Determining a biblical model of church government is no small feat, given the evolving nature of leadership in the New Testament era, and the lack of exhaustive, step-by-step ecclesiastical instructions. This article seeks to navigate these complexities by examining the principles and practices of New Testament church governance, with the aim of discerning a model that is both faithful to biblical teachings and applicable to contemporary church settings.
The Unique Role of the Apostles
The apostles held a foundational role within the early Christian church. Ephesians 2:20 highlights the church as being “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone“; a notion pictured symbolically in Revelation 21:14 as twelve foundations in the walls of the New Jerusalem for the “Twelve Apostles of the Lamb”. Understanding the unique nature of the apostolic office is crucial to appreciating its influence on church structure and governance.
An Extraordinary Christ-Appointed Office
Hand-selected (Mk 1:16-20, Jn 1:43), taught by Jesus “in person” and witnesses of the resurrected Christ (Acts 1:21-22), the apostles were uniquely called for their role. This included the late-blooming Apostle Paul, who based his apostolic calling on having seen the risen Christ and receiving the gospel and commission directly from Him, not from any human source (1 Cor 9:1–2; Gal 1:12, cf. Acts 9). Some allege that the phrase “witness of His resurrection” (Ac 1:22) is merely the duty of the apostle to testify about the resurrection, not the requirement that he witnessed it himself. However, this fails to capture the context. Just preceding the replacement of Judas, in Acts 1:8, Christ commissioned the apostles to be “witnesses”. Thereafter, the apostles repeatedly tied their mission to the fact that they were direct eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ (Acts 2:32; 3:15; 5:30–32; 10:39–41; 13:30–31). Moreover, the apostles were authorized by Jesus to perform extraordinary miracles (Mt 10:1, Mk 6:7, Lk 9:1), which served as signs validating their ministry, or “marks of a true apostle” (2 Cor 12:12, Acts 5:12-13, Heb 2:4, Mk 16:18-20). Most notably, they were empowered to bestow the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands (Acts 8:14-17, Acts 19:6). These extraordinary aspects suggest that the apostolic office was unique and ceased to exist after the establishment of the early church.
Some challenge this uniqueness, claiming that Apollos, Silas, James, Barnabas, Andronicus and Junia (maybe1) are all referred to as “apostles” in the New Testament, even though Scripture does not record them being directly taught or commissioned by Christ. However, the absence of such a record does not mean it could not have occurred. Even so, Scripture maintains a clear distinction between the original “Apostles” (capital “A”) and others called “apostles.” The Greek word apostolos simply means “sent one,” and in that broader sense, many were “sent” for various missions. Yet Christ, as the Chief Apostle (Heb. 3:1), gave the formal office of Apostleship (Eph. 4:11) uniquely to the Twelve—those with foundational, universal, and canonical authority in the church. This pattern—of a formal office distinguished from a general function—is evident in other areas as well. Jesus, the Great Shepherd (Heb. 13:20), established the office of pastor-shepherd, while others may serve in informal shepherding roles. Jesus, our High Priest (Heb. 4:14), instituted the office of priest to administer the sacrificial system, while Israel was also a “kingdom of priests” (Ex. 19:6). Jesus, the Prophet like Moses (Dt 18:18), instituted the office of prophet to speak forth immediate divine utterance, while even Gentile “prophets” are gifted to speak powerfully and persuasively (Tit 1:12). The general function in this pattern should never be conflated with the formal office.
An Authoritative Office
The apostles had the authority to issue binding commands and traditions, both in written and verbal form, establishing the foundational doctrines of the church (1 Cor 11:34, 2 Thess 2:15). Unlike the Catholic view that places ultimate authority with Peter (and his alleged successors), the New Testament shows that all apostles collectively had the power to forgive sins and make binding decisions regarding church discipline (Jn 20:21-23, Mt 16:19, 18:18). Additionally, through the laying on of hands, they ordained elders and deacons (2 Tim 1:6, Acts 6:6). This wide-reaching authority is climaxed by Jesus’ promise that they will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Mt 19:28).
A Validated Office
Because of the highly authoritative nature of the apostolic office, newly called apostles, especially Paul, required validation by the existing apostles. Prominent disciples such as Barnabas had to contend for Paul’s legitimacy. Thankfully, the apostles “perceived the grace that was given unto [Paul], they gave to [Paul] … the right hands of fellowship” (Gal 2:9), indicating their acceptance but also the necessity of recognition.
A Fallible Office
Despite their unique authority, the apostles were not infallible. The apostles were not beyond reproach and could be opposed by their peers. An example of this is when Paul opposed Peter for his contradictory behavior toward gentiles (Gal 2:11-14). This shows that even apostles could err and be corrected.
A Transient Office
The Apostolic Office was never intended to last forever. God progressively reduced the use of apostles in mediating the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This shift became particularly evident with the expansion of the Gospel to the Gentiles. Paul, the apostle called to the Gentiles, experienced the baptism of the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands of the disciple, Ananias, who was not an apostle (Acts 9:17-18). Additionally, the Spirit was poured out on the first Gentile household without any apostolic intervention (Acts 10). These instances illustrate the gradual transition from the apostles’ mediation of the baptism of the Holy Spirit to a direct experience that would henceforth accompany every convert’s immersion into the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13). Furthermore, The deacons were progressively delegated many apostolic ministries, including teaching and evangelism (Acts 8:5), miracle-working (Acts 6:8, 8:6), and baptism (Acts 8:12, 38). This delegation provides further evidence for the transient nature of the Apostolic Office.
Continued Governance via Elders After the Apostolic Office Ceased
Though the apostles were the first elders of the church (2 Jn 1:1, 1 Pet 5:1-2), they recognized that their office was foundational and temporary. So they took deliberate steps to ensure the continued governance of the church through a well-established structure of succeeding elders.
Commissioning of Elders
The term “elder” was only one of three potential titles for the same office — “bishop” (episkopos), “elder” (presbuteros), and “shepherd” (poimen). The interchangeable use of these titles is evident throughout the New Testament. For instance, in Acts 20:17, 28, Paul refers to the elders of the Ephesian church as overseers (bishops) of the flock and shepherds (pastors) of the church of God. Similarly, Titus 1:5-7 and 1 Peter 5:1-2 show Paul and Peter using all of these terms interchangeably, reflecting a unified understanding of church leadership – a plurality of qualified elders – following the end of the apostolic era.
Plurality of Elders
To avoid the centralization of power, the apostles appointed multiple elders in each church (Acts 14:23, Jas 5:14). This plural leadership model was designed to foster shared responsibility and accountability within the local congregation, preventing any single individual from dominating church governance.
Involvement of the Presbytery
The apostles involved the presbytery (a group of elders) in nearly all aspects of church administration, knowing that these elders would eventually take over their roles. The presbytery was involved in the discovery and ordination of new leaders (Acts 13:1-3, 1 Tim 4:14). They also played a significant role in defining doctrine and practice at major councils (Acts 15:2). This collaborative approach ensured collective discernment and guidance of the Holy Spirit in church governance.
Qualifications for Elders
Becoming an elder was no light matter. According to 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, elders were to be above reproach, faithfully managing their own households, and possessing a good reputation both within and outside the church. They were to be sober-minded, self-controlled, and hospitable, capable of teaching sound doctrine while refuting those who contradict it. Not prone to drunkenness, violence, or greed, they were to be gentle, not quarrelsome, and free from the love of money. Essentially, they had to exemplify integrity, stability, and spiritual maturity in all aspects of life.
Differentiated Roles Among Elders
There may have been elders who served more of a ruling function than others, especially in larger churches. For instance, the church in Jerusalem was led by a team of elders, with James, the brother of Jesus, apparently being a prominent leader (Acts 11:30, Acts 12:17, Acts 21:18). Although all elders had an equal voice in the church, some “ruled well“, demonstrating a special gift of leadership (1 Tim 5:17, Rom 12:8). Many of these “who labored in preaching and teaching” were to be compensated for their work with “double honor“, while others served voluntarily (1 Tim 5:18, cf. 1 Cor 9:7-9).
The Church’s Role in Governance
The local church plays a pivotal role in church government. In the New Testament, local churches were always addressed collectively and held accountable as a whole. It is, therefore, crucial for the congregation to actively participate and not simply sit back passively while the leaders handle everything. The church is the “pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15), which holds a vital position in maintaining doctrinal purity, accountability of its leaders, and the spiritual health of its members.
Submission to Authority
The first church submitted to apostolic authority and continued in the teachings of the apostles daily (Acts 2:42), trusting that the apostolic office was a “gift” given for its edification (Eph 4:11-12). The pastor-elder gift remains for the same purpose (Eph 4:11-12). The church submits to its leaders and trusts them for spiritual oversight (Heb 13:17).
Ultimate Authority: God’s Word
The ultimate authority within the church is God’s Word. The Bereans were commended for their diligence in verifying Paul’s teachings against Scripture (Acts 17). This principle, known as Sola Scriptura, asserts that no authoritative claims should extend beyond what is written in Scripture (1 Cor 4:6). Paul urged the Galatians to test all teachings, whether apostolic or even angelic, ensuring that false gospels would be identified and rejected (Gal 1:8). The originally anointed Gospel message was “once delivered” and needs no augmentation or revision by any teacher (Jude 3, 1 Jn 2:27).
Selection of Leaders
The church played a crucial role in selecting leaders, who were then apparently ordained by the presbytery (council of elders). This was demonstrated in Acts 6, when the apostles asked the “whole multitude of the disciples” to select deacons, whom they would ordain by laying on of hands (6:3-6). The use of the Greek word cheirotoneo in Acts 14:23, which means “to choose by show of hands,” suggests that Paul and Barnabas incorporated the voting of the church into their process of selecting elders. A similar pattern is seen in 2 Corinthians 8:19, where Paul refers to a brother “who was also chosen (Gr. cheirotoneo) by the churches to travel with us in this gracious work.” This further reinforces the concept of a participatory ecclesiology, wherein the congregation actively recognized and affirmed its leaders.
Agreement on Major Decisions
The church was also involved in decisions other than leadership selection. The “whole church” participated in the decisions of the first major Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:22). This inclusive approach ensured that decisions were made collectively, fostering unity and a sense of ownership among all believers in the community.
Church Discipline
Church discipline and excommunication involved the entire church body (Mt 18:17; 1 Cor 5:4-5). The church had the authority to address significant moral and doctrinal issues, ensuring the integrity and purity of the Christian community. This was not limited to “lay” member discipline, but also to the discipline of elders (1 Tim 5:19-22).
Governance and Accountability Beyond the Local Church
The New Testament model of church governance not only emphasizes the shared leadership within local congregations but also incorporates mechanisms for accountability and governance beyond individual churches.
Regional Elders
Figures like Timothy and Titus are prime examples of regional elders who had the authority to facilitate the appointment of elders across various regions, cities, and churches. Paul instructed Titus to “appoint elders in every town” (Tit 1:5-7), and Timothy was similarly charged with overseeing the appointment and guidance of elders (2 Tim 2:2, 1 Tim 3:1). This structure ensured a cohesive approach to leadership and governance across different congregations, maintaining doctrinal unity and accountability.
Expanded Councils
To ensure inter-church accountability, the apostles convened expanded councils to determine doctrine and practice. The most notable example is the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, where apostles and elders gathered to address crucial doctrinal issues facing the early church. This council included the representation and involvement of elders and the broader church community, reflecting a collaborative and collective decision-making process. The conclusions reached at these councils were then communicated and upheld across all the churches, ensuring consistency and adherence to agreed-upon doctrines.
And the Winner is? Comparing Today’s Models
So what modern models of church governance are compatible with the concepts outlined in the New Testament? This section will compare a few and make some recommendations.
Episcopal
The Episcopal model, upheld by the Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican churches, emphasizes a hierarchical structure with distinct roles for bishops (Greek: episkopos) who oversee multiple congregations within a diocese. While some argue that bishops governing over elders is an accretion in early church history2, misaligned with the synonymous use of the two offices in the New Testament, others argue that the bishop has similarities with the “regional elder” concept I previously observed. The Catholic Church, which additionally advocates for the continuation of Peter’s Apostolic office in the Pope (Mt 16:18), must furnish proof that he bears the aforementioned qualifications of a genuine apostle. Many of the churches in these traditions employ multiple priests (i.e. presbyters), which satisfies the Biblical criteria of a plurality of elders.
Congregational
The Congregational model emphasizes the autonomy of each local church, where decisions are made democratically by the entire congregation, often through regular church business meetings where each member (whether mature or immature) has an equal voice and vote. While this model highlights the importance of congregational involvement, it can sometimes lack the broader accountability and doctrinal unity provided by a structured leadership framework. The LCMS model (Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod) is a hybrid congregational model where congregations are part of a larger network (synod) that provides support, pastoral training and ordination 3. This model ensures a level of accountability and doctrinal unity among congregations, which is less emphasized in a purely independent congregational model. LCMS churches also typically have a governing council, consisting of the pastor(s), lay elders and other elected members, which jointly decide on strategic proposals to present to the church (i.e. Voter’s Assembly) for final approval. The lay elders are of lesser authority than the pastor and, therefore, shouldn’t be considered Biblical “elders”. So, it would behoove an LCMS congregation to employ at least two ordained pastors in order to satisfy the Biblical criteria of a plurality of elders.
Staff-Led
The Staff-led model, also known as the megachurch model 4, closely mirrors a corporate business structure. In this system, significant authority is vested in one key leader, the Senior Pastor. Similar to a company’s President, the he hires executive-level paid staff Pastors. Although he may consult teams as sounding boards, he ultimately retains the authority to make such hiring decisions. Once onboard, these staff pastors, like corporate directors, receive marching orders from the Senior Pastor, and then execute on those plans with appropriate team building. This approach can lead to efficient “top-down” decision-making and a clear vision. However, it may also concentrate too much power in one individual, potentially resulting in imbalances, a lack of collective discernment, and significant changes in direction when staffing changes occur. Additionally, this model creates distinctions in authority between staff elders (with the Senior Pastor having more) and between “staff” and “lay” elders, with lay elders having less authority, or not existing at all.
Presbyterian
Presbyterian church government is distinguished by its hierarchical structure, featuring multiple tiers of governance. These levels include local sessions (groups of elders), regional presbyteries, larger synods, and the highest authority, the General Assembly. Elders, both ruling and teaching, share leadership responsibilities and voting authority as equals. However, the congregation remains actively involved in the church’s governance. Elders are elected by the congregation, ensuring accountability and representation within the church community.
In light of the biblical evidence, I would argue that the following models align with the Biblical observations presented earlier:
- Presbyterian
- Anglican with multiple priests per congregation, assuming bishops are “regional elders”
- LCMS with multiple pastors per congregation, and lay elders renamed “deacons”
Reflecting on the models of church government we’ve explored, let’s remember the ultimate example of leadership in Jesus Christ, who combined authority with humility and service. As we seek to apply biblical principles to church governance, may we be guided by His example, fostering unity, spiritual growth, and community. Let us pray for wisdom and discernment, trusting the Holy Spirit to lead us. May our efforts glorify God and strengthen His church, bearing fruit for His kingdom.
Footnotes:
- The debate over whether Andronicus and Junia were “apostles” hinges on the Greek prepositional phrase ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις (“among the apostles”) in Romans 16:7. Some scholars argue that this phrase indicates that they were part of the group of apostles, supporting the idea that Junia was recognized as a female apostle in the early church. Others contend that the phrase merely means they were “esteemed by the apostles,” rather than being apostles themselves. The interpretation often hinges on grammatical and contextual analysis, as well as historical perspectives on apostleship in the early Christian movement. For further discussion, see Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (1996), and Eldon J. Epp, Junia: The First Woman Apostle (2005). ↩︎
- Over time, as the church expanded and became more organized, the role of the bishop began to evolve separately from that of the elder. By the second century, we start to see a clearer distinction, with bishops taking on more prominent roles in overseeing multiple congregations and maintaining doctrinal purity. Ignatius of Antioch, a significant early church father, emphasized the importance of bishops, describing them as standing in the place of God and serving as models of the Father. This distinction is particularly evident in his letters, where he urged Christians to follow their bishops as they would follow Jesus Christ, underscoring the elevated role bishops had come to play. See: The Apostolic Fathers, translations by J.B. Lightfoot and J.R. Harmer (1891); edited and revised by Michael Holmes, copyright 1989; 4th printing 1991; pages 86-88, 93-95, 97-98 ↩︎
- Congregational Governance: Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod https://www.lcms.org/convention/governance#:~:text=The%20Lutheran%20Church%E2%80%94Missouri%20Synod%2C%20including%20its%20districts%20and%20other,through%20the%20submission%20of%20overtures. ↩︎
- The five models of church governance (and how they cope under pressure). Andy Judd. https://www.andyjudd.com/blog/the-five-models-of-church-governance-and-how-they-cope-under-pressure ↩︎
The Middle Ground 
good word!
LikeLike