A Brief Case for the Presbyterian Form of Church Government

A Summary and Expansion of Thomas Witherow's "The Apostolic Church; Which is it?"

Most Christians today assume Scripture does not prescribe a particular form by which the church must be governed. Historically, there have been three different forms adopted (or a blend thereof) by churches, but in the past few decades, a fourth form has emerged:

1. Episcopal: Rule of connected churches by bishops/overseers, a distinct office from elder and pastor, whereby ordination, doctrine, and discipline belong to bishops that oversee many pastors and churches (e.g. Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Methodists, African Methodist Episcopal, some Charistmatic/Pentecostals)

2. Presbyterian: Rule of connected churches by elders, which may also be called bishops or pastors, whereby ordination, doctrine, and discipline belongs to various groups of local and regional elders (e.g. Presbyterians, Lutherans, Moravians)

3. Congregational: Rule of the autonomous local church by its members, whereby ordination, doctrine, and discipline belong to the congregation determined by votes (e.g. Baptists, Free, some Charismatic/Pentecostal, some non-denominational)

4. Corporate: Rule of an autonomous church by a board (whether elders or deacons) with a chief executive (usually called a senior or lead pastor), whereby ordination, doctrine, and discipline are decided by a board of leaders directed by the chief executive (e.g. Free, some non-denominational, many new emerging church planting networks)

All Christian churches acknowledge Jesus is the king, head, and ruler of His Church. The underlying debate between these different positions relates to whether Scripture teaches a form of government under Jesus and by His Word or if the church has freedom to use sanctified wisdom to determine what’s best. Episcopals usually point out that the practice of rule by bishops developed very early and was the universal practice in both the East and West until the Reformation. They do not usually argue that it is the form laid down and required by Scripture, but they suggest that we should not reject the wisdom of the sacred tradition and the providential work of the Holy Spirit. Some Congregationalists (usually of the Baptist variety) argue that Scripture teaches congregationalism, but most argue that Scripture doesn’t mandate any one form of church government. Presbyterians have always argued that Jesus, as king and head of the church, has laid down a clear pattern and principles for government of his church and that we are bound to order our churches accordingly.

In my view, no one can reasonably deny that Episcopacy best conforms to the dominant pattern found in the history of church. Congregationalism best conforms to Western, democratic, populist individualism. Corporate polity follows the best practices of the business world. But I believe Presbyterianism best conforms to the pattern of government and principles found in Scripture.

By summarizing and expanding on Thomas Witherow’s case for Presbyterianism in The Apostolic Church; Which Is It?: An Inquiry at the Oracles of God as to Whether Any Existing Form of Church Government Is of Divine Right, I hope you’ll agree or have your interested peaked by the end of this post.

The Pattern and Principles Laid Down In Scripture

The following principles and patterns are either explicitly taught from or follow by good and necessary consequence of the verses cited below after each point.

First, in the Church at the time of the Apostles, the ordinary officers in the church were bishops and deacons. Bishops were also called elders and pastors, so there were three terms for the same office. (Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Timothy 3:2ff & 5:17ff; Titus 1:5-7; 1 Peter 5:1-5).

Second, in the Church at the time of the Apostles, there was a plurality of bishops/elders in every church. (Acts 14:23; 20:17-28; Philippians 1:1; Titus 1:5; James 5:14; 1 Peter 5:1-5)

Third, at the time of the Apostles, the power to ordain officers rested in elders except in cases where a church did not yet exist, and in those cases it belonged to the Apostles (individually or severally) or their delegates (i.e. Titus). (Acts 6:1-6; 13:1-3; 1 Timothy 4:14)

Fourth, at the time of the Apostles, churches were not autonomous but connected governmentally such that a conflict or debate arising in one congregation was appealed and settled by a gathering of elders (and not merely Apostles) of the wider collection of churches which deliberated and ruled such that all the churches were bound by the decision (Acts 15:1-35). While congregants were present to witness the deliberation and saw the wisdom of the ruling, they did not deliberate or rule (see Acts 15:6, 12, 22).

Fifth, at the time of the Apostles, while the elders appointed and ordained officers, they were first put forward and elected by the congregation. (Acts 1:23; 6:3; 14:23)

Sixth, at the time of the Apostles, Jesus and Jesus alone (not a king or queen, not a senior pastor or a pope) was proclaimed as head of the church (Ephesians 1:20-23; 5:23; Colossians 1:18). Peter never claimed supremacy for himself. He regularly acted with the other Apostles and elders. He was confronted and corrected by Paul.

These points taken together show we can rule out episcopal and autonomous (whether congregational or corporate) forms of government because they do not conform to these patterns and principles. Presbyterianism best conforms to the pattern and principles of the Apostolic church, and it best matches the way the people of God was led from Moses onward, including in the era of the synagogue.

Against Congregationalism

Let’s further consider the case for Congregationalism which says the final authority in the local church resides in its members.

The argument for this view goes like this:

1. Jesus gives the keys of the kingdom to the whole church and the whole congregation must remove the unrepentant.

2. All Christians are priests indwelt by the Spirit.

3. Therefore, Jesus reigns over the church through the Spirit in each person who together rule the church by guarding doctrine and by receiving and releasing members.

But the conclusion simply does not follow. Just because the whole congregation is involved in treating the excommunicated as an unbeliever, it does not mean the whole congregation is authorized to excommunicate the person. Just because the whole congregation is called to guard sound teaching, it does not mean the whole congregation is the final authority to rule about disputes over doctrine. The keys are given to the whole church, but they are exercised by elders. Just because all Christians are priests does not mean they constitute the final authority among God’s people. In Israel, all were a holy priesthood, yet God judged severely those that attempted to flatten the distinction between the Aaronic priests and the congregation (see Numbers 16). Universal priesthood does not mean universal authority in God’s church. It’s clear whole congregations were involved in putting forward and electing candidates for office, in hearing the deliberations of elders, and in acting in accordance with excommunication, but none of this establishes that the members are the final authority or that the local church should be autonomously governed.

Furthermore, autonomous churches fail to conform to the connectional pattern in Scripture where matters in the local church may appealed and settled by elders from many churches.

Against Corporate

The Corporate form of government is a relatively new inovation that seems to have developed out of 1) a recognition that the Bible teaches churches should be ruled by a plurality of leaders rather than the congregation, and 2) a desire to see the insights and advantages of coprorate leadership being utilized by churches. However, this blend of Presbyterianism and Congregationalism (and to some degree the Episcopacy) is perhaps the most dangerous and problematic form of all.

First, while a plurality of elders should rule the church, in Scripture, these elders are accountable to elders from other churches. As noted above, autonomous churches fail to conform to the connectional pattern in Scripture.

Second, church members should be involved in putting forward leaders to be ordained by the elders, but in the Corporate form of government, leaders are usually hand picked by the ruling board or, more often, the chief executive.

There is a real danger of corruption and abuse in this form of government because the leadership has all the control over who becomes a leader without any opportunity for appeal to an outside body. While congregationalism, which also has no mechanism for outside accountability, is also contrary to Scripture, at least the power in the local church is spread out among the numerous members instead of concentrated in a small group of leaders that can perpetuate its own control.

Against Episcopal

The case for the episcopacy is primarily grounded in history, though some appeal directly to Scripture for traces of what would emerge. To this argument from history, I’d suggest that Christ established governance for his church through the Apostles whose practice in the early church gives us clear patterns to follow without any guidance as to a new or advanced system once they died. Just as they were unique in their authoritative witness to Christ’s resurrection, attended with signs and wonders to confirm their message and authority, they were unique in their ability to ordain individually, excommunicate unilaterally, and rule alone on matters of doctrine in a church. Even with this unique authority, they often acted severally with other Apostles and with elders of local church as fellow elders themselves.

Episcopal churches fail to conform to Scripture in that they limit ordination to a bishop (which is considered a distinct office from elder) rather than the elders together. Further, they usually lack plurality of elders in a church, and their officers are not usually put forward by the congregation through nomination and election.

At times, the episcopal form of government has led to Christ being replaced as head of the church when a single earthly figure like a pope, monarch, or patriarch aquires too much power, which usually leads to corruption. While the episcopacy is a very early development historically, it does not conform to the biblical pattern, nor is it foretold by Scripture as what should emerge after the Apostolic Age.

A Few Other Resources on Church Government

I certainly have not addresses this topic with the substance it deserves. I set out to give an overview of the issue so that those who have not thought deeply about the issue will see there is more to this question than they have likely considered. In an age where church abuse is being exposed, its time more Christians considered the form the church should take and what sort of authority church officers properly possess. Sound church governance cannot prevent sin and abuse, but healthy, biblical polity can discourage and reduce it as well as providing helpful tools in addressing it.

On Being Presbyterian: Our Beliefs, Practices, and Stories by Dr. Sean Michael Lucas

How Jesus Runs the Church by Guy Prentis Waters

I Will Build My Church: Selected Writings on Church Polity, Baptism, and the Sabbath by Thomas Witherow, ed. by Jonathan Gibson

Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV by John Calvin