This past week I had the chance to give a lecture on leadership in the NT here at Southwest Baptist University.

Of particular intrigue to me (and many) is why a plurality of elders fell out of favor among Baptists in the 20th century. Thankfully, Baptists today often have a plurality of elders leading their churches. The resurgence or return to what I believe is the clear pattern in the NT is a welcome development. But why did a commitment to plural eldership decline among Baptists in the first place?

Dr. Shawn Wright, professor of church history at Southern Seminary, has addressed this question in Shepherding God’s Flock: Biblical Leadership in the New Testament and Beyond (eds. Benjamin L. Merkle and Thomas R. Scheiner). Wright offers five factors that “influenced Baptists not to maintain the practice of plural elders” (Wright, 255).

1. The Congregation’s Fear of Unbiblical Domination
2. Baptist Hermeneutic
3. Ambiguity of Baptist Confessions
4. Non-Plurality of Prominent Pastor-Theologians
5. Lack of Qualified Elders

The first reason is an outworking of the Baptist commitment to congregational government. That is, in a local church the congregation is the final rule of human authority under the Lordship of Christ. For some Baptist leaders, the idea of a plurality of elders was too close to a Presbyterian elder-rule. As Wright notes, “Their fear of unbiblical elder domination seemed from their equating plural elders with the typical Presbyterian teaching elder-ruling elders system” (Wright, 256). Thus, plural elders seemed incompatible with congregationalism.

Second, Wright shows from the writings of those like John Gill and William Williams, that Baptists believed that plural eldership in the NT was circumstantial. Given the circumstances have changed since the first century, churches need not follow the NT pattern of plurality. This line of argument is advanced in more modern times by Danny Akin, the current president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary (Danny Akin, “The Single-Elder-Led Church: The Bible’s Witness to a Congregational/Single-Elder-Led Polity,” in Perspectives on Church Government: Five Views of Church Polity, 64).

Third, Baptist confessions did not clarify the number of pastors/elders in a congregation. One would read in vain trying to find a specific number of pastors/elders demanded for a church in the First London Confession, the Second London Confession, the New Hampshire Confession, or any version of the Baptist Faith and Message, (1925, 1963, 2000).

Fourth, the leading Baptist voices of the day did not seem to advocate for plurality. In fact, at times, some of the leading voices opposed plurality. Wright notes the writings of those like Benjamin Keach. In The Glory and Ornament of a True Gospel-Constituted Church (1697), Keach asserts that co-elders was not an “abiding office.” In fact, Keach uses the singular “pastor” to reference the leader of a congregation. That seems to tip his hat to the single-pastor model.

Finally, practically speaking, “there was a dearth of qualified men to fill the office” (Wright, 278). All elders are held to the qualifications in 1 Timothy 3:1–8 and Titus 1:5–9. With Baptist churches often springing up outside of metropolitan areas and in more rural settings, the lack of men who were “apt to teach” was a contributing factor that led to the decline of plural leadership. There were simply not enough qualified men to go around! Wright offers this quote from the Charleston Association in 1851: “We have to mourn over the great destitution of ministers within our bounds; truly, ‘the harvest is great, but the laborers are few.'” (Wright, 279).

SOME (SUPER) SHORT REFLECTIONS

1. A fear of falling into a Presbyterian model should not be sufficient reason to disregard the NT pattern of plural leadership. Instead, all one needs to do is note the difference between elder-led and elder-rule models. The former idea is completely compatible with congregational government (see this article from Blake White)
2. Hermeneutically, Baptists have found the use of NT patterns helpful to interpretation. We have, at times, used the NT pattern of believer’s baptism to make our case that we should only immerse those who come to faith in Christ (for instance, see my article here). Why jettison that hermeneutical practice when it comes to church polity?
3. Yes, some historic confessions of faith are ambiguous on this point. However, Baptist churches see the Bible as the final rule for faith and practice. Second, these confessions certainly do not negate a plural-elder position.
4. The reality that there are “leading theological voices” with varying opinions on this subject should cause us to tread carefully. We certainly want to try and understand the best arguments on all sides of an issue. Yet, in the end we must examine the Scriptures and operate according to what we believe the Bible teaches, even if the best among us think differently.
5. Though there are certainly times when there is a lack of qualified elders, this is not where a congregation should hope to stay. Instead, discipling men in our congregations, exerting effort to raise up elder-qualified men, is part of shepherding God’s people. Though a single-elder-led church might be the only option given a specific moment in time, the NT pattern of plurality should be the direction a church is headed.