The structure and leadership of the church is not a secondary issue. How a church is led shapes how it teaches, how it cares for people, how it handles conflict, and ultimately how faithfully it represents Christ. For that reason, we want to be clear about what we believe Scripture teaches regarding church leadership and how that takes shape in our context.
At the same time, we recognize that the New Testament does not lay out a detailed organizational blueprint for every generation to follow. Instead, it gives us clear principles, patterns, and priorities. Faithful churches throughout history have sought to apply those principles in ways that are both biblically grounded and practically wise.
This paper is an attempt to do just that. Our goal is not to be novel or reactionary, but to be rooted in Scripture and informed by the historic witness of the church. We want to clearly articulate how leadership functions at Legacy Church, why we believe it is faithful to the New Testament, and how it serves the health, unity, and mission of the body.
In the Old Testament, leadership among the people of God is largely centralized. God often raises up a primary leader who serves as His appointed representative to the people. Figures like Moses, Joshua, and David function in this way. They are uniquely called, uniquely empowered, and uniquely responsible to hear from God and lead the people accordingly. The Spirit of God is often seen resting in a particular way upon these leaders for the sake of those they lead.
This pattern is often described as a "Moses model" of leadership. One man hears from the Lord and guides the people. While others may assist, the weight of leadership and direction rests primarily on that individual. Even when elders are appointed, as in Exodus 18 and Numbers 11, they function to support and share the burden, not replace the central role of the primary leader.
At the same time, leadership in the Old Testament is never autonomous. It is accountable to God and meant to reflect His character. Prophets, priests, and elders all play supporting roles, but the overall structure remains largely centralized. This model fits the Old Covenant context, where the presence of God is not yet universally indwelling all His people. Access to God is mediated, and leadership reflects that reality.
With the coming of Christ and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, a significant shift takes place. Under the New Covenant, all believers are indwelt by the Spirit of God. The people of God are no longer dependent on a single individual to hear from God on their behalf. Instead, the Spirit is present and active within the entire body. This reality calls for a different kind of leadership, one that reflects shared discernment and collective responsibility.
The New Testament consistently presents churches as being led by a plurality of elders. These leaders are described using several interchangeable terms. The Greek word presbyteros refers to an elder, emphasizing maturity and character. The word episkopos refers to an overseer, emphasizing responsibility and authority. The word poimēn refers to a shepherd or pastor, emphasizing care and guidance.
These terms are used interchangeably in Scripture. In Acts 20:17, Paul calls for the elders of the church in Ephesus. In Acts 20:28, he tells that same group that the Holy Spirit has made them overseers and calls them to shepherd the church. In 1 Peter 5:1–2, elders are instructed to shepherd the flock while exercising oversight. In Titus 1:5–7, elders are appointed and then immediately described as overseers. These passages make clear that elder, overseer, and pastor describe the same office from different angles.
Elders are entrusted with real authority. They teach sound doctrine, correct error, shepherd the people, and oversee the direction of the church. This authority is not individualistic, but shared among a group of qualified individuals who lead together.
Within that shared leadership, there is room for functional distinction. Some elders labor more heavily in preaching and teaching, as seen in 1 Timothy 5:17. Some carry greater responsibility in helping guide the direction of the church. This does not create a separate office above the others, but it does recognize that leadership within a plurality is not identical in function.
The New Testament also establishes the role of deacons. In Acts 6:1–6, the apostles appoint qualified men to oversee practical needs so that they can remain focused on prayer and the ministry of the Word. Deacons serve the church by meeting tangible needs, supporting ministry efforts, and strengthening the overall health of the body.
The congregation also carries meaningful responsibility. The church is called to pursue holiness together, to love one another, and to build each other up. In Hebrews 3:12–13, believers are exhorted to watch over one another. In 1 Thessalonians 5:11, they are called to encourage and build one another up. In 1 Corinthians 12 and Romans 12, each member is called to contribute through spiritual gifts.
In matters of discipline and leadership recognition, the congregation also participates. In Matthew 18:17, unresolved sin is brought before the church. In 1 Corinthians 5:4–5, the gathered church acts together in discipline. In 2 Corinthians 2:6, discipline is carried out by the majority. In Acts 6:2–5 and Acts 15:22, the congregation participates in selecting leaders and affirming decisions.
The New Testament presents a church that is led by elders, served by deacons, and actively participated in by its members.
In the earliest generations after the apostles, the church continues to emphasize plural leadership and doctrinal faithfulness. Writings like the Didache and Clement of Rome reflect a structure that closely mirrors the New Testament, with shared leadership and an emphasis on godly oversight.
By the early second century, a shift begins to take place. Ignatius of Antioch advocates for a model in which a single bishop serves as the primary leader in a city, supported by elders and deacons. This bishop becomes a central point of unity and doctrinal stability.
Over time, this model becomes more formalized. In the Western church, it develops into a hierarchical system that eventually culminates in the Roman Catholic structure, where authority becomes increasingly centralized. In the Eastern church, a similar episcopal structure develops, though authority remains more distributed among bishops, forming what is now the Eastern Orthodox tradition.
These developments reflect the church's attempt to preserve unity and guard against false teaching. At the same time, they represent a movement beyond the more decentralized and plural leadership pattern seen in the New Testament.
The Reformation reopened the question of church government in a way the church had not addressed seriously for a thousand years. By the early sixteenth century, the medieval Western church had developed an elaborate hierarchical structure that placed final authority in Rome and treated clergy as a sacred class distinct from the laity. The Reformers challenged this on biblical grounds and, in doing so, produced several different models that still shape the church today.
Luther retained a great deal of the existing church structure, including a form of episcopal oversight in some regions, but reasserted the priesthood of all believers as a foundational doctrine. For Luther, ordained ministers were called to a particular function: preaching, administering the sacraments, shepherding the flock. But they were not a separate spiritual caste. Every baptized believer stood before God on equal footing, with equal access through Christ. This recovery of lay dignity reshaped the relationship between pastor and people, and made room for the later development of plural leadership models that would more fully embody it.
Calvin, working in Geneva, developed what became the most influential Reformed model of church government. Drawing on his exegesis of the New Testament, Calvin identified four ordinary offices in the church: pastors, who preach and administer the sacraments; teachers, who instruct in doctrine; elders, who govern alongside pastors; and deacons, who care for the poor and manage practical needs. This fourfold ministry, articulated in Book IV of the Institutes of the Christian Religion, became the backbone of Presbyterian polity. Authority was located in the assembled body of elders, called the consistory or session, never in a single individual. Calvin's instinct was that the New Testament's plural pattern was meant to be recovered, not merely admired.
John Knox carried Calvin's model to Scotland, where it became the foundation of the Presbyterian Church. The Anabaptists pushed further, rejecting any institutional hierarchy and emphasizing local congregational autonomy, the priesthood of all believers, and believers' baptism. The English Reformation took a different path, retaining bishops while severing ties with Rome, producing the Anglican via media. Each of these movements drew different conclusions about how to organize the church, but they were arguing within a shared framework, the question of what the New Testament actually requires.
Despite their structural differences, the Reformers shared a commitment to several principles that have shaped every faithful expression of Protestant church government since:
These principles laid the groundwork for nearly every Protestant tradition that followed, and they remain the foundation on which any biblical ecclesiology must be built.
The Reformation's legacy produced three broad streams of church government in Western Christianity, each with its own emphasis and biblical defense.
Episcopal polity locates authority in bishops who oversee multiple congregations within a geographic region. This model is preserved in the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox tradition, the Anglican Communion, and the Methodist tradition. Its strength is the maintenance of doctrinal and structural unity across many local churches. Its risk is the concentration of authority in individuals whose decisions affect entire regions, and the corresponding vulnerability when those individuals err.
Presbyterian polity vests authority in a representative body of elders, organized in graduated assemblies from the local session to regional presbyteries to national general assemblies. Reformed and Presbyterian denominations follow this model. Its strength is plural leadership and structural accountability across local congregations. Its risk is bureaucratic slowness and the possibility of disconnection between higher courts and local congregational life.
Congregational polity locates final authority in the local congregation itself, with leadership exercised by elders and pastors but ultimate decisions, including the calling of pastors and matters of discipline, resting with the gathered church. Baptist, Bible church, and most non-denominational traditions follow this model. Its strength is direct congregational ownership and freedom from external hierarchy. Its risk is fragmentation, the rise of leaderless or unstable churches, and vulnerability to whoever happens to be the loudest voice in the room at a given moment.
In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the rise of revivalism and the frontier preaching tradition began to shift the visible center of gravity in American evangelicalism. Figures like George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, and Charles Finney drew large crowds with powerful preaching, and the lasting cultural impression for many believers was that the gifted preacher was the heart of the church's life. This was the beginning of a pattern that would later harden into the modern lead pastor model.
In the twentieth century, Western Christianity diversified further. Pentecostal and charismatic traditions emerged with their own leadership structures, often centered on apostolic or prophetic figures. Independent and non-denominational churches multiplied. The mega-church movement of the late twentieth century, anchored by figures like Bill Hybels at Willow Creek and Rick Warren at Saddleback, demonstrated the cultural reach of large, lead-pastor-centered congregations. The twenty-first century has seen the rapid expansion of multi-site churches, network movements like Acts 29 and 9Marks, and a renewed conversation among many evangelicals about the importance of recovering plural eldership.
The variety of models in mainstream Western Christianity is significant. What matters more than the specific structure is whether it embodies the principles Scripture insists upon: shared leadership among qualified men, real accountability, doctrinal faithfulness, congregational participation, and the visible headship of Christ over the whole.
The lead pastor model is so dominant in modern American evangelicalism that many believers assume it is simply the biblical pattern. It is not. It is a relatively recent development with identifiable historical roots, and understanding how it emerged helps the church evaluate it honestly.
The earliest seeds were sown in the revivalist tradition of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Figures like George Whitefield drew enormous crowds through gifted itinerant preaching, and the cultural memory that took hold was that powerful preaching was the engine of spiritual life. Jonathan Edwards in Northampton, Charles Spurgeon in London, D.L. Moody in Chicago, and Billy Graham in the mid-twentieth century all reinforced the same pattern: one gifted preacher, a vast audience, a lasting spiritual impact. Whatever the formal polity of their denominations, the cultural imagination of evangelicalism became increasingly preacher-centric.
The frontier church in nineteenth-century America accelerated this. New settlements were often served by a single circuit-riding minister or a lone resident pastor. Whatever the formal theology of the denomination, the practical reality was that one man preached, one man led, one man represented the church to the wider community. Plural eldership, where it existed at all, often consisted of laymen who deferred to the pastor on almost every matter of consequence. Necessity was the mother of structure, and the structure that emerged was not particularly biblical, but it became deeply familiar.
The twentieth-century evangelical movement institutionalized this. The growth of Bible churches and independent churches, especially through movements like the influence of Dallas Theological Seminary and the rise of independent fundamentalism, often produced a pastor-centric structure where the senior pastor functioned more like a chief executive than one elder among others. The board of elders, where it existed, was frequently composed of lay members with little theological training, who functioned as a sounding board rather than a co-leading body. The pulpit became the throne, and the pastor became its occupant.
The mega-church movement of the late twentieth century gave this pattern its modern form. Bill Hybels at Willow Creek, Rick Warren at Saddleback, John MacArthur at Grace Community, and a generation of others built large, influential churches centered on a primary teaching voice. The seeker-sensitive movement explicitly emphasized the importance of the lead communicator as the on-ramp for unchurched newcomers. The multi-site movement, which exploded in the early twenty-first century, made the lead pastor's sermon the unifying element across many physical campuses through video venues. By the 2010s, it was possible for a single pastor to preach to tens of thousands of people every Sunday across multiple states without ever leaving a single stage.
This pattern produced both real benefits and real dangers, and honesty about the church requires that we name both.
On the benefit side, the model leveraged the genuine gifting of exceptional preachers, allowed for clear vision and decisive leadership, reached enormous numbers of people, and created accessible on-ramps for the unchurched. Many faithful pastors have served well in this structure, and their ministries have produced lasting fruit that no honest observer can deny.
On the danger side, the model has produced a sobering series of high-profile failures. Mark Driscoll's removal from Mars Hill, Bill Hybels's resignation from Willow Creek, James MacDonald's departure from Harvest, and a long list of similar collapses have made one thing clear: when the lead pastor functions as the singular voice and singular authority of the church, the church becomes structurally vulnerable to his moral and spiritual collapse. The biblical pattern of plural eldership exists, in part, to prevent precisely this.
In response to these failures, a meaningful course correction has been underway in many evangelical circles. The 9Marks movement, led by Mark Dever and others, has called churches back to plural eldership and meaningful congregational membership. The Acts 29 church-planting network has prioritized planting churches with multiple elders from the beginning rather than as an afterthought. Many established mega-churches have restructured their boards to include genuine peers of the lead pastor with real authority. Younger evangelical and Reformed pastors increasingly describe themselves as one elder among others rather than as the singular leader of their congregation.
The conversation is ongoing. The lead pastor model is not going away, and it has genuine biblical defenders. But the question that the New Testament presses, and that the failures of the last generation have made unavoidable, is whether the structure of a given church can actually function in line with the plural pattern Scripture describes, or whether the lead pastor is a king in everything but name.
A different framework for church government has emerged in many charismatic and apostolic streams of the modern church, drawn from Paul's letter to the Ephesians. The text in question is Ephesians 4:11–13:
"And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ…" Ephesians 4:11–12
From this passage, a teaching has developed that Paul names five governing offices, often called the five-fold ministry: apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers. According to this view, a healthy church must have all five offices actively functioning in its governmental structure, and the absence of any one of them produces an unbalanced or incomplete church. We do not believe this is what Paul is teaching, and we want to say why carefully, because the impulse behind the view is good even when the conclusion is mistaken.
The first thing to notice is what Paul is actually doing in Ephesians 4. The chapter is not a polity chapter. It is a unity chapter. Paul has just spent the opening verses urging the Ephesians to walk in a manner worthy of their calling, to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, to recognize that there is one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father. Then in verses 7–10 he speaks of Christ ascending and giving gifts to His people. Verse 11 is the list of those gifts, and verses 12–16 explain their purpose: to equip the saints, to build up the body, to bring it to maturity and unity in the faith.
The point of the passage is that Christ gives a variety of gifts to the body so that the body grows together into Him. The grammar reinforces this. Paul does not use the language of office or appointment here. He uses the language of gift: Christ gave some apostles, some prophets, and so on. These are gracious endowments to the body, not institutional offices to be filled.
If Paul intended Ephesians 4:11 as a definitive list of governmental offices, we would expect him to repeat it elsewhere. He does not. Compare his other lists:
If we were to read each list as a prescribed governmental structure, we would have to argue that the church needs offices of "showing mercy" and "administration" and "helps" alongside the apostles and prophets. No one teaches this, because everyone implicitly recognizes that these are lists of gifts and functions, not lists of offices. The five-fold reading of Ephesians 4 applies a logic to that passage that no one applies to Romans 12 or 1 Corinthians 12, and there is no exegetical reason to treat them differently.
When Paul actually instructs his protégés on how to organize a church, he is precise about what they are to appoint, and the offices he names are not the five of Ephesians 4. In 1 Timothy 3, he lays out the qualifications for two offices: overseers (elders) and deacons. In Titus 1:5, he tells Titus to appoint elders in every town. He does not tell Timothy or Titus to appoint apostles, prophets, or evangelists. He never gives qualifications for those roles as governing offices. He gives qualifications for elders and deacons.
This is decisive. When Paul moves from describing the gifts Christ gives to the body (Ephesians 4) to prescribing the structure of a local church (1 Timothy and Titus), he names only two offices. The argument that a church must have five governmental offices simply cannot be sustained from the texts where Paul actually addresses church government.
The healthier framework is to distinguish between gift and office. A gift is something Christ gives to the body for the building up of all. An office is a recognized position with specific qualifications and authority. The two are related but not the same.
The gift of teaching is real, and it operates in many people in the body who do not hold the office of elder. The gift of prophecy is real, and it operates in many people who hold no formal office at all. The gift of evangelism is real, and many faithful evangelists serve the church without bearing any governmental authority. Christ continues to give all of these gifts to His body. We affirm that with conviction.
But the governing of the local church is entrusted to elders, supported by deacons, with the congregation participating in meaningful ways. The gifts function within and alongside this structure. They do not replace it.
A particular form of the five-fold view holds that apostles and prophets should function as the highest governmental offices of the church, restoring the so-called "apostolic and prophetic" foundation. This view sometimes goes further, asserting that present-day apostles carry an authority parallel to that of Paul and the Twelve.
We do not believe this is biblically defensible. The New Testament treats the apostles of Christ as a unique and unrepeatable group: those who saw the risen Lord and were directly commissioned by Him (1 Corinthians 9:1; 15:7–9; Acts 1:21–22). Their teaching became the foundation of the church (Ephesians 2:20), and Scripture itself is the lasting record of their witness. To claim that office today is to claim a category that the New Testament closes.
This does not mean Christ no longer sends out gifted church-planters and pioneering missionaries. He does, and the language of "apostolic" in a functional sense, meaning sent-out, pioneering, foundation-laying ministry, has real biblical warrant. But that is a function, not a governing office above the eldership of the local church. The same distinction holds for the prophetic. The gift of prophecy continues in the church, and we affirm its place, as we have set forth elsewhere in this confession. But the office of prophet as a governing role above the elders is not what the New Testament teaches.
We want to say something honest about why this view has gained the traction it has, because we do not want to dismiss the genuine longing it represents. Many believers who hold to the five-fold framework do so because they have seen churches that minimize the gifts of the Spirit, that operate as if Christ stopped giving His body what it needs in the first century, that have collapsed into bureaucratic forms with no spiritual life. They are reaching for something they sense the church is missing.
That instinct is right. The gifts are real. The Spirit is active. Christ continues to give to His body. We affirm all of this, and we want to lead our church in such a way that those gifts are recognized, exercised, and celebrated. But the answer to a deficient ecclesiology is not a fabricated one. It is a biblical one. The New Testament gives us two offices, elders and deacons, in the context of a body in which every member is gifted and every member contributes. That is the structure we receive, and that is the structure we follow.
Applying first century church structures directly to the modern world presents real challenges. The early church met in homes, functioned within smaller communities, and operated without the complexity of modern institutions.
Today, churches often gather in larger settings and manage multiple layers of ministry and organization. Because of this, the goal is not to replicate every detail of the early church, but to faithfully apply the principles found in Scripture.
These include shared leadership among qualified elders, servant-hearted ministry through deacons, meaningful participation from the congregation, and a commitment to unity, holiness, and truth. When applied wisely, these principles provide a strong and healthy foundation for the church in any context.
Our church is led by a plurality of elders who are responsible to shepherd, teach, oversee, and guard the church. These elders meet the qualifications outlined in 1 Timothy 3:1–7 and Titus 1:5–9. They exercise real spiritual authority, but do so together, seeking unity, accountability, and faithfulness to Scripture.
Within the plurality of elders, individual men carry designated pastoral responsibilities according to gifting and calling. These may include the Teaching Pastor, the Care Pastor, the Student Pastor, and others as the needs of the church require. These titles describe function, not rank. Every man who holds one of them remains an elder among elders, accountable to the body and to the Word, with no one elevated above the others. The directional weight of the church is carried by the elders together, not by any single voice.
Elders are also responsible for matters of church discipline. They are called to guard the holiness, unity, and doctrinal integrity of the church. Discipline is not primarily punitive, but restorative. Its aim is to bring about repentance, protect the church, and uphold the name of Christ.
In Acts 20:28–31, elders are charged to watch over the flock and protect it from harm. In Titus 1:9, they are called to correct those who contradict sound doctrine. In 1 Timothy 5:20, persistent sin is addressed publicly when necessary.
Elders guide the process of discipline according to the pattern laid out in Matthew 18:15–17, beginning with private correction and, if necessary, involving the broader church. In cases of unrepentant sin, the congregation participates in the final step, as seen in 1 Corinthians 5 and 2 Corinthians 2. Throughout this process, the goal is always restoration, handled with wisdom, patience, and humility.
Deacons serve the church by meeting practical needs, supporting ministry efforts, and strengthening the overall health of the body. Qualified according to 1 Timothy 3:8–13, they often lead in specific areas of ministry, allowing elders to remain focused on prayer and the ministry of the Word.
The congregation plays an active and meaningful role in the life of the church. Members are called to pursue holiness, use their gifts, and build one another up. As a congregationally informed church, we seek to communicate clearly, invite input where appropriate, and involve the body in significant moments.
In all things, we affirm that Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church. Our desire is to lead in a way that reflects His character, honors His Word, and builds up His people.