Here I’d like to defer to Alexander Strauch and his magnificent book Biblical Eldership. Mind you, Strauch does believe in the concept of “first among equals.” He uses the expression positively several times in his chapter on “Shared Leadership.” But let’s not overlook the fact that he is also very intentional about nuancing his notion of “first among equals.” Here are two passages from that chapter that everyone should carefully consider. First, after showing how Peter was the chief speaker among the apostles and their natural leader, he observes:

In spite of his outstanding leadership and speaking ability, Peter possessed no legal or official rank or title above the other eleven. They were not his subordinates. They were not his staff or team of assistants. He wasn’t the apostles’ “senior pastor” (italics in the original).

For Strauch, nomenclature matters. The point seems to be that, while Peter may have been the most prominent among Jesus’ apostles, he wasn’t the “senior” apostle and the others “associate apostles.” They were all equally apostles. In the second place, after discussing elders who work hard at teaching and preaching (1 Tim. 5:17-18), Strauch notes:

This doesn’t mean, however, that elders who are first among their equals do all the thinking and decision-making for the group, or that they are the pastors while the others are merely elders. To call one elder “pastor” and the rest “elders” or one elder “the clergyman” and the rest “lay elders” is to act without biblical precedence. To do so will not result in biblical eldership. It will, at least in practice, create a separate, superior office over the eldership, just as was done in the early second century when the division between “the overseer” and “elders” occurred (italics in the original).

Again, Strauch seems to be questioning, not the concept of first among equals, but the nomenclature a church uses. There simply seems to be no biblical grounds for separating off a “senior” or “lead” pastor from the rest of the elders. Here I’d also like to mention something Strauch writes later in his book in a section called “The Church Is Under Christ’s Headship.” After noting Christ’s promise to be with His disciples “where two or three have gathered together in My name” (Matt. 18:20), Strauch writes:

Because the apostles knew that Jesus Christ, by the Holy Spirit, was uniquely present with them as Ruler, Head, Lord, Pastor, Master, Overseer, High Priest, and King, they chose a form of government that reflected this distinctive, fundamental, Christian truth…. The first Christians were truly Christ-centered, Christ-dependent churches…. Christ’s person and work was so infinitely great, final, and complete, that nothing — even in appearance — was to diminish the centrality of His presence among and sufficiency for His people.

This is followed by what I think is a really profound conclusion. Please read it carefully and thoughtfully.

So in the first century, no Christian would dare take the position or title of sole ruler, overseer, or pastor of the church…. There is only one flock and one Pastor (John 10:16), one body and one Head (Col. 1:18), one holy priesthood and one great High Priest (Heb. 4:14ff.), one brotherhood and one Elder Brother (Rom. 8:29), one building and one Cornerstone (1 Pet. 2:5ff.), one Mediator, one Lord. Jesus Christ is “Senior Pastor,” and all others are His undershepherds (1 Peter 5:4).

As an aside, I think it’s striking that one rarely hears today of the title “lead” or “senior” deacon in our churches. Deacons are deacons (though, of course, the deacon board might have a rotating chairmanship). When it comes to elders/pastors, however, there seems to be a tendency to move toward a “lead” pastor model. It is sometimes argued that “Every organization needs someone at the top, a head.” If I understand Strauch (and the New Testament) correctly, however, every local church already has such a Head in Jesus Christ.

What then? Tentatively I would like to suggest that we would do well to avoid the use of titles like “senior pastor” or “lead pastor” in our churches, especially in churches that practice plural eldership (a “fellowship of leadership,” to use Michael Green’s unforgettable expression). This doesn’t mean that a local church will not have one or two elders that are more well-known among the public or even do most of the formal teaching Sunday after Sunday. Interestingly, when we look into the pages of the New Testament, we look in vain for the name of the “senior/lead pastor” of any local church. Who was the lead pastor of the church at Thessalonica? We can’t determine that. The church in Philippi? No one knows. The church at Corinth? Impossible to say. There is only one local church in the New Testament where we actually know the name of the leader who sought to “be first” — the church described in 3 John — and here Diotrephes is hardly being set forth as a positive example. To my knowledge there is not one instance in the New Testament where a lead pastor of a local church is singled out for mention. Instead, Paul appoints “elders” (no mention of a lead pastor) in every church. Paul meets with the Ephesian “elders” in Miletus (no mention of a lead pastor). When we are sick we are to call the “elders” (no mention of a lead pastor) to pray over us. In Philippians, Paul greets the church’s “overseers” (no mention of a lead overseer) and deacons. Of course, titles are not the Gospel. I personally know a good many lead/senior pastors. Not one of them could be described as hubristic or authoritarian. Each is a godly, humble man. But again, nomenclature matters. Paul is very clear in Colossians: Jesus Christ alone is the Head of the body, which is the church — so that in all things He might have the preeminence. To repeat what Alexander Strauch said above: “nothing — even in appearance — was to diminish the centrality of [Christ’s] presence among and sufficiency for His people.” 

Not being an expert in ecclesiology, I hesitate to suggest an alternative title for the elder/pastor who does in fact serve as “first among equals” in our churches (if, indeed, you accept primus inter pares as a biblical concept). I find it very interesting and perhaps instructive that the apostle Peter, whose name always appears first in the lists of apostles in the New Testament, describes himself in 1 Pet. 5:1, not as senior apostle or as lead pastor, but simply as “fellow-” or “co-” elder. It is Christ Himself, he asserts without any hesitation, who is literally the church’s “Head/Chief/Lead Pastor” (1 Pet. 5:4). It seems to me that Peter might be intentionally trying to recede into the group by using the word sumpresbuteros (“co-elder”) to describe himself. If we take that as a hint for church leadership today, I’m wondering whether we couldn’t benefit from using a term like “Co-Pastor” or “Co-Elder” for the primus inter pares. Such an expression would make it crystal clear that we are not trying to abrogate to ourselves a title belonging primarily if not exclusively to Christ. Perhaps it would also help to emphasize the importance we attach to shared leadership in our congregations — we are all pastors, we are all overseers, we are all elders, and equally so. Here is an example of achurch in Denver that seems to intentionally stress that their six pastor-elders are co-equal; as far as I can tell, none of them holds the title “lead pastor.” Instead, their different ministries/areas of pastoral oversight are described. Here’s another example from Wilkesboro, NC. Of course, in cases where only one man is qualified biblically to serve as elder, then that church will have only one pastor, even as it seeks to raise up additional qualified leaders from their own number.

Much more could be said, of course, but this post is already too long. Much of this I’ll be incorporating into my book Godworld: Enter at Your Own Risk. In class, I’ll also be referring a good deal to my esteemed colleagues Ben Merkle and John Hammett, whose books on biblical eldership and church polity are most helpful and instructive. In particular, Hammett’s discussion of how to transition a church toward a smoothly functioning plural leadership without causing a church split is indispensable (Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches, pp. 213-219).

Earlier I referred to Michael Green. A quote from his book Adventure of Faith might be a fitting conclusion to what we have said here (p. 86):

Monarchy is a bad principle for Christian leadership: it leads to the suppression of initiative. So is democracy: it leads to shared incompetence and ineffectiveness. What is needed is a leadership team accountable to God and to the congregation; a team which will give a lead and enable each member of the church to achieve his or her full potential and use that in God’s service. You need a fellowship of leadership to model that sort of thing and to help it come about.

Friday, July 19