The Congregation and its Relationship to One Pastor or Many Pastors

A Biblical Study on the Question of Multiple Pastors in a Church (Part Three of Four)

The NT teaches congregational polity. This means that authorities outside the congregation do not make decisions for the church (as Presbyterian churches practice). It also means that a single pastor or a group of elders do not exercise ultimate authority over a congregation (as Brethren churches practice). How does this relate to pastoral leadership in a church?

Congregational Accountability

First, consider the way that the believers at Berea searched the Scriptures for themselves to ensure that Paul was teaching them the truth (Acts 17:11). They did not blindly rely on Paul’s credentials as an apostle or elder. They provided him with biblical accountability by consulting the Bible for themselves. A church who follows this practice takes a responsible approach and provides the right kind of accountability for their pastor (or pastors).

The congregation is also responsible to recognize whether a man’s testimony and reputation meet the biblical requirements of a pastor (1 Tim 3:1-7). Though church leaders may provide guidance in this regard (1 Tim 5:22; Tit 1:5, et al.), it is the congregation that ultimately consents and affirms such things. Even if a pastor fails to exhibit proper qualities in the course of his service, the members of a church share a mutual responsibility to approach and correct him (1 Tim 5:19-20).

Congregational Decision-Making

Examples of congregational decision-making appear throughout Scripture and apply to more than just selecting a pastor and providing him with accountability. These examples include accepting and releasing members, selecting deacons, appointing pastors, sending missionaries, and more.

Some will suggest that Acts 14:23 (when Paul and Barnabas appointed elders in some churches) and Titus 1:5 (when Paul instructed Titus to appoint elders in some cities) prove that only pastors, not the congregation, should choose new pastors. This is not a necessary conclusion.

The word appoint (καθίστημι, kathistēmi) in Titus 1:5 is the same word used in Acts 6:3 for when the congregation (not the pastors) chose some men as deacons, which choice the leaders of the church confirmed. Acts 14:23 uses a different word (χειροτονέω, cheirotoneō), but this also allows for congregational involvement, or rather for a mutual decision-making process shared by the congregation and church leaders together. This word describes the kind of appointing that occurs by means of a vote and the raising of hands.

We can see another example of how this occurred in the way that Timothy was ordained as a pastor. By one account, he was appointed by Paul (2 Tim 1:6). By another account, he was appointed by a group of church leaders (1 Tim 4:14). Yet that is not all. Both the church in his hometown of Lystra and the one in the neighboring town of Iconium recommended Timothy for gospel ministry (Acts 16:2). The “many witnesses” of 2 Timothy 2:2 provides additional evidence of this recommendation by other believers.

Other examples of how congregations made important decisions include the following:

• When the congregation (not the pastors) at Jerusalem sent Barnabas to Antioch to encourage the believers who were there (Acts 11:22).
• When the congregation (not the pastors) at Antioch sent Paul and Barnabas to the church at Jerusalem to investigate doctrinal errors that members of the Jerusalem church propagated (Acts 15:1-3).
• When the congregation (not the pastors) at Jerusalem chose Silas and Judas Barsabbas to deliver their letter of reply to the church at Antioch (Acts 15:22).
• When the congregations (not the pastors) throughout Macedonia chose a man to collect and transport their financial offering for the church at Jerusalem as a matter of fiscal accountability (2 Cor 8:18-21).

Those who disagree with congregational decision-making or polity may highlight Acts 13:2 as a key reason. To them, this instance clearly supports a multiple pastor- or elder- rule arrangement by which a group of pastors pass down binding decisions to the church, to which the church simply complies.

The problem with this view (apart from violating the priesthood and individual responsibility of every believer before God, c.f. Rom 14:5; 1 Pet 2:9; 1 John 2:20) is that it rests on an ambiguous statement in the passage. Verse 2 says, “They ministered to the Lord and fasted,” then verse 3 says, “They sent them away.” The question is whether the word they refers exclusively to the five leading men named in verse 1 or to “the church” mentioned before them, of which they were a part. Greek or English grammar alone cannot answer this question, so to use this example as a proof text for elder rule is insufficient.

Instead, many other clear NT examples of how congregations worked together with their leaders to make important decisions raise the probability that this example is no different. The church at Antioch benefited from the leadership of these five men. On this occasion, they prayed and fasted together with them. As a result, they commissioned – as a church – Paul and Barnabas for missionary work.

This interpretation seems even more preferred since Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch after this first missionary journey and reported the results of their trip to the entire congregation (Acts 14:26-27). They did the same thing again to defend their teaching against criticism. To do this, the church at Antioch (not the pastors) chose them as part of a delegation that they (not the pastors) sent to the church at Jerusalem (Acts 15:2-3). In Jerusalem, they made their presentation to the entire church and not to the pastors alone (Acts 15:4).

The Spiritual Fitness of a Congregation

Some may argue that only a group of pastors or elders is qualified to make important decisions for a church. They conclude this based upon the joint assumption that the pastor(s) are functioning in a spiritual way and the congregation (or members within the congregation) will invariably be immature and unspiritual to some degree, rendering them unqualified to make important church decisions. As reasonable as this perspective may appear, it does not reflect a NT understanding. To make this clear, you should consider the following case studies from the church at Jerusalem and the church at Corinth.

When the church at Jerusalem failed to care for the needs of its widows (demonstrating a deficiency with the congregation), its spiritual leaders did not intervene to select men by themselves who could solve this problem. They relied on the church to make this decision instead (Acts 6:2-6). This teaches us that immaturity in the congregation did not preclude them from making a good decision.

The church at Corinth (as seen in the letters that Paul wrote to them) provides even more insightful perspective on the importance of congregational polity and accountability. Paul’s first letter to this church teaches that Christ gives godly wisdom to every believer, not just to pastors or elders (1 Cor 1:24). What’s more, the Holy Spirit gives biblical understanding and the mind of Christ to all believers (1 Cor 2:12, 16).

These references are especially important because the Corinthian church hardly qualified as a spiritually mature congregation. Though God had blessed them, they behaved in many wrong ways. They segregated themselves by economic factors, glamorized various church leaders and polarized around them, filed public lawsuits against one another, observed the Lord’s Table in a disrespectful manner, showcased their spiritual gifts, failed to love one another and more.

Despite these many problems, which Paul addressed, he assigned them a very important decision. A member of the church was actively engaged in an ongoing, public scandal involving brazen sexual immorality (1 Cor 5:1). Despite his disgraceful, unrepentant behavior, the church pretended as though everything was fine (1 Cor 5:2).

To resolve this dilemma, Paul instructed the church to make a joint, congregational decision (when they “gathered together”) to release this man from membership and fellowship in the church (1 Cor 5:3-5, 12-13). This protocol resembles what Christ had already taught previously (Mt 18:15-20).

In a subsequent letter, Paul confirmed that the church had followed his instructions. They had released the disobedient man from the church by means of a majority, congregational decision, not a pastoral, executive one. As a result, this man eventually repented (2 Cor 2:6). Therefore, Paul urged the congregation to receive him back into fellowship with forgiveness (2 Cor 2:8-9).

As in Acts 6, Paul – as a church leader – guided the church in the right course of action to take. Nevertheless, it was not his decision to make; the responsibility for action belonged to the congregation.

Click here for Part One of this Study.

Click here for Part Two of this Study.

Thomas Overmiller serves as pastor for Faith Baptist Church in Corona, NY and blogs at Shepherd Thoughts.