Let me start by declaring that I have no axe to grind in this polity debate. I’m neither an advocate for elder polity, nor am I implacably opposed to it. When I teach church planting in a seminary, I always talk about how to organize the new church. The last time I taught about this, I told my class: “I’ve reached the point where I’m just happy if a church is organized in some way.” My wife and I are members of a church that employs traditional congregational polity, while our adult daughter is a member of an elder-led church. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I’ve never been a member of an elder-led church, so I have no personal experience with that polity.
What have we learned about elder polity in previous posts? We’ve learned that it was common in the New Testament era. Acts 14:23 and 20:17 support this statement. In my opinion, leadership by plural elders was the most common polity in the New Testament church. Still, it is important to remember that Acts 20:28 and 1 Peter 5:1-4 demonstrate that the New Testament writers used the terms elder, overseer, and pastor interchangeably. Therefore, it would be biblically correct to substitute the term overseer, or the term pastor, for elder.
The use of elder polity has increased greatly in the SBC in the past 40 years. When I began in ministry 60 years ago, there were no elder-led churches in the SBC (at least that I was aware of). Due to the rise of Calvinism in the SBC, the influence of the 9 Marks organization, and the teaching at Southern Baptist Seminary elder polity has gained in popularity.
What are the advantages of elder polity?
It is biblical. It may not have been common in SBC churches in the past, but it is biblical
It spreads the load for pastoral care so that one pastor does not have to bear all the responsibility.
Multiple elders means that the varied spiritual gifts of several men are applied to the church’s needs.
It is easier to inform 5/7/9 elders about an issue or project rather than an entire congregation.
Elder polity avoids the problem of concentrating power in the hands of one pastor.
There is wisdom in the advice of multiple counselors (Prov. 11:14).
The preaching pastor can focus more on preaching rather than administrative tasks.
There is better continuity in leadership during times of pastoral transition.
Elder polity returns deacons to their New Testament pattern—serving rather than ruling.
Elder polity provides for better accountability for the pastor.
What are the disadvantages of elder polity?
Most SBC churches have used the pastor/deacons congregational model. So, the transition to elder polity might be difficult. The congregation may resist the change.
The majority of SBC churches are small. They may not have enough qualified men to serve as elders.
It is difficult and time-consuming to identify and train elders. For example, in my daughter’s church, potential elders are identified and then undergo 18 months of training before being presented to the congregation for election as elders.
There is potential for conflict between the elders. The presented model is one with a unified elder board that serves in harmony and effectiveness. The reality is not always so positive.
In practice, the elders are not equal. The preaching elder typically exercises more authority. Thus, there may be role confusion among the elders in regard to responsibilities.
Last, Dr. Jere Phillips, long-time professor of practical theology at Mid-America Baptist Seminary, made this observation. In congregational polity, those opposed to the pastor must convince 51% of the members to terminate the pastor. With elder polity, three men on an elder board could terminate the pastor.
In the next post, I’ll explain the advantages and disadvantages of congregational polity.
