒🔗

But is that true? Is church government simply a matter of human choice? And is the choice based purely on practical considerations? Or does the Bible also have something to say here? Is Scripture audible or silent on this matter?

From our perspective as Reformed believers, we have always insisted that the form of our church government is not an arbitrary thing. And neither is it a matter of human choice. It too has been regulated by God. It too is revealed in his Word.

What in particular does it reveal? It reveals that it is God’s will that the church of our Lord Jesus Christ be governed by elders. Each local church is to have a body of elders. Acts 14 tells us about how

Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them (the disciples) in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust.Acts 14:22

In his letter to Titus Paul tells him, the reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.Acts 1:5

From these two very clear citations we learn that elders are deemed by the apostle Paul to be an essential part of the church. Their appointment does not come across as an option, but rather as a necessity.

In the face of this it is all the more curious, even disturbing, that many churches, while proudly and openly claiming to be based on the Bible, ignore this very requirement. They choose to invent their own form of church government and act as if Scripture is completely silent on this topic. But could the apostles have spoken any plainer?

Elders for What?←⤒🔗

In addition to appointing elders themselves and in telling their helpers to do so, the apostles leave no doubt as to what these elders are to do. The apostle Paul writes to Timothy about, “The elders who direct the affairs of the church well...” (1 Timothy 5:17). Earlier in the same letter he had said by way almost of an aside, “if anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?” (1 Timothy 3:5). Elsewhere in Acts 20, Paul, in bidding farewell to the Ephesian elders, charges them,

Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God...Acts 20:28

Peter says much the same when he writes to the scattered believers of Asia Minor, “To the elders among you ... Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers…” (1 Peter 5:1, 2).

From these and other places, we learn that it is the duty of the elders to “direct,” “manage,” “care,” “keep watch” and to “shepherd.” A closer look reveals that what is meant has everything to do with spiritual care and direction, with spiritual management and watchfulness. Physical or material care may not be totally out of the picture (via the deacons), but it is the spiritual aspect that receives the emphasis here. These men are to watch over the souls of the children of God. They are to keep them close to the Lord. They are to identify and chase away the wolves. They are to protect the flock.

Modern or Ancient?←⤒🔗

In and of itself this is all a tremendous New Testament teaching, but we also need to be aware that this is not a New Testament invention. Some writers leave the impression as if the office of elder were a Pauline or early Christian church creation; however, a closer look at Scripture reveals that this office was well-known already in the Old Testament.

The first time that it is mentioned is in connection with the people of Israel in Egypt. When Moses is sent back to Egypt by the Lord he is supposed to present himself to the elders (Exodus 3:16). Some scholars even surmise that the office of elder is of Egyptian origin. Later when Moses leads the children of Israel out of Egypt, he is assisted by the elders (Exodus 12:21; Numbers 11:16-17). Once the Israelites are in the promised land, it is the elders who seem to function as judges, often dealing with matters at the city gate (Deuteronomy 19:12). In addition, to being community leaders, they also handled judicial matters.

Stepping over into the time during which the Lord Jesus ministered on earth, we learn that the office of elder remains current. Elders functioned as local town and synagogue leaders (Mark 5:22; Luke 7:1-5). They were also members of the Sanhedrin. In addition, they took part in judicial dealings (Mark 15:1). There is evidence to indicate that they were also the guardians of various religious traditions (Mark 7:3).

As a result of this rich background, it would be a rather naïve thing to ascribe this office to the fertility of the mind of Paul. By the time that he came along it was already well known.

Indeed, it was known not just in Palestine but also throughout the Mediterranean region. Also Greek and Roman cultures had a well-defined tradition in which elders were regarded as leaders of the community and often served as arbiters and judges in matters of legal dispute.

A Solid Basis←⤒🔗

What all of this means is that the office of elder in the Christian church has deep historical roots and broad biblical support. In light of this it is all so difficult to fathom why some churches do not see the need to structure their church government after this pattern.

At the same time it is also hard to comprehend why some churches that do have elders no longer insist that they function as elders in a biblical fashion. What do I mean? I am referring to churches that I know of where elders are elders in name, but not in deed. They have the title, but they do not do the work. They do not know their sheep because they do not visit them. They do not visit them and hence they cannot instruct, admonish, and counsel them. They do not watch over them and so they are not able to care spiritually for them. It would be better to have no elders than such elders.

In summary, churches that do not know what it is to be ruled by elders need to bring their church life into conformity with the Word of God. Churches that have elders in name only need to put them to work in true biblical fashion. Churches that have elders in name and deed must regularly review how well these men are doing their work in the congregation of Jesus Christ.