What is presbyterian church government?

Question 09021.

Presbyterian government is rule by elders. Authority in the local congregation belongs to a body of elders called a session or kirk session rather than to a bishop above or to the membership below, and those local bodies are linked together in a series of graded courts: presbytery, synod and general assembly. The name comes from presbuteros, the New Testament word for elder.

It is the polity of the Church of Scotland, the Free Church, the Presbyterian churches of Ireland and Wales, and a great many Reformed bodies worldwide. I am a Baptist and I do not hold it, but presbyterian government is the system I find most persuasive among the alternatives to my own, and its biblical case is a good deal stronger than Baptists often allow.

How Presbyterian Government Works

Each congregation is governed by a session made up of the minister, who is a teaching elder, and a group of ruling elders drawn from the membership and ordained to that office. The session handles admission to membership, discipline, worship and the general oversight of the church. Elders are usually elected by the congregation, which means the people have a genuine voice, but once ordained the elders govern rather than acting as delegates.

Above the session sits the presbytery, a regional body of ministers and ruling elders that ordains, oversees congregations, hears appeals and settles disputes. Above that sit synod and general assembly. Presbyterian government therefore combines local eldership with a connected structure, and it is designed so that no congregation and no individual stands alone or unaccountable. Decisions can be appealed upwards, which is one of its distinctive strengths.

The Biblical Case for Presbyterian Government

The case begins with the plainest fact about New Testament leadership: elders are always plural. Paul and Barnabas appointed elders in every church in Acts 14:23. Titus was to appoint elders in every town. James tells the sick to call for the elders of the church. There is no example anywhere in the New Testament of a congregation led by one man on his own, and that is a serious problem for a good deal of modern evangelical practice.

1 Timothy 5:17 speaks of elders who rule well, and distinguishes those who labour in preaching and teaching from the rest. Presbyterians read that as the basis for the two offices of teaching elder and ruling elder, and the reading is not forced. The Greek presbuteros carries the sense of a mature man whose seasoned judgement the congregation can trust, which fits the picture well.

Acts 15 and the Question of Higher Courts

The connectional part of presbyterian government rests largely on Acts 15. A dispute in Antioch about circumcision was not settled locally. It was referred to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, a decision was reached, and letters carrying that decision were sent out to the churches, which received them as binding. That looks a great deal like a higher court hearing a case referred from below.

My difficulty is that the Jerusalem council included living apostles whose authority was unique and unrepeatable. What was settled there was a matter of the gospel itself rather than an ordinary administrative dispute, and the decision came with apostolic weight that no presbytery can claim. The passage certainly shows churches consulting one another and taking counsel seriously. Whether it establishes a permanent structure of graded courts is a further step, and I do not think the text takes it. The notes at NET Bible on Acts 15 lay out the exegetical questions well.

What I Think Presbyterian Government Gets Right

Three things, and I hold them myself in a Baptist setting. Leadership should be plural, because one man alone is unaccountable and eventually unwell. Leadership should be genuinely spiritual oversight rather than administration with a title. And no congregation should be entirely isolated, because a church with no relationships beyond itself has no one to call when things go wrong.

I have also watched presbyterian government handle a serious pastoral crisis with a competence that independent churches struggle to match. When a minister falls, a presbytery can act, appoint an interim, protect the congregation and manage the fallout. When the same thing happens in a fully independent church, the members are frequently left improvising in the middle of the worst season of their lives. That is not a small advantage, and it is one I take seriously.

Where I Part Company

My disagreement is about final authority. The New Testament passages that most clearly locate a decision somewhere put it with the gathered congregation. Matthew 18:17 sends the unrepentant matter to the church. 1 Corinthians 5 addresses the whole assembly. 2 Corinthians 2:6 refers to punishment inflicted by the majority. Acts 6 has the congregation choosing the seven. Presbyterian government places that authority with the session, and I do not think the texts support the transfer.

There is also the practical outworking. Where a denomination’s higher courts drift from Scripture, congregations that have not drifted are still bound by the decisions, and their property and ministry frequently go with them. Britain has seen this repeatedly, and the resulting departures have been costly. The connectional strength that protects a healthy denomination becomes the mechanism by which an unhealthy one spreads.

Elders in a Baptist Church

In my own congregation, spiritual oversight belongs to the eldership and practical matters belong to the deacons, following the pattern I see in Acts 6 and the Pastoral Epistles. In a smaller church, as ours is, the deacons carry something of both roles, which is a pragmatic reality rather than an ideal. What I would not do is govern alone, and I would not want to.

So the difference between my practice and presbyterian government is narrower than the labels suggest. We both want plural, qualified, spiritually mature men leading. We differ over who has the last word when leaders and members disagree, and over whether a regional body can bind a local church. If you want that comparison in full, I have set out congregational church government and episcopal church government separately, alongside the wider question of church government itself.

Strengths and Weaknesses Side by Side

The strengths are accountability, stability, the pooling of wisdom and a real check on any one personality. Presbyterian government produces churches that are hard to hijack and ministers who are hard to isolate. Those are considerable achievements, and independents should notice them rather than sneering.

The weaknesses are distance and slowness. A body meeting twice a year cannot know a congregation the way its members do. Cases can take years. And an eldership that is elected once and then governs indefinitely can become a closed circle, particularly where the same families supply the elders across generations. Every system has a failure mode, and this is the one to watch for here.

There is a further strength that Baptists rarely acknowledge. A connected system trains its ministers together, examines them properly before ordination and keeps a record of who is fit to serve. Independent churches frequently appoint on the strength of a good interview and a warm recommendation, and the results are sometimes disastrous. Whatever else presbyterian government does, it makes it considerably harder for an unqualified or unknown man to end up in a pulpit.

A Baptist Assessment

I hold my position with conviction and I hold it as a secondary matter. Presbyterian government is a serious, biblically argued attempt to order the church, held by people whose grasp of Scripture I respect, and my disagreement with them is nothing like my disagreement with Rome. I have preached in presbyterian pulpits and would gladly do so again.

What I would say to any Baptist inclined to be dismissive is that our own polity carries no guarantees. A congregation can be as foolish as a presbytery and rather quicker about it. The safeguard in any system is a membership and a leadership soaked in Scripture, and where that is missing, no structure will save you. My article on the role of elders goes into what the office actually involves.

One last thought for anyone weighing the two systems. Ask which arrangement would best protect the most vulnerable member of your congregation on the worst day in its history. That question cuts through a great deal of theoretical argument, and it is the one I keep returning to.

So, now what?

If you belong to a presbyterian church, make use of what you have. Know who your elders are, pray for them by name, and understand that they carry a weight for your soul that most congregations never think about. Use the appeal process if you must, and use it in a spirit that would not embarrass you later.

If you are a Baptist reading this, take the challenge that presbyterian government puts to us. Is your leadership genuinely plural, or is it one man and a committee? Does your church have real relationships with other churches, or only a name on a list? Who would you call at two in the morning if your fellowship were in crisis?

Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honour, especially those who labour in preaching and teaching.

1 Timothy 5:17 (ESV)