Church Leadership: The Biblical Case for Eldership

Who leads the church? 

Ask that question in most Baptist congregations and you’ll hear,“The pastor.” In many places, that means one man carries the preaching, the counseling, the administration, and the crisis management—often to exhaustion. 

But if we open the New Testament, we find a different picture: a church led by a team of qualified, godly men called elders, overseers, or pastors—different names for the same office—serving under Christ and accountable to the congregation.

This isn’t a trendy leadership model or borrowed from another denomination. It’s the pattern the apostles left for every local church. Recovering it isn’t just about efficiency—it’s about obedience, health, and faithfulness to Christ’s design.

In this article, we’ll look at four biblical truths about elder leadership: it is pastoral, plural, qualified, and active. Along the way, we’ll see how history confirms the biblical pattern and how churches today can reclaim it.

Pastoral Leadership

In the New Testament, there are a variety of terms that are used to describe the single office of “elder.” These are “pastor,” “elder,” and “overseer.” While each emphasizes a different dimension of the responsibilities of this office, they describe a single office. 

The term pastor (literally, "shepherd") as a noun is used only in Ephesians 4:11 to refer to church leaders. More often, it is used as a verb to describe what elders do: shepherd God's people. Elsewhere, the office is called "overseer" or "elder." 

In Titus 1:5-7, Paul switches from “elders” to “overseers” with no explanation, as the two terms referred to the same office: “...ordain elders in every city….for an overseer must be blameless…”

In Acts 20:17 and 28, Paul summons the elders of the church, describes them as “overseers” (bishops in older translations), and commands them to “pastor” or “feed” God’s church: “...and called the elders of the church…..Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd [verbal form of “pastor”] the church of God.”

A similar pattern appears in I Peter 5:1: “The elders which are among I exhort…Shepherd [verbal form of “pastor] the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight [verbal form of “overseer”] thereof…”

Contrary to the practice of later generations to divide the office of presbyter from bishop, the New Testament knows no such distinctions. Likewise, the functional conflation of “elder” with “deacons” common in baptist churches has no New Testament basis.

Other than the temporary office of apostle, there is no other authoritative leadership position envisioned in the New Testament for the local church.

Deacons, while a recognized position within the church, is not a position of directive leadership, but delegated service. In fact, the word literally means "servant." Elder-pastors teach and lead the church, while deacons serve the body. 

Elders devote themselves to the “ministry of the Word” while deacons devote themselves to the “ministry of tables” (Acts 6:1-7; cf. I Timothy 3:1-13). Elders are given the role of leading Christ’s church through pastoral leadership as they teach the Word. They take oversight of the church, as they protect the people of God from false teaching.  

While it is certainly true that not all elders devote themselves to teaching and preaching as a full-time vocation (1 Timothy 5:17), all elders are to pastor and all elders are to be able to handle God's Word effectively. The elders, emphatically, are not a Board of Directors distinct from the paid pastor functioning as the CEO. Rather, the elders, together, are the pastoral leadership of the church. 

Elders do not merely convene meetings; they shepherd sheep. They make visits, they pray, they counsel, they disciple, they teach, and they preach. Not every elder, of course, must be a gifted preacher, but all must be a devoted shepherd ("pastor"). 

With such a great responsibility, how should pastors guard against abusive authority? Not only has God ordained pastoral leadership, he has ordained that pastoral leadership be plural leadership. 

Plural Leadership

The Need for Plural Leadership

One of the most common dangers for those in leadership is the danger of a domineering spirit and abusive control. While dictatorial leadership may be appropriate on the battlefield, it does not belong in the church of God. Indeed, Peter warns the elders to not be “lords over God’s heritage.”

To prevent any one person from dominating God’s people, the New Testament consistently presents a model of shared leadership within the church of Jesus Christ. Of all the teaching in the New Testament regarding the pastoral office, this perhaps is the most foreign to twenty-first century baptistic churches.  

Christians are accustomed to having a single pastor lead the church, sometimes assisted by deacons and/or church staff who answer to him. The solo/senior pastor is expected to handle all the preaching, make the majority of the decisions, and bear the weight of leading Christ’s people. 

Not only does this model create crushing expectations for pastors, it also fosters a dangerous dependency on spiritual leaders and leads church to prize charismatic personalities over faithful character. Additionally, it often leaves the lead pastor above meaningful accountability. It can likewise damage the church. his idiosyncrasies become the church’s; his emphases become the congregation’s; his weaknesses are not counteracted. The result can be a church that becomes a caricature of the pastor’s strengths and weaknesses. Against these dangers, the New Testament presents a better way: shared leadership among a plurality of elders.

The Basis for Plural Leadership

While the New Testament’s teaching on the required number of pastor-elders is limited, it is consistent: New Testament churches are led by a plurality of elders (pastors) who share the responsibility to oversee and shepherd God’s people.

The call for plural leadership in the New Testament is rooted in Jesus’ insistence on humble, servant leadership among the apostles, seen in texts like Mark 9:33-37; 10:43, 44; Matthew 20:26; 23:11; and Luke 22:26. To be sure, there is real authority granted to spiritual leaders, but it is not about power and prestige, but humble leadership and authority exercised for the eternal good of others.  

More explicit is the evidence from the rest of the New Testament. Whenever “elder” and “church” appear in the same context, the former is always in the plural and the latter in the singular. Every church is seen to have not one, but a plurality of pastor-elders leading it. Authority is never vested in a single pastor. A survey of the literature is quite telling:

1. James 5:14: “Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders [plural] of the church [singular].”

2. Titus 1:5: “ordain elders [plural] in every city [singular].”

*While it could be contended that there were multiple churches in every city, each with its own elder, this is an intrusion into the text. It is not an assumption that arises from the text itself. There is no evidence from the NT text itself to support the oft-repeated claim that the totality of home-based congregations within a city were collectivity called "the church." Rather, when the NT refers to local churches, it consistently speaks of indiviual congregatoins. 

3. Acts 11:30: “...sent it to the elders [of the church in Antioch] by the hands of Barnabas and Saul.”

4. Acts 14:23: “And when they had ordained elders in every church…”

5. Acts 15:4: “And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church, and by the apostles and elders.”

6. Acts 20:17: “And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.”

7. Philippians 1:1: “Paul and Timothy, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the overseers and deacons.”

The fact that the majority of the time church elders are mentioned, they are mentioned in the plural–not the singular–militates against the view that each church had only a solo elder/pastor (Acts 11:30, 15:2, 4, 6, 22, and 16:4). Texts like I Timothy 5:17, 19 and I Timothy 3:2 use the generic singular because they are describing a class of leaders. 

Though the evidence is not massive, it is consistent. It was the practice of New Testament churches to be led by a plurality of elders.

Outisde the New Testament, the earliest writings in the post-apostolic age reveal the same basic practice of two offices (pastor-elders and deacons) within the church. 

For example, the second-century Didache states, “Appoint therefore for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord” (Did. 15.1, Loeb Classical Library). This text shows that not only did early churches have only two offices, they also affirmed their own leaders. It demonstrates a continuation of plural leadership in the context of congregational rule in the earliest generation after the apostolic era. 

Likewise, I Clement 42.4, written toward the close of the first century, speaks of each church having “bishops and deacons” (1 Clem. 42.5, Loeb Classical Library).

The office of the bishop is seen to be the same as the elder/pastor, while deacons are a second, distinct office. Both are plural, not solo. While later centuries saw the decline of plural eldership (and the elevation of bishops over elders), the pattern in the Bible is consistent. 

The Benefits of Plural Leadership

So why does the Bible commend the practice of churches being led by a plurality of elders?

Several reasons can be deduced:

1. It provides accountability. 

Because human nature is corrupt and fallen, there is a great need for those in leadership to be held accountable. One of the greatest dangers in ministry is isolation. 
 Shared leadership and peer accountability guards against pride, authoritarian leadership, and rash decision-making. 

Having a team of elders leading the church rather than a solo or CEO-type pastor helps guard against one man lording it over God’s heritage, as Peter warns against I Peter 5. 
 While elders ultimately answer to their congregation, on a practical level, elders are held accountable for life, teaching, and purity by the other elders. They can watch over each other, encourage each other, and provide meaningful advice (Acts 20:28).

2.  It fosters teamwork. 

In churches without a plurality of leaders, the solo/senior pastor is often expected to be the main teacher, the chief executive, the primary counselor, the exclusive administrator, and the full-time maintenance man. He is expected to be a studious Bible scholar, a skilled businessman, a charismatic leader, and an effective counselor. He is like a Swiss Army Knife, possessing multiple tools, none of which are ideally suited for the job.

In contrast, a plurality of elders allows for each elder to focus on areas of unique strength. While each elder is equally an overseer and pastor, each can serve where they are gifted.

Those gifted in administration can be tasked with administration, those gifted in counseling on counseling, and so on. This blending of various gifts and abilities serves the church best, ensuring that the entire church’s range of needs is met.

When difficult decisions must be made, there is safety that comes from multiple viewpoints and safety that comes from the entire eldership making the decision together.

Along the same lines, it helps diffuse criticism and praise from being dumped on one person. It is far safer to say, “The elders have decided” rather than “I the pastor have decided.”

3. It strengthens the church. 

Synergy refers to the reality of teamwork. A team of nine baseball players, for example, accomplish more than the mere presence of nine individuals scattered aimlessly across a diamond. Effort is multiplied not just added by teamwork. Put several godly men together with the task of shepherding God’s people and the result is a synergy arising out of giftedness. Having a plurality of elders can greatly benefit the church by bringing together a balance of various gifts, talents, personalities, and strengths. Working together they can offset one another’s weaknesses and enhance one another’s strengths.

4. It provides peer relationships and encouragement. 

Many pastors report being lonely. Being in leadership, many do not feel like they can get too close to those they lead. But when there is a team of elders, pastors have other people to lean on who are their peers and equals.

The Objections to Plural Leadership

There are several objections that might be raised against a plurality of elders, some philosophical, others practical.

1. It’s not worth the effort. 

Breaking it down more, this objection asks, “Is it really worth all the trouble to identify elders, select them, rewrite the constitution, and change a

church’s governance? After all, what we’ve done has worked well since 1958.” While this is true, the standard for church governance is not what is “tried and true,” or “what works,” but what the Bible presents. While it may indeed be a challenge to conform a church’s practice to Scripture after decades of familiar patterns, being obedient is always worthwhile. The work of conforming to Scripture is the work of a lifetime. 

Assumptions about the roles of deacons and pastors must be re-examined in light of the New Testament pattern. Far too often, how Christians think about church has been “caught” rather than “taught.” This is surely true when it comes to plural leadership. Because elders in Baptist life have been close to non-existent for the last half-century, their reintroduction may feel more like an intrusion rather than a recovery. Careful teaching and examination of Scripture is the order of the day, not mere adherence to the familiar.

2. Isn’t plural eldership Presbyterian? 

The short answer is, “No.” While it is true that Presbyterians have elders, they make a sharp a distinction between Pastors (Teaching Elders) and Elders (Ruling Elders). While the basic contours of such distinctions are plausible on the basis of I Timothy 5:17, the Presbyterian model suggests that not all elders teach, when the defining characteristic of the pastor/elder/bishop is being “apt to teach.”

More to the point, Presbyterian polity minimizes the God-given role of the congregation. The elders rule the church with little input from the congregation. Baptist polity, in contrast, recognizes the God-given authority of the congregation in matters of church discipline, doctrine, leadership, and membership. It is telling that Matthew 18:17 says “tell it to the assembly,” not “tell it to the elders.” Further, Acts 6:1-7 places the responsibility of selecting leaders in the hands of the assembly, not the apostle-elders. Congregationalism is an expression of the Bible’s teaching on individual soul liberty and the priesthood of the believer.

Plural eldership, as envisioned in the New Testament, does not replace congregational government. The congregation of the Lord’s people is ultimately responsible to Him. The elders lead Christ’s church, while the congregation holds final responsibility for what is done in the church. New Testament churches are congregationally-ruled, elder-led, and deacon-served.

3. It will lead to a power struggle. 

This objection recognizes the inherent danger in placing multiple men into positions of equal authority. This is probably the most common objection to shared leadership. If there is more than one elder, then such a setup will lead inevitably to division and back-room power plays.

This is indeed a potential danger. This danger, however, can express itself in any form of church government. I Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-10 limit the office of elder only to mature, godly men. If these qualifications are followed, then the danger of divisive pettiness is eliminated. The concern raised in this objection is a serious one. The answer to it, however, is not to concentrate power on a single man, but to limit the office of elder only to qualified men.

Further, while elders are equal and make decisions together, one of them will be a “first among equals,” a leader of the leaders, an individual tasked with being the primary teacher and vision caster of the group.

4. Aren’t deacons the same? 

This objection essentially says, “Isn’t this all semantics? After all, our deacons are basically elder-ing. They vote on the budget; they approve major expenditures; they oversee the process of church discipline. They’re holding the pastor accountable and helping make decisions. What difference does it make?”

The problem with this model is that it has no basis in Scripture. While it is true that the New Testament calls churches to have both elders and deacons, nowhere do deacons function as a decision-making board. Rather, they serve to meet the physical needs of the body and work to ensure unity. Elders alone are tasked with oversight, not deacons. The failure to properly distinguish the two offices has led to the neglect of both. 

Deacons are not a “lower legislative house” to counteract the elders. They serve under the elders, carrying out the tasks assigned to them, and adapting to the needs of the church. They are appointed servants, filling gaps and meeting needs within the church.

Whereas the church historically has taken mercy ministries very seriously, the conflation of the office of deacon (those tasked in Scripture with such ministries) with the office of elder has led deacons to see themselves as decision-makers rather than need-meeters. This has been a tragic loss to the church of Jesus Christ.

Transitioning to a plurality of elders requires a reimagination of the office of deacon and a revival of its historic function. Many positions currently filled by volunteers, committees, and directors in churches are, in reality, deacon positions. The hands-on care of widows, the maintenance of church facilities, counting the offering, distributing the Lord’s Supper, and implementing security and logistics are truly the domain of deacons.

Recognizing these roles as deacons does several things: it uses Biblical categories, it dignifies the physical dimensions of church ministry, and it ensures that qualified individuals are overseeing vital aspects of the life of the church.

5. What about a church staff? 

This is similar to the previous objection, in that it insinuates that the whole discussion is simply a semantic one about titles. Is a pastor having a paid church staff the same as a plural eldership? Is having an executive pastor, a youth pastor, a social media pastor, and a worship pastor on staff the same as plural eldership?

Possibly, but not necessarily. Such a staff truly could be constructed in such a way that each has an equal vote in elders’ meetings and each is accountable to the group. In many cases, however, a church staff serves under the CEO-like senior pastor who has the ability to hire and fire. Their structure is often not a team of equals. If the pastor has the ability to unilaterally hire and fire his fellow pastors, they are his employees, not fellow elders serving the church.

Elders, by contrast, are all recognized and affirmed by the church (i.e. the congregation).

While some may be paid to focus on particular aspects of ministry such as youth ministry or counseling, it is not the fact that they are paid that makes them elder-pastors. Some elders may work full-time in “secular” jobs, but serve the church by serving as an elder and sharing the leadership of the church. Such individuals are as truly elders as the “lead pastor.”

6. It will cost too much money. 

Churches have a tendency to think that a “pastor-elder” must be on the church payroll. The assumption is that a paycheck from the church is what makes a “pastor.” Some no doubt should be paid. Paul anticipated that some elders would be “full-time” and thus be worthy of “double honor” (I Tim. 5:17-18). The New Testament assumes the appropriateness of churches paying those who teach them God’s Word. While each elder shares in the pastoral ministry of the church, not every elder engages in this work as a full-time task. Some elders should be paid, others would not be.

Having both paid and unpaid elders would militate against the professionalization of ministry and the granting of pastoral titles to individuals not engaged in actual pastoral ministry.

7. It is not commanded by Scripture. 

Most of the passages noted above simply describe the practice of the Apostles and the early church in Acts. While there can be no debate that the early church practiced plural eldership, this objection maintains that, because it is not commanded, then it can be adopted or ignored, based on a church’s preference or tradition. To be sure, there is much in the book of Acts that is descriptive and temporary, such as the sharing of resources or speaking in tongues. Does plural eldership fall into this category? 

The difference, however, is this: the community of goods in the Jerusalem Church is unique, even within the book of Acts. It is not replicated in Antioch, Philippi, or any of the Epistles. It was quite clearly a practice that was not normative or repeated.

Plural eldership, however, is not like that. It is consistently practiced throughout the book of Acts and the Epistles. Indeed, Titus 1:5 commands the ordination of “elders in every city,” before listing out qualifications for the office that all Bible-believing Christians would accept as normative and binding for the office. While the number of elders in this text is secondary to the character of the elders, that plural eldership is included in an imperative suggests a pattern to be followed by future generations. The fact that plural eldership is consistently modeled throughout Acts and the Epistles demonstrates that it carries more weight than a mere report of what was done that we can ignore. 

Finally, there is much that churches regard as biblically binding, such as gathering on the Lord’s Day (as opposed to the Sabbath), sending out missionaries from local churches (Acts 13), baptizing believers rather than infants, and even having deacons that are based on consistent example rather than explicit command. We do not regard these as optional.

Qualified Leadership

The New Testament spends less time describing the function of elders and more time describing the necessary character of the men who fill the office. In a day when talent, charisma, andeducation are at the top of the list for many pulpit committees, the New Testament insists on godly character.

In selecting elders, a church must resist the tendency to simply nominate the most tenured member, the most generous giver, or the most successful businessman. Spiritual qualificationsare paramount. Dever and Alexander, in their book Deliberate Church, list six things an elder is not: an older male, a successful businessman, an involved community member, a good old boy, a female, or a politician (Alexander and Dever, 139-140).

Measured by Scripture

Two passages lay out the requirements for pastors/elders/overseers. They are Titus 1:5-9 and I Timothy 3:1-7. Because of the importance of the position, character is paramount. The overseer must be “above reproach” or “blameless.” This is the key qualification in both texts.

The term in Titus 1:6 is ἀνέγκλητος, meaning “blameless, irreproachable” while the term in I Timothy 3:2 is ἀνεπίλημπτος, meaning “irreproachable.” Louw-Nida regards the latter term as meaning “pertaining to what cannot be criticized—‘above criticism, beyond reproach.’ (Louw and Nida, 33.415). It must be said that Paul is not demanding men of sinless perfection, but rather, men without glaring moral failures.

Both texts demand his moral purity and marital fidelity (“husband of one wife”). Both insist on his faithful leadership in the home; the home is the proving ground. If a man does not lead his home well, he cannot be an elder. Likewise, both texts call for irreproachable personal conduct: the elder cannot be addicted to wine, quick-tempered, or combative. He cannot be arrogant or be a new convert.

Finally, he must be “able to teach” (I Timothy 3:2). This involves the ability to both explain the Bible and refute falsehood (Titus 1:9). The ability to teach does not mean that every elder must be a gifted public speaker or dynamic preacher, but it does mean that every elder has a thorough grasp of the Bible, an understanding of theology, and an ability to answer questions.

Seminary training is a wonderful gift; but it is not a necessary requirement for every elder. What is required is a firm grasp of Scripture coupled with an ability to explain it clearly and accurately. 

Mark Dever and Paul Alexander explain, “Ability to teach the Word simply means that a man is able to explain the Scriptures accurately to other people in ways that profit them spiritually. He should be known by others in the congregation as a man to whom people can go in order to have the Scriptures explained to them” (Alexander and Dever 145).

Because elders lead primarily through the two-fold means of example and exhortation, godly character and skillful teaching are the two most important measures of a man’s fitness for office.

An elder must have a profound commitment to a church’s teaching, he must demonstrate a deep love for the people of God, and he must be able to clearly model and teach God’s Word.

I Timothy 5:22 states, "Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands." In other words, churches should take time to carefully evaluate a man before ordaining him as an elder. Church leaders and members should take adequate time to evaluate a man's life to ensure that he demonstrates alignment with the requirements of Scripture.  

Nominated by the Elders

The fact that there are standards laid out in Scripture presupposes that other individuals will evaluate potential elders before they take office. It is most natural that other elder-qualified men take the lead in this. In the context of Titus and I Timothy, it was Titus and Timothy who were tasked with identifying and installing elders. They themselves were elder-qualified, and thus able to recognize and evaluate potential elders for the churches of Crete and Ephesus, respectively. 

Alexander and Dever are again insightful: “It cannot be stressed enough that only the elders should nominate other elders, both because they are the most spiritually mature members of the congregation and because they know the lives of the congregation best” (Alexander and Dever, 157). 

Once an eldership is established, one of its key responsibilities will be looking out for other potential elders. A church should always have an eye to the future lest the gospel dies out with the current generation.

Affirmed by the Church

Although it seems wise (though not required) that the elders nominate elders, it is crucial to recognize that, in the absence of apostles of Jesus on earth, the assembly of believers has the final say in affirming leaders. In a negative sense, II Timothy 4:3 assumes the congregational nature of church government, while Acts 6:1-7 gives a glimpse into the practice of the Jerusalem Church in selecting deacons. 

It is my conviction that elders should be affirmed in a vote of the gathered church, ideally after the church has had ample time to evaluate and consider a slate of potential elders.

Upon an elder’s affirmation by the church, he should be publically installed. The New Testament envisions elders being installed by laying on of hands and prayer after a time of careful consideration (I Timothy 5:22). I Timothy 5:18-25 underscores the necessity of carefully examining candidates to ensure that they are spiritually and morally fit for office.

Active Leadership

Elders and deacons are the two offices established in the church. Each is important, and each has an area of focus. In short, elders teach, lead, shepherd, and protect the church. Deacons serve, assist, and unify the church. Some elders devote their lives as a vocation to teaching and preaching and are paid for it (1 Timothy 5:17-18). Others serve as volunteers, helping lead, and sharing the shepherding responsibility.  

Elders Teach the Church

The main job of elders/pastors/bishops (interchangeable terms in Scripture) is to teach the Word.

That’s why they must be “apt to teach.” Ephesians 4:11-12 links “pastors” and “teachers” closely together. The pattern of Acts 6:1-7 shows that the Apostles devoted themselves to the ministry of the Word and prayer. Paul’s example to the Ephesians elders of “declaring the whole counsel of God” highlights this priority. Among the elders who are worthy of “double honor” in I Timothy 5:17-18 are those who “labor in word and doctrine.” Teaching might be private (counseling, discipling) or public (teaching a Sunday school class, preaching).

A lead pastor would typically do the bulk of teaching and preaching, and some elders might be paid to engage in dedicated teaching to different groups (like a full-time youth pastor or a counseling pastor). All elders must be grounded in Scripture and able to teach, but not all elders must be able public speakers. Some might excel at personal ministry of the word, and others at public ministry of the Word. 

Elders Lead the Church

“Bishop” means “overseer” or “supervisor,” and pastor means “shepherd,” a term that connotes both authority and care. Shepherds are expected to lead their flocks, as exemplified perfectly by the Good Shepherd in Psalm 23. Elders are called to oversee the church generally (Acts 20:28; I Peter 5:1-2), not just in the limited sphere of teaching. Because of the centrality of God’s Word, those who teach the Word are those called to lead the church (Hebrew 13:7, 17, 24). I Timothy 5:17 speaks of elders “ruling,” a term that conveys authority. As with teaching, leading happens on both macro and micro levels. The elders lead the church’s overall ministry, and they lead by personally setting a godly example to the congregation.

As every group needs a leader, one of the elders typically would be officially recognized by the church as the “lead/senior pastor” who would be the primary teaching pastor of the church, devoting the bulk of his energies to study and teaching. He would be a "first among equals," accountable to the team of elders. A plural eldership does not eliminate the role of “lead pastor,” nor does it eliminate the need for paid church staff. It does, however, place such leaders into relationships of mutual accountability and parity.

Elders Shepherd the Church

Acts 20:28 and I Peter 5:1-2 both call for elders to “feed” or “shepherd” the church. God, the ultimate Shepherd, searches for His sheep, looks after them, seeks the scattered, rescues them, pastures them, tends them, binds up the injured, and strengthens the weak (Ezekiel 34:11-16).

Elders shepherd the flock by knowing the members and ensuring that membership lists are accurate. It means counseling sufferers, encouraging the discouraged, praying with and over the sick, reaching out to absent members, and regularly and proactively contacting each member of the church. This can be effectively done by dividing the membership up among the various elders. Proactive care rather than reactive care best serves the goal of healthy sheep and a spiritually mature church.

Elders Protect the Church

Given the danger of false teaching and error, elders are tasked with guarding the church (Acts 20:28-31). Likewise, in Titus 1, after giving the qualifications of the elder (Titus 1:5-9), the stated reason for them is the presence of false teachers who must be vigorously opposed (Titus 1:10-16). Protecting the church from wolves is one of the main jobs of a shepherd (John 10:11-13). Elders protect the church by not only positively teaching the truth but also by exposing error. Elders protect the church guarding the doorway to the church through the membership process, and by screening potential leaders of the church (I Timothy 5:22). Elders also protect the church by personally confronting sin and, if needed, initiating church discipline.

In Scripture, elders are called to teach, lead, shepherd, and protect the church. Deacons are called to relieve the elders, serve the church, and unify the congregation (Acts 6:1-7). While these roles are never reversed in Scripture, deacons and elders are expected to work together, not apart from one another. As the elders lead and the deacons serve, the church flourishes in unity and truth.

Next Steps

How should a church make the transition to plural eldership? First, they must understand the Bible’s teaching on the matter. Pastors should faithfully teach the whole counsel of God, including the Bible’s teaching on leadership. 

Second, pastors should be on the lookout for qualified men and actively train those who are potential elders. 

Third, the church must evaluate and adapt its constitution to reflect the Bible’s teaching. 

Fourth, the church should take time to identify and nominate qualified men. 

Finally, these men should be evaluated, affirmed, and installed. This entire process may take years, from initial exposure through teaching to final implementation.

Conclusion: 

Christ never meant for His church to be a one-man show.

He designed it to be shepherded by a team of godly elders, served by faithful deacons, and governed by an engaged congregation. That’s not just a leadership style—it’s obedience to the Lord of the church.

If we want healthy pastors, thriving members, and a witness that shines in our communities, we must return to the pattern He gave us. The New Testament model still works—not because it’s clever, but because it’s Christ’s. Let’s follow it.