A small worry about church plants (part 2)

In Part 1 of this post I explained a little bit why I think that the model of church where a single church planter (or a group of planters who make their living from the church) hold most of the decision making power is a potentially explosive way for a church to be structured.

In this post I'm going to explore, briefly, four better ways of doing things, one of which I reckon is the best (or least worst!) option. In a future post I hope to expand a bit on how we try (and often fail!) to work this one, congregational governance, out at Christ Church Liverpool.

Option 1: Episcopacy

Regular readers of this blog will know that I am in general no great fan of Anglican church structures. But they do have going for them that the Vicar/Rector is accountable to his Bishop for the way in which he conducts himself. 

Those of us in free churches lament the fact that Anglian bishops today do not have bishops who ensure that ministers who teach heresy are expelled from their posts (and sometimes not even those who live unrepentantly immoral lives). But the provision in the Anglican structure of a mechanism by which church leaders are accountable to people with authority to get rid of them is a good thing.

As an outsider looking in to the C of E my advice to church planters who are Anglicans would be: if you believe in episcopacy then you ought to submit yourself actively to the authority of a bishop and be in a role where the bishop can fire you for doing bad stuff. Even if the systems of the C of E permit you to get to a position where you can fudge such submission don't do that.

On the other hand if you don't really believe in episcopacy (or you do believe in episcopacy but don't believe the C of E is a very good version of it!) then it seems to me you should leave the Church of England and join another type of church for the sake of your conscience - unless you don't think church governance is very important in which case you probably shouldn't be a pastor!

Peter Leithart, recently tried
(and acquitted)
for heresy by the PCA

Option 2: Presbyterianism

In Presbyterian systems the presbytery (usually the pastor of each of a group of churches) is able to investigate and take action against those whose doctrine or living is thought to be incompatible with the teachings of the gospel - witness the recent heresy trial of Peter Leithart in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). In many Presbyterian churches (such as the PCA) the congregation also has powers much wider than in many UK church plants - for example the congregation may elect the church's trustees and instruct them in the purchase and disposal of church property and management of funds.

It's not good enough, I think, just to start more than one congregation and declare that the head of each is a member of the Presbytery and that you'll hold each other accountable. The truth is that such relationships probably have too much invested in them for you to be able to see things clearly from the perspective of a congregation member or outsider and that the tendency will always be to be too soft on one another, especially where your livelihood is at stake. Particularly if there are only two people it creates massive possibilities for stalemates.

It's a bit like episcopacy - if you are a convicted presbyterian join a presbyterian church and submit to the authority of the presbytery. If you aren't don't pretend that the pastor(s) having all the power is a form of presbyterianism. It isn't.

Option 3: Elder Governance

The first church in which I was an elder has origins in the Brethren movement. Here elders were appointed by the existing elders, rather than by the congregation. This system worked especially well because historically in Brethren churches there were no paid staff so the eldership was very much a group of peers who were usually working in very similar jobs to the rest of the congregation. This meant that, for all that they lacked formal theological training, they had a good sense of the needs and concerns of the saints they were shepherding.

Today many churches with elder governance have a mixture of staff and non-staff elders. This works well as long as equality of the elders is respected; everybody's voice has equal weight and, if it ever comes to it, everybody's vote counts the same. Ideally the chairman, who should hold any casting vote, will not be a member of staff.

This is not to say that every elder has equal wisdom or experience. But in a functional system the staff elders will recognise that on a day to day basis the non-staff elders have work and life experience rather closer to t atypical congregation member than their own and the non-staff elders will recognise the theological and pastoral expertise that comes with dealing with church issues full-time.

Option 4: Congregationalism

Yes this really is the top Google image
result for "Congregationalism"!

In my view the best way to ensure the proper accountability of the church planter/pastor is through the congregation of the church. Why? Because in the end it seems that God holds each of us accountable for the teaching we choose to listen to. So it follows that it is for each Christian, so far as possible, to be able to participate in the recognition of those they believe are gifted to be Bible teachers within the church.

Congregationalism doesn't mean, as some seem to think, that every person in the church has to make every decision - any more than parliamentary democracy means that we should have a referendum on every issue. The congregation's role is to recognise those biblically qualified to lead and then let them lead; but with the continued ability to revoke that recognition should the elder not merit it any longer.

The main objection I hear to this from church planters/pastors are that:
a) the congregation aren't mature enough to make those decisions and
b) what if they stop wanting me to be their pastor?

To which I want to reply (a) your job is to teach them so they are mature so get on with it. And (b) would you really want to work for a church where the people didn't want you to be their pastor?!

My own view is that, when done well, congregationalism enables the whole church to be actively involved in the most significant decisions in church life but can also give great discretion to the leaders who are appointed to then get on and lead. Yes there are congregational churches where (stupidly) the church vote on everything - from the brand of photocopier to the colour of the carpets). But there are also elder led churches where the leaders make decisions about, for example, church planting, without any formal opportunity for the church to express its view.

It is sometimes objected that congregationalism means every member gets one vote on (for example) who should be an elder irrespective of their maturity. True. But a system where the elders merely seek "wise counsel"  is equally in danger of being one where the elders simply assign "weight" to the opinions of the spiritually mature who, surprise surprise, are usually those who agree with what the elders want to do!


The issues about church governance has raged in Protestantism for over 400 years. I don't suppose I can make much contribution to solving them. But I am passionately certain that any of these four historically tested ways of leading a church is better than having one or two people who are, de facto, accountable to no one, make all the decisions.

So if you're a church planter or in a church which needs to improve its governance don't take the option  which just looks like it will enable you to get most things done most quickly. Think about the long term, think about the sinful human nature. And try to implement a form of church leadership that minimises temptations and opportunities for ungodliness and helps keep you honest before God and men.


Some people might like to read more about these issues! I'll try and comeup with a post on good things to read in this area soon.