leaders, but their authority rests in their relation to the congregation and is generally less extensive in practice than either the episcopal or presbyterian ministers. In the ultimate sense, officers have no more ecclesiastical authority than any other member. Each has but one vote on any issue.102
Whereas the historical roots of episcopal (which date to the rise in prominence of the office of the bishop in the second and third centuries a.d.) and presbyterian (which most trace back to the writings of John Calvin) forms of church government are generally better known, it may be of value to take a moment here to review the origins of congregationalism. According to Kern’s work, A Study of Christianity as Organized, the original motive for the establishment of congregationalism was neither doctrinal nor legislative, but disciplinary: “It was distinctly a moral motive—not a desire for a scriptural in place of an unscriptural creed, nor a scriptural in place of an unscriptural form of government, but the desire for a scriptural in place of an unscriptural state of discipline.”103 In the course of their study and further investigation of Scripture, the early Separatists did reach the conclusion that their newly adopted polity was in accordance with the teachings of Jesus and his apostles, rather than their own invention.104 Most date this new phenomenon to around the year 1580, when, in the city of Norwich, England, Robert Browne, “the father of modern Congregationalism,” became pastor of what may be called the first Congregational Church of modern times.105
Aside from Browne, other well-known early English congregationalists include Henry Barrowe, John Owen, Isaac Watts, Phillip Doddridge, William Jay, Thomas Binney, Robert William Dale, Joseph Parker, and Andrew Martin Fairbairn.106
The congregational model of church government today has two different variations: democratic congregationalism,107 which itself can take a number of different practical venues: single-elder-led, deacon-board-led, trustee-led, etc., and multiple-elder-led congregationalism, which is exercised by a good number of Baptist churches, all Plymouth Brethren churches, and Bible churches, among others.108 “It is the intention under congregational polity,” writes Garrett, “that the congregation govern itself under the lordship of Jesus Christ (Christocracy) and with the leadership of the Holy Spirit (pneumatophoria), with no superior or governing ecclesial bodies (autonomy) and with every member having a voice in its affairs and its decisions (democracy).”109 The principle of autonomy, as explained by Erickson, means that each local church is self-governing: Each congregation may call its own pastor, determine its own budget, purchase its own property, make decisions that do not require outside ratification or approval, and enter into cooperative affiliations that are strictly voluntary in nature.110 Accordingly, the concept of democracy means that, on the basis of the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, authority within the local congregation rests with the individual members.111
When it comes to the biblical warrant for congregational structure, there are at least six Scripture passages that, according to Garret, offer explicit support for democratic congregationalism: Matt 18:15–20; Acts 6:3; 13:2–3; 15:22; 1 Cor 5:2; and 2 Cor 2:6.112 Second, such support can also be derived from examining the predominant meaning of ekklesia, a Greek term that refers to a local assembly in some ninety-three of the 114 times it is used in the New Testament. The third argument for congregationalism is derived from the New Testament’s complete silence regarding any territorial organization of the church or churches.
There is no reference in Acts or the Epistles to any structure above or beyond the local church. There is no command to form inter-church unions of any type. We find no evidence of control over a local church by outside organizations or individuals. The apostles made recommendations and gave advice, but exercised no real rulership. Even Paul had to argue for his apostolic authority and beseech his readers to follow his teachings (2 Cor; Gal 1:11–24).113 Fourth, the interchangeability of the Greek terms episkopos, presbuteros, and poimēn, defended in Chapter 4, can provide further—though indirect—support for congregational polity, which is more than can be said of the basis for views advocating a monarchical or diocesan bishop.114
Fifth, the doctrine of the priesthood of all Christians,115 “affirmed in the early patristic age, overcome and supplanted for centuries by the clerical priesthood, and rediscovered by Martin Luther,”116 provides a powerful support for congregational theologians’ position.
In the congregational form of government, as in the presbyterian, there is only one level of clergy.117 The New Testament offices of elder, overseer, and pastor are believed to be one and the same and are usually referred to as “pastor” within the single-elder-led branch of this tradition.118 In this kind of government, the pastor is seen as the only elder in the church, and an elected board of deacons serves under his authority and gives him support.119
The following evidence is often used in support of single-elder-led government. First, there is the fact that the early church would meet in the homes of the believers.120 It is reasonable to suppose, therefore, that each household was led by one elder.121 Second, Eph 4:11 makes reference to the pastor-teacher: “And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers.” According to Akin, as the only office of the four mentioned in the passage that is directly related to the local church, it is extremely likely that the pastor-teacher is an elder.122 The third argument for single-elder-led churches is a pattern found in both the Old and New Testaments. That pattern is a plurality of leaders with a senior leader over them.123 This can be observed in Exod 18, in which Moses, the senior leader, is assisted by a group of “under-leaders” who help him with judging the nation of Israel. The same can be said of James, the half brother of Christ, who according to Paul (Gal 1:19; 2:9, 12), served as the main, though not sole, leader of the Jerusalem church. Acts 15 provides a beautiful illustration of how James functioned in that capacity. Fourth, some believe that the “angels of the church” addressed in Rev 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14 are best interpreted to mean pastors. If this understanding is correct, it is clear that each church had not many pastors, but one.124
Those advocating plurality of elders within a local church differ in that they recognize a pastor as one among the elders—an elder in office.125 He does not have authority over the other elders, nor does he work for them as an employee. His distinction from the rest, however, is that he is engaged in the full-time work of preaching and teaching and derives his income from that work.126 In this system of government, there is always more than one elder, a point that distinguishes
