An Introduction, Part 1 [Pastors and Practice]

—Ben Arbour

[Editor’s Note: In the midst of writing a book on the same topic, Ben Arbour has agreed to offer us a series, Pastors and Practice, arguing that Christ is our true model for pastoral ministry. Throughout his argument, Ben will explain how Christ’s example should affect the governing of the church and the ministry of pastors.]

---

I am a Baptist. As a Baptist, I believe that the Bible is the final authority on all theological matters, including ecclesiology (the doctrine of the Church). Additionally, as a Baptist, I stand among many in the so-called free church tradition. This tradition understands each individual local church to be self-governed, apart from any higher, external authority other than God and the Bible. Hence, there is no one (no association of churches, no bishop, and no pope) who can tell an individual church how it must worship, who should be its pastor(s), or where it should locate itself. Instead, any church from the free church tradition—including Baptists—believes that each and every individual church is the highest earthly authority on these and other subjects, and therefore each church must decide for itself what it thinks best reflects God’s will for that congregation by whatever mechanisms that church has in place.

This summer, I am writing a book about pastoral shepherding. Not surprisingly, it is precisely because of my belief that the Bible is the final authority on all theological matters that I am endeavoring to write this book, even if in so doing I separate myself from the current popular understanding among Baptists regarding leadership in the local church. Although many Baptist churches in the past were led by a plurality of elders, the vast majority of Baptist churches today eschew this model of polity1 in favor of having a single elder/pastor. In fact, some have argued that multiple-elder leadership is incompatible with Baptist ecclesiology because Baptist churches are free churches. But what is the source of this objection?

The free church tradition stands against two other competing interpretations of biblical ecclesiology: presbyterianism and episcopalianism. Both of these forms of ecclesiology sometimes involve local churches being led by multiple elders, more so in presbyterianism than in episcopalianism. So, some see a move towards presbyterian practice within the local church as a move away from the free church tradition. But is such an inference a valid argument?

When I say “presbyterian,” I do not have a particular presbyterian denomination in mind, such as the PCA, the PCUSA, or the OPC. Instead, I refer to the ecclesiological position according to which churches are grouped together and governed by an authority higher than each individual church. The governing body presiding over this group of churches is called a presbytery. Hence, “presbyterianism” is mutually exclusive of the free church tradition; a free church cannot rightly be called “presbyterian”, at least not in the way I will use the term. However, free churches could employ a system of governance in which they are led, governed, and even ruled by a plurality of elders without violating the free church nature of their ecclesiological commitments. Further, many argue that if a local church favors an elder-rule approach (whether by one or many elders), such a position necessarily results in the denial of congregationalism (a major tenet of Baptist ecclesiology), even if that polity does not strictly entail presbyterianism. I disagree.

Not only do I maintain that each and every local church is autonomous from other churches and from any other authorities outside the congregation itself, I also believe in congregational polity. Congregational polity means that each local church is ruled, under the ultimate Lordship of Jesus Christ and Scripture, by the congregation as a whole rather than just the leadership of the church (regardless of what form that leadership might take). That is, not only do I believe that there is no man-made authority higher than the local church (God and Scripture don’t qualify as man-made), but I also believe churches should be ruled by the many, not by the few. However, I intend to argue that these views are not inconsistent with a plurality of elders view of local church leadership. In fact, it seems to me not only that this view best accords with Scripture, but also, pragmatically speaking, multiple elders in leadership is the best way to actually promote genuine congregationalism, especially in larger churches.

In Part 2, Ben will explain this generation’s renewed interest in church polity.

What are your thoughts so far? Do you think polity should matter? Are local churches to be autonomous, or should they report to a governing authority? Leave a comment!

---

1Polity is the specific sub-category of ecclesiology that deals with the governance of the Church and individual local churches.