My friend, Dave Williams, has made a video responding to something I wrote in my book Independent Eldership. You can watch Dave’s video here. The comment with which Dave disagrees is that I argue local churches can exist without elders but there are no healthy churches without elders.

You will have to buy the book to see my wider case. But in essence, my argument is relatively simple and Dave outlines it fairly at the start of his video. I argue that churches in scripture existed before there were any elders in them, they were repeatedly called churches by Paul (and others) and so recognised by them as churches before elders existed, and Titus and Timothy were left behind to put elders in place in the churches. All that is to say, churches existed as legitimate churches before they had elders but they were not healthy churches without elders.

Dave argues that legitimate churches don’t exist without elders. He cites the reformers and argues that they determined a true church existed where there is right preaching of the Word and right administration of the sacraments/ordinances. Dave says there is also a third implicit mark of a true church, the ability to conduct church discipline. Thus far, we all agree and are on the same page. But Dave argues that right teaching of the word implies there must be an elder there to do the teaching and right administration of the ordinances necessitates an elder to implement discipline. Here is where I disagree and, in the book Dave is reponding to, did outline why this is not necessary.

One of the things the Reformation recovered was the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers. This doctrine is core to my understanding of church governance, congregationalism more broadly and my specific understanding of elder-led, member-ruled congregational polity. The priesthood of all believers is what licenses the congregation to do the particular things Jesus has delegated for them to do (as I understand it).

So, in my book, I make a strong case that the congregation are responsible for the right teaching of the Word with specific delegated responsibility from Jesus for it. This is why I believe – and also make the case – that the congregation are the ones who will elect their elders. The church, not the elders, are ultimately responsible for what is taught and who does that teaching. The congregation is responsible together for guarding the gospel. This means, contrary to Dave’s claim, you do not necessarily need an elder in order to have right teaching or for the gospel to be defended. This is a duty given to the congregation as a whole and which they are able to fulfil as part of the priesthood of all believers. It is why many churches are quite happy to let members who are not elders nevertheless preach.

The same is true of the right administration of the ordinances. Dave argues that there must be elders in order to rightly administer them. But I make in argument in the book – and I quote Martin Luther who shared the same view – that any member of the church may baptise or offer communion because all are priests. If anybody is able to baptise or give out communion because of the priesthood of all believers, and the congregation is responsible for what is rightly taught in the church, it follows that the congregation are able among themselves to do the things that constitute being a legitimate church – that is, a church that exists – even apart from having elders. Again, it is worth saying, they will not ultimately be healthy, but they nevertheless exist legitimately as a church.

When it comes to the acceptance and removal of people from membership – a specific outworking of whether we baptise or withhold communion – I make the case in the book that this is a membership matter delegated to them by Jesus. This means the congregation has the authority to guard the gospel, rightly administer the ordinances and to practice church discipline even if they haven’t yet established elders. Nothing Dave argued in his video addressed this – it was all based on the assumption that this wouldn’t happen unless elders were there. I lay out in my book how and why this isn’t necessary.

Not to keep repeating myself, but to ensure I am not misunderstood, I am not saying elders are unimportant. I am not saying churches do not need elders. I am not saying Jesus doesn’t want his church to appoint elders. I am not saying churches can be fully healthy or functional without elders. I am not saying any of these things.

I am saying that elders are necessary for churches to be healthy and biblically functional. They are a vital part of God’s design for the local church. Churches that have no interest in appointing any are being sub-biblical and doom themselves to poor health and great damage. All I am saying is that elders are not required for your church to exist.

For more on the specifics, you can get my book here. You can also read a previous post I wrote on this here.