Alexander Strauch’s book “Biblical Eldership” teaches biblical principles regarding the functions and qualifications of church leaders as well as what he believes is the New Testament model of church government, a plurality of elders. In the conservative evangelical world, Strauch’s teaching has been influential. John MacArthur endorsed “Biblical Eldership” and adopted the plurality of elders model. Mark Dever’s 9Marks teaches a plurality of elders and includes a mostly positive review of Strauch’s book on its website. In two churches I’ve attended, church leaders have recommended the book to me.
While “Biblical Eldership” does contain helpful teaching regarding the functions and qualifications of church leaders (through a patriarchal lens), it is less helpful in describing how a plurality of elders would practically function. In his attempt to apply this New Testament model to modern times, Strauch fails to recognize the authority hierarchy present in the church at its inception. He also fails to understand the limits of peer accountability as well as the conflicts of interest apparent in the model. Because of these failures, this type of church government has the potential to create (and has created) exactly what Strauch hopes to prevent: a pyramid structure with one authority figure at the top.
Strauch does an admirable job demonstrating how a plurality of elders, a group of qualified peers, was the common form of church government in the New Testament, beginning with the example of the twelve disciples and making his way through Acts and the letters of Paul and Peter. He uses these examples to make a case that this model should be adopted today; local churches should be led by qualified men who share power equally within their plurality. However, what Strauch fails to notice is that these groups of men were appointed by higher authorities than themselves. In the disciples’ cases, the higher authority was Jesus. Additionally, in his letter to Titus, Paul instructs him to “appoint elders”. In his first letter to Timothy, Paul gives instructions about evaluating and holding elders accountable. In both cases, Titus and Timothy appointed elders and were in authority over them, as Paul was in authority over Titus and Timothy. In failing to recognize these authority hierarchies, Strauch is left to teach that elders should hold each other accountable.
But peer accountability has obvious limits. In fact, I’d argue “peer accountability” is a misnomer. In authority hierarchies, peers reside at the same level. They don’t have authority to make decisions regarding each other. Peers can’t fire each other, promote each other, give each other raises, or take away perks. However, they can remind each other of the consequences or rewards for certain behaviors that can occur if higher authorities take notice. This is exactly what we see in Galatians when Paul describes his confrontation with Peter. Paul and Peter don’t answer to each other; they each answer to Jesus. However, Paul is able to remind Peter of the importance of staying true to the gospel through his behavior. It’s a rebuke that Peter seems to take notice of, not because he’s afraid of Paul’s authority, but because he understands Paul is calling him back on mission. Peter responds because he’s under Christ’s authority, and there will be consequences if he doesn’t repent.
Strauch does not seem to understand this but insists that peers can and will hold each other accountable. However, not only is it impossible for peers to hold each other accountable, in any system in which “peer accountability” is the only form of accountability present, obvious conflicts of interest arise. Strauch envisions a model in which existing elders, working by themselves or in tandem with the congregation, appoint subsequent elders. This means that in order to be appointed to and maintain a position of elder, each elder must remain in the good graces of the other elders. When the need arises for Elder A to confront Elder B, Elder A must juggle two opposing interests: 1) the interest to preserve a healthy elder team by ensuring each elder performs his responsibilities to a high level and maintains a high personal character and 2) the interest to remain in the good graces of Elder B in order to maintain a position and (in some cases) salary. In “peer accountability” systems, this conflict of interest will be omnipresent. It would be ridiculous to expect elders to always put Interest 1 in front of Interest 2, especially if Elder B is what Strauch identifies as “first among equals”.
John MacArthur’s Grace Community Church is led by a plurality of elders with MacArthur functioning as the “first among equals”. I cannot imagine one of these co-elders confronting MacArthur on any issue. When MacArthur was confronted by an entity that had authority over him and the Master’s University, he condemned it as an attack from Satan. MacArthur’s response creates a dampening effect on all future attempts at accountability. But this is exactly what Strauch’s model of church government creates: a group of peers led by a “first among equals” that cannot hold each other accountable and will run into conflicts of interest should they attempt to.
It is disappointing that Strauch so often ordains his opinions as “Biblical” but cannot see the historical discrepancies and problems associated with his model of church government. What is further disappointing is that his exploration of elders’ functions and qualifications is helpful but should a church put qualified elders in his proposed system it will most likely produce myriad problems. Strauch seems to sincerely desire churches that are healthy and well-functioning, free from the authoritarian grasp of singular leaders. Sadly, a plurality of elders, with no higher authority to provide accountability, is not the answer.
