Listen to this article (20:29 min)
When you support the Journal, you join the team and help provide the resources at equip.org that minister to people worldwide. These resources include our ever-growing database of more than 2,000 articles, as well as our free Postmodern Realities podcast.
Another way you can support our online articles is by leaving us a tip. A tip is just a small amount, like $3, $5, or $10, which is the cost of a latte, lunch out, or coffee drink. To leave a tip, click here
I am a cradle-Anglican, baptized when I was three years old into the Episcopal Church and serving now as a priest in the Anglican Church in North America. Almost all of my church life has been lived within a hierarchical structure with a bishop near at hand for better or, sometimes, for worse. I say “almost all of my church life” because there was a brief time when the congregation I served and still serve existed functionally, though not officially, as an independent congregation. At the time, I welcomed the respite from episcopal authority since the bishop under whom I had last served had joined with the majority of Episcopalian bishops to approve the blessing of same-sex sexual relationships and the ordination of non-celibate homosexual candidates into holy orders. That approval sparked years of bitter conflict within the Episcopal Church, with many congregations, mine included, leaving the denomination and losing their property and assets as a consequence. During those years it was easy to question the usefulness of bishops or of any extra-congregational authority. How wise is it to set congregations within an authority structure that, should that structure fall into error or apostasy, has the power to subvert, damage, or even destroy them? Wouldn’t it be better for congregations to exist independently of one another or at least bound so loosely that should one go bad, the rest remain unaffected?
These questions with which I wrestled are grounded in practical concerns, not principle. But many evangelicals consider congregational independence a matter of biblical fidelity.1 A smaller number, but perhaps growing in the wake of very public pastoral abuse scandals, question the biblical basis for any hierarchy at all, even on the congregational level.2 Does the New Testament, they ask, establish the institution we call the pastoral office, or is that something people in the church created to exercise power over other believers?
ARE THERE PASTORS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT?
That last question is a good place to begin. Before we ask whether there should be ecclesial authorities over and above a local congregation, we should ask whether there should be any authorities at all apart from Jesus and the Bible. The answer to that question is an unequivocal yes. In 1 Timothy 3:1–13, Paul gives instructions for appointing qualified overseers and deacons; and in Titus 1:5–9, he reiterates many of those qualifications for Titus, whom Paul left on the Island of Crete to raise up elders. It is in his instructions to Titus, our Presbyterian friends will hasten to point out, that Paul uses the term translated “overseer” (episkopos/ἐπίσκοπος, from which we get the English word “episcopal” applied later exclusively to the office of bishop) and the term translated “elder” (presbuteros/πρεσβύτερος, from which we get the English word “presbyter” and the Presbyterians take their name) interchangeably.3 This suggests that in the early church, there were not three offices, bishop/overseer, elder/presbyter, and deacon, but only two, the elder/overseer and the deacon. In 1 Peter 5, Peter, addressing elders, tells them to “shepherd the flock of God” (v. 2).4 The word translated “shepherd” is the verbal form of the noun poimēn/ποιμήν, which in Latin is “pastor.” The noun form of the word is used by Paul in Ephesians 4:11–12: “And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds [poimenas/ποιμένας] and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry.”
So, at this point, we can say that the offices of elder/overseer and deacon are New Testament offices, and that the role of elder/overseer was associated by Peter with the task of the shepherd/pastor, and that Paul almost certainly uses the term shepherd/pastor as a title for elders/overseers in Ephesians 4:11–12. Since Luke tells us in Acts 14:23 that Paul and Barnabas “appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed,” we can also say that these elders/overseers were to exercise their ministries in local congregations. But do these offices carry authority with them? Are Christians bound to submit themselves to their pastors/elders/overseers?
DO PASTORS HAVE AUTHORITY WITHIN CONGREGATIONS?
The answer to these questions is also yes. Peter, after instructing elders to “shepherd the flock of God” (1 Peter 5:2), goes on to command the younger people in the congregations to which he writes (who might be more prone to youthful rebellion) to “be subject to the elders” (5:5). Some may object that since the word “elder” can refer to an older person, Peter may simply be instructing young people to respect older people. The context, however, rules out that possibility. After describing the task of the elder as that of a shepherd, he adds that those elders who do well will receive “an unfading crown of glory” when the “chief Shepherd appears” (5:4), an obvious reference to Jesus and His return. The implication is that the elders exercise a shepherding authority within the congregation beneath, analogous to the authority Jesus exercises over the whole church. Other passages confirm this understanding. The author of Hebrews writes, “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls” (13:17). Paul asks those in the Thessalonian church to “respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work” (1 Thessalonians 5:12–13). While these two texts do not use the word “elder” or “overseer,” it seems obvious, there being no other leadership office identified in the New Testament, that elders/overseers are in view. In 1 Timothy 5:17, moreover, Paul explicitly describes the role of the elder as ruling or exercising authority in the congregation: “Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.”
These passages establish sufficient proof that the apostles appointed elders/overseers, and that those occupying this office exercised authority within local congregations. It is also interesting and important to note that in these passages, Peter and Paul and the author of Hebrews also assume that the believer will live out his or her Christian life bound up together with other believers in such congregations. The New Testament knows nothing of the contemporary solo Christian whose only pastor is Jesus and only instructor is the Bible. Jesus Himself, giving instructions for discipline within congregations in Matthew 18:15–20, assumes that His followers will relate to one another within congregations where it is possible to work out differences face to face and/or to be under congregational discipline, if necessary.
DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT ESTABLISH ANY AUTHORITY
ABOVE THE CONGREGATION?
Turning now to the question of independent or loosely confederated congregations versus extra-congregational hierarchy, here too the case for hierarchy proves conclusive. Before turning to specific texts, we should note the implicit unity among and between the congregations addressed by the New Testament authors. Peter sends his first epistle to be disseminated among congregations in the regions of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia (1 Peter 1:1) with the expectation that the instructions in his letter are both applicable to every congregation in each region and authoritative within them. Paul’s letter to the Galatian congregations carries the same assumption, as does John’s Revelation, specifically addressed to the seven churches in modern-day Turkey. In 1 Corinthians 11:16, referring to head coverings in public worship, Paul instructs the Corinthian congregation to conform to the common practice of the wider “churches of God.” He does the same when addressing women speaking in public worship in 1 Corinthians 14:33–34. Paul’s collection from the Gentile congregations for distribution to the impoverished congregations in Jerusalem and Judea described in 2 Corinthians 8–9 is predicated on the principle that while there are many local churches or congregations, they are all bound together by one Spirit, one Lord, one faith, and one baptism (Ephesians 4:4–6), so that their contribution shows their “confession of the gospel of Christ” (2 Corinthians 9:13). All this suggests that local congregations in the New Testament were not considered independent entities, loosely confederated, but that the churches of God were one and that the apostles themselves exercised extra-congregational authority over them.
To all of this, those who argue for local independence will agree but insist that the union of the churches was and remains only a spiritual union. The authority the apostles held over all the churches then now resides exclusively in the New Testament. The apostles continue to rule the church by the authority of their writings. And while the apostles during their lifetimes exercised authority over all the congregations, there is no indication that they passed this authority on to others.
There is much to agree with here. The union of one congregation with another is a spiritual union first and foremost, their unity marked by faithful preaching, the right use of the sacraments, and common discipline and discipleship. This is why, despite denominational differences, Christians worshiping in an Anglican congregation and those worshiping in a Baptist congregation can recognize one another as Christians and members of the one flock under the Chief Shepherd. But does the spiritual union, recognized by those marks, necessarily preclude external authority structures? Further, it is true that the apostles continue to exercise authority over and within local congregations through the Scriptures, and that the office of apostle formally ceased with the death of the last apostle — those who both bore witness to Christ’s resurrection and were appointed by Him.5 But does that necessarily mean that the apostles never intended for any version of extra-congregational oversight to continue?
I do not, in what follows, intend to argue for a particular form of extra-congregational authority. The case doesn’t depend on there being something akin to the Roman Catholic system, Eastern Orthodox system, Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian, or Methodist systems. Instead, the case depends on there being some kind of extra-congregational authority structure not directly involving the apostles but existing with the approval of and/or established by the apostles with apostolic warrant.
The first example supporting the existence of such an apostolically approved extra-congregational authority structure can be found in the person of James, the “brother of the Lord” (Galatians 1:19). James was not an apostle, yet he oversaw the Jerusalem churches. Luke in Acts 15 provides a record of a church council held in Jerusalem to decide whether Gentile believers would be required to be circumcised and submit to the ceremonial laws of the Old Covenant. Peter and Paul both attend this council along with “the apostles and elders” (Acts 15:6). The presence of the elders at the council, along with the great number of believers in Jerusalem (Acts 21:20), indicates there must be more than one congregation. One might expect Peter or one of the other apostles to preside over the meeting. Instead, James presides. He is the last to speak and he is the one who seems to issue the final verdict: “Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. From ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues” (Acts 15:19–21, emphasis added). The council then drafts the letter in keeping with James’s judgement with the expectation that congregations around the Roman world will recognize and submit to the word of the council, including both apostles and elders that met under the authority of a church leader who is not an apostle.
Later, in Acts 21:17–26, when Paul arrives in Jerusalem bearing the large gift from the Gentile churches in the east, James meets him in the company of “all the [Jerusalem] elders” (Acts 21:18). James and the elders “tell” Paul to participate personally in a purification rite in the Temple and to pay the expenses for the required sacrifices for four Jewish Christians who have presumably taken a Nazirite vow so that “all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law” (Acts 21:23–24). Paul acquiesces to James’ instructions. So, James, in Jerusalem, exercises authority over the elders and congregations in Jerusalem to such an extent that, at least in Jerusalem, even the Apostle Paul and the other apostles defer to his judgments.
James’s role isn’t unique. The oversight he enjoys in Jerusalem is similar to that which Paul confers upon Titus on the Island of Crete:
This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you — if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party. They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach. (Titus 1:5–11)
Notice that Titus not only has the responsibility to raise up and oversee elders for various congregations on the island, he also has the authority to silence the “insubordinate, empty talkers” wherever they may be. Our Presbyterian friends point out, as mentioned above, that “overseer” and “elder” refer to the same office and that “overseer” or “bishop” is not used to refer to a distinct third office beyond that of elder and deacon. While this is true, it should also be noted that both James and Titus occupy roles that, while not so named, function precisely like that office the ancient church later identified with the title bishop. It may well be that Timothy exercised a similar role in Ephesus during Paul’s absence6 and that others would have held similar positions as the number of congregations in a given city proliferated. Whether Titus and James and possibly Timothy and others held singular authority as proto-bishops or whether they operated within the shared authority of a “plurality of elders,” it seems evident that the notion of an independent congregation with no authority over or beyond itself but Jesus and the Scriptures is a new idea that does not reflect the state of affairs of the early church under the apostles or after the apostles.
EVIDENCE FROM APOSTOLIC FATHERS
The writings of the apostolic fathers seem to confirm this. The epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthian church, dated to the AD 90s, indicates that the Roman congregations were bound together under a corporate structure and that Clement, probably together with a group of fellow elders, exercised authority over them. Clement’s letter also indicates that the Corinthian church looked to the Roman church for guidance in adjudicating a tumultuous conflict precipitated by the overthrow of the Corinthian church elders:
Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive calamitous events which have happened to ourselves, we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us; and especially to that shameful and detestable sedition, utterly abhorrent to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-confident persons have kindled to such a pitch of frenzy, that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be universally loved, has suffered grievous injury.7
Likewise, assuming Ignatius of Antioch’s Letter to the Philadelphians, dated probably to the very early second century, is reflective of an original manuscript,8 the office of bishop, very early on, gained significant authority:
Give heed to the bishop, and to the presbytery and deacons. Now, some suspected me of having spoken thus, as knowing beforehand the division caused by some among you. But He is my witness, for whose sake I am in bonds, that I got no intelligence from any man. But the Spirit proclaimed these words: Do nothing without the bishop; keep your bodies as the temples of God; love unity; avoid divisions; be the followers of Jesus Christ, even as He is of His Father.9
Assuming there is more than one congregation in Philadelphia, Ignatius urges all of them to heed the bishop and to do nothing without him. Setting aside, again, the question about what type of extra-congregational authority existed, it is clear that such authority did exist as the norm. The authority Ignatius himself assumes in his writing pastoral instructions in the seven letters that he writes to the various churches on the way to his martyrdom in Rome indicates that Christian congregations did not consider themselves independent of one another.
ECCLESIASTICAL OVERSIGHT OF A CONGREGATION IS BIBLICAL
Ultimately, our congregation’s flirtation with independent governance lasted about two years. After we left the Episcopal Church, we were granted temporary episcopal oversight through the Anglican Church of Kenya, for which we remain indebted and grateful, but which meant that episcopal visits were rare and that we were in large part on our own. Nothing terrible happened during those years, but it didn’t take long to realize that while a corrupt or apostate hierarchy can do great damage to a congregation, the absence of any hierarchy can leave a congregation isolated and subject to unchecked subversion from within. There are practical dangers and potential threats inherent in any form of church governance. The question ultimately comes down to biblical principle rather than pragmatics. Does the Bible support a congregational model of governance or an extra-congregational hierarchical form? Considering the New Testament evidence described above and examples from the early church, not to mention the historic tradition of church governance to the Reformation and beyond, independent or congregational polity finds little support. Congregations during the apostolic era looked beyond themselves for guidance and oversight and that model has, historically, been the established norm.
The Reverend Matthew M. Kennedy (MDiv, VTS) is the rector of The Church of the Good Shepherd in Binghamton, New York and Canon for Preaching in the Anglican Diocese of the Living Word.
NOTES
- See, for example, Aaron Blumer, “A Short Biblical Case for Congregational Autonomy,” Sharper Iron, May 29, 2018, https://sharperiron.org/article/short-biblical-case-for-congregational-autonomy.
- See Planksandnails, “The Pastoral Office Is Not Found in Scripture,” Hubpages, April 9, 2024, https://discover.hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/The-Pastoral-Office-is-not-Biblical.
- See also Acts 20:17–18, 28: “Now from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called the elders (presbyterous/πρεσβυτέρους] of the church to come to him. And when they came to him, he said to them….‘Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers [episkopous/ἐπισκόπους], to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood’” (emphasis added).
- English Bible quotations are from the ESV.
- Peter in Acts 1:21–22 sets forth the qualifications for apostleship: “So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us — one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.” The only exception to this rule was the Apostle Paul who was appointed personally by Jesus (Acts 9:1–19). Obviously, no one in subsequent generations can meet the qualifications detailed above in Acts 1 and thus the office of apostle remains closed. There are others beside the Twelve and Paul who are called apostles in the New Testament (such as Barnabas in Acts 14:14), but this probably refers to their function rather than their office. These were men sent out by the church (sometimes called apostles of the church) for evangelism and church planting.
- Hence Paul’s instructions to Timothy regarding the qualifications for overseers and deacons in 1 Timothy 3.
- Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians 1, trans. John Keith, New Advent, accessed September 15, 2025, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm.
- There is some dispute about that, see Paul Foster, “The Ignatian Problem: The Recensions of a Letter Corpus as a Reflection of Theological Concerns and Developments,” in J. Verheyden, J. Schröter, and T. Nicklas, eds., Texts in Context: Essays on Dating and Contextualising Christian Writings from the Second and Early Third Centuries, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, vol. 319 (Peeters Publishers, n.d.), accessed September 15, 2025, https://www.pure.ed.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/206125966/FosterP2019TheIgnatianProblem.pdf.
- Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Philadelphians 7, trans. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, New Advent, accessed September 15, 2025, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0108.htm.
