God’s Plan for Leading a Biblical Church

Text - 1 Peter 5:1-6

1 Peter 5:1–6 KJV 1900

1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: 2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; 3 Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. 4 And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away. 5 Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble. 6 Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time:

Introduction

We are continuing our study on Why Theology Matters. Our goal in all things is to be biblical. That includes church governance.

Who Leads the Church?

Who leads the local church?

Is it the Congregation?

Is it the deacons?

Baptists are congregationalists in polity or church government. The church body holds ultimate authority. But this sometimes leads to blurred lines between members, deacons, and elders. In practice, deacons, elected by the congregation, somehow become proxies for congregational control. The post-Civil War South saw a rise in democratic ideals and suspicion of strong individual leadership. It was J.M. Pendleton’s Church Manual (1867) that emphasized deacons’ involvement in church business. It was likely that this book laid the groundwork for their expanded role beyond service. Congregations were encouraged to vest power in a deacon "board," mirroring secular boards of trustees or directors, rather than a pastor or elders. Pendleton was also a part of the Landmark Movement which stressed local church autonomy and in the south, where pastoral turnover was historically high, these “financial officers” or “executive boards” became elevated in their power.

Rural SBC churches usually had pastors who were itinerant or bivocational, serving multiple congregations with limited tenure. Deacons, as permanent local leaders, filled leadership vacuums, managing church affairs between pastors or during vacancies. Over time, this pragmatic arrangement solidified into a tradition where deacons held sway, hiring and directing pastors as employees.

By the early 20th century, some SBC churches adopted a "board of deacons" model akin to a corporate board of directors. P.E. Burroughs’ Honoring the Deaconship (1929), used in SBC training, described deacons as overseeing "material interests" alongside the pastor, subtly shifting their role toward governance. This trend intensified mid-century as churches grew and administrative demands increased, with deacons sometimes acting as a check on pastoral authority. But this is a deviation from Biblical norms.

Within the SBC, the deacon-led model varies by congregation due to local autonomy. Some churches historically exaggerated deacon roles. In smaller or traditional SBC churches, this model persists, often tied to longstanding family influence or resistance to pastoral authority.

The deacon-led model strays from Scripture. The New Testament assigns oversight to elders (Titus 1:5–9; Acts 14:23), not deacons, and nowhere depicts pastors as subordinate employees.

I ask again, who leads the church?

Elder rule?

The authoritative single-pastor rule prevalent in many Independent Fundamental Baptist (IFB) churches represents a model of church governance where a single pastor holds near-absolute authority over the congregation, often functioning as the sole decision-maker in spiritual, administrative, and sometimes even personal matters of church members. Like other Baptists, IFB churches emphasize congregational autonomy, rejecting hierarchical oversight from denominations. However, in practice, this autonomy often centralized power in the pastor as the congregation’s visible leader, especially in small, independent churches where additional elders were rare. This produced churches with a strong, singular pastoral voice, rallying followers around their preaching and vision. People like Jack Hyles popularized a "pastor as ruler" approach, influencing countless IFB churches via his books (The Hyles Church Manual, 1969) and Pastors’ School conferences. As fundamentalism reacted against liberal theology and denominational compromise in the early 20th century, IFB leaders positioned the pastor as a bulwark of doctrinal purity. This elevated the pastor’s role beyond shepherding to a near-dictatorial stance, guarding the church against perceived threats.

But there are great dangers in this model:

Centralized Authority: The pastor often holds unilateral control over preaching, church discipline, finances, and even minor decisions (e.g., music, dress codes). Deacons, if present, serve as advisors or executors of his will, not co-leaders.

Cult of Personality: The pastor’s charisma and preaching prowess define the church’s identity, with loyalty to him often equated with loyalty to God.

Top-Down Leadership: Decisions flow from the pastor to the congregation, with limited congregational input beyond affirming his directives.

Pastoral Infallibility: Some IFB pastors claim a divine mandate, citing texts like Hebrews 13:17 ("Obey your leaders and submit to them") to demand unquestioning obedience.

“Man of God” Rhetoric: IFB preaching frequently casts the pastor as a uniquely anointed "man of God" suggesting he speaks with near-prophetic authority.

Abuse of Power

Lack of Accountability

Cult-like Dynamics

Theological Distortion

Burnout and Instability

Frankly, it’s dangerous and unbiblical.

What is the proper form of church government for a local New Testament Baptist church?

Elder-led congregationalism

Elder-led congregationalism aligns most closely with the New Testament’s depiction of church governance, balances the Baptist commitment to congregational autonomy with biblical leadership structures, and provides a practical framework that guards against the excesses of alternative models like the authoritative single-pastor rule or deacon-led governance.

Because we believe in Sola Scriptura, or Scripture as the sole infallible authority for all matters of faith and practice, elder-led congregationalism perfectly harmonizes the plurality of elders with the priesthood of all believers, reflecting both the Biblical order and the church’s covenantal nature.

The New Testament presents a consistent pattern of church governance that supports elder-led congregationalism:

1. Plurality of Elders:

Acts 14:23 (LSB): "And when they had appointed elders for them in every church..." Paul and Barnabas establish multiple elders in each local church, indicating a team of leaders, not a single ruler.

Titus 1:5: "Appoint elders in every city as I directed you." The plural "elders" per church suggests shared oversight.

Acts 20:17, 28: Paul addresses the "elders" of Ephesus, charging them to "shepherd the church of God," reinforcing their collective leadership role.

1 Peter 5:1–2: Peter exhorts "the elders among you" to "shepherd the flock," implying a group effort under Christ, the Chief Shepherd.

2. Elder Oversight with Congregational Involvement

Elders lead, but the congregation participates in key decisions. In Acts 6:3–5, the apostles direct the church to select deacons, and the "whole congregation" chooses, showing a cooperative model where leaders guide and the body affirms.

Acts 15:22–23: The Jerusalem Council includes apostles, elders, and "the whole church" in resolving the circumcision dispute, blending elder authority with congregational consent.

3. Distinction of Roles

Elders (presbuteroi/episkopoi) oversee and teach (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:9), while deacons serve practical needs (Acts 6:1–6; 1 Tim. 3:8–13). This division precludes deacon rule and elevates elders as primary shepherds, yet nowhere does Scripture grant them autocratic power over the congregation.

4. Absence of Single-Pastor Dictatorship

The authoritative single-pastor model lacks explicit support. Terms like "pastor" (poimēn), "elder," and "overseer" are used interchangeably (Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:1–2), and plurality is the norm. Hebrews 13:17 ("Obey your leaders") refers to plural "leaders," not a lone ruler.

Closing

This biblical pattern—elders leading as a plurality, with the congregation exercising responsibility under their guidance—forms the backbone of elder-led congregationalism. Elder-led congregationalism aligns with core Baptist principles:

Priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:9)

Christ is the head of the Church (Ephesians 1:22-23)

Accountability and Sin (1 Peter 5:3)

Sola Scriptura

Addressing Objections

“Congregationalism Undermines Leadership”: Not in this model—elders lead decisively (1 Tim. 5:17), but the flock’s role in affirmation (Acts 6) and discipline (Gal. 1:8–9) reflects biblical checks, not chaos.

“Small Churches Can’t Support Plurality”: Scripture prioritizes qualified elders (1 Tim. 3:1–7), not numbers. Small churches can train men over time (2 Tim. 2:2) or partner regionally.

“We Have Always Done it This Way”: Simplicity doesn’t trump faithfulness to scripture. The New Testament favors function over familiarity. The funeral hymn of a dying church is, “we’ve never done it that way before.”

Summary of Why it is Correct

Elder-led congregationalism is the correct Baptist polity because it:

Mirrors Scripture: Plural elders lead, congregations participate—matching Acts, Pauline epistles, and Petrine exhortations.

Honors Baptist Identity: It upholds autonomy and believer competency without sacrificing order.

Corrects Distortions: It avoids the IFB’s pastor-as-king and the SBC’s deacon-as-board, restoring biblical roles.

Glorifies God: By reflecting Christ’s headship and the Spirit’s gifting (1 Cor. 12), it orders the church for His praise.

Elder-led congregationalism is the gold standard—rooted in Scripture, proven by history, and designed to shepherd God’s people faithfully until Christ returns.