Opposing Views to Plural Elder Led Congregationalism

The second prominent opposing view to plural elder-led congregationalism worth considering is Presbyterianism. Christians in the Presbyterian tradition hold to a system of church government in which elected elders/presbyters from churches represent churches and oversee them. Hence the name Presbyterianism. This system opposes the independency of a church outlined in plural elder-led congregationalism and affirms Presbyterian interdependency. L. Roy Taylor explains this distinction well:

The Presbyterian system of church government is representative and connectional. The congregation elects the elders to the session of the church. The local church is governed by the session. The congregation votes on calling a pastor. The presbytery approves or disapproves of the establishment of a pastoral relationship between a minister and a particular church. By “connectional” we mean that local churches see themselves as part of the larger church, that local churches are not independent but are accountable to the larger church, and that local churches do not minister alone but in cooperation with the larger church.^[1]

Presbyterian church government uses different terminology to describe the group of people that represent churches. Among these terms include session/consistory, presbytery, synod, and general assembly. The representative leaders of a local church are the ministers and elders, called a session in the Presbyterian tradition or a consistory in the continental Reformed tradition.^[2] A presbytery and synod are similar but describe the size of the geographical area they preside over. The presbytery is the church court consisting of ministers and ruling elders representing churches from a smaller geographical area.^[3] A synod is the church court consisting of ministers and ruling elders representing churches from a larger geographical area. ^[4] Lastly, a general assembly is the church court consisting of ministers and ruling elders representing churches from an entire denomination.^[5]

Presbyterians observe that the New Testament teaches a plurality of elders. They likewise affirm the interchangeable terms used to describe the spiritual office of elder. Regarding the plural nature of eldership, Presbyterians make a distinction between ruling elders and teaching elders. This distinction comes from the Apostle Paul’s words to Timothy, “Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and in teaching” (1 Tm. 5:17). Presbyterians confess that all elders rule, but certain elders do not or should not preach and teach God’s word. According to this view, the elders that don’t preach and teach may have the spiritual gifts of administration and leadership; therefore, they should help the teaching elders give oversight to the churches.

Like Episcopalianism, Presbyterian interdependency presents its problems. The Presbyterian connectional government of graded courts contradicts the autonomous nature of each local church and its elders. The standard proof text for explaining a court that has authority over local churches is Acts 15. Presbyterians assume that the “church” at Antioch is a group of “churches” that have formed a presbytery. This assertion is wrong. Paul and Barnabas were present at the Jerusalem church with the apostles and elders (Acts 15:2), but they were not numbered among the apostles or elders from that church. As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions that had been reached by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem (Acts 16:4). Paul and Barnabas did not go up to a representative assembly of elders from many churches at Jerusalem—they went to the church at Jerusalem.

Another problematic distinction in Presbyterianism is the distinction made between ruling elders and teaching elders. As previously mentioned, Presbyterians make this distinction based upon 1 Timothy 5:17. They assert that ruling elders and teaching elders are different offices. Also previously mentioned in this paper are the qualifications for eldership. We noticed from 1 Timothy 3:2 that an elder must be able to teach to be considered qualified for this spiritual office. Furthermore, 1 Timothy 3:4-5 affirms that all elders must rule. Therefore, all elders must have the gifts and abilities to rule and to teach. There is no scriptural warrant for dividing eldership into two separate and distinct offices. This, of course, does not mean that all elders are exactly the same. Some are more gifted in their abilities to rule, teach, and preach. This is the precise meaning of 1 Timothy 5:17! Elders who rule well and who labor in preaching and teaching are worthy of double honor because “their gifts and godliness enable them to be more useful than the elders in general.”^[6]

^[1] L. Roy Taylor, “Presbyterianism,” in Who Runs the Church? ed. Paul E. Engle and Steven B. Cowan, Zondervan Counterpoints Collection (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), 75.

^[2] Ibid. 74–75.

^[3] Ibid.

^[4] Ibid.

^[5] Ibid.

^[6] Samuel E. Waldron, “Plural-Elder Congregationalism,” in Who Runs the Church? ed. Paul E. Engle and Steven B. Cowan, Zondervan Counterpoints Collection (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), 115.