Over the past several decades, many Reformed Baptist churches have recovered an important conviction: the ordinary pastoral government of a local church should not normally rest upon one man, but upon a plurality of elders.
This recovery has been healthy. For far too long, much of the evangelical world became accustomed to the model of “the pastor,” accompanied at best by men who advised, assisted, or administered, but who did not truly share pastoral government with him. The recovery of plurality sought to correct precisely this concentration of the church’s direction in one man.
Yet affirming that a church has several elders does not by itself resolve the problem. A church may recognize several men as elders while granting one of them a stable position from which he directs the eldership. There may be several elders without the pastoral government being genuinely plural.
This question has produced debate among Reformed Baptists. Greg Nichols and Sam Waldron have defended the parity of elders: all share the same position in church government, although there may be great differences in gifts, work, commitment, honor, influence, and leadership.
Boon-Sing Poh, by contrast, defends the priority of the ministry. His proposal recognizes several elders and affirms an equality among them insofar as they share the same office of rule. At the same time, he argues that some elders also hold the office of minister of the Word, that the pastor has priority over the ruling elders, and that he should direct the eldership as the leading elder.
We must represent this position fairly. Poh does not explicitly claim that the pastor possesses superior governmental authority. Nor does he deny that the elders govern together, that the body participates in decisions, or that the pastor must listen to the counsel and correction of his brethren.
The question addressed in this article is more precise:
Can the stable priority that Poh grants to the leading pastor genuinely preserve the governmental parity he also affirms?
We will not judge Poh’s intentions or claim that he consciously disguises a unipersonal headship. We will examine the form of government that results when these two principles are brought together.
Our thesis is this:
A plurality of elders does not consist merely in the existence of several elders, but in pastoral government being genuinely shared by them under the sole headship of Christ. One elder may possess far greater influence than the others without possessing a greater right to govern. But if one man possesses, by virtue of his position, the stable right to direct the eldership, the result is unipersonal pastoral headship, even if everyone participates in the decisions and the system continues to be called plural.
What Governmental Parity Means
Before examining Poh’s proposal, we must carefully define what we mean by parity.
By governmental parity, we mean equality of right within pastoral government: no elder possesses, by virtue of his position, the right to govern his fellow elders.
This definition is deliberately limited. Parity does not mean that all elders are equal in every respect. Nor does it mean that they must perform the same tasks or that all their opinions must carry the same practical weight.
Elders may differ greatly in gifts, experience, wisdom, commitment, preaching ability, and knowledge of the church. One may be supported full-time while another maintains secular employment. One may preach almost every Lord’s Day while another preaches only occasionally. One may formulate most proposals, regularly moderate the meetings, and publicly represent the church.
Parity also does not mean that all elders have the same right to perform every ministerial task indiscriminately. Their common eldership does not require that they all preach with the same frequency, ordinarily administer the same responsibilities, or receive identical financial support.
Parity does not require everyone to do the same thing. It requires that no one possess, by virtue of his position, pastoral authority over those who share church government with him.
This clarification is important because Poh directs much of his criticism against what he calls “Absolute Equality.” According to the position he rejects, all elders would be equal in power, position, and right to perform every ministerial function. He also challenges the idea that sharing one office erases every meaningful difference among the elders (Poh, 2017, § 7.1, paras. 1–15).
We do not need to defend such absolute equality.
We may recognize every difference Poh identifies while maintaining the decisive question:
Does any of those differences give one elder the right to direct the others?
Great Influence Without a Greater Right to Govern
The distinction between influence and the right to govern is essential to the entire argument.
By influence, we mean the actual weight that a man’s wisdom, experience, gifts, and credibility give to his judgment. By the right to govern, we mean a power that belongs to him because of the official position he occupies.
Influence depends primarily upon the ability to persuade. The right to govern depends upon the official relationship between the persons involved.
An elder may possess enormous influence. His brethren may ordinarily trust his judgment, receive his proposals, and follow his initiative for decades. His knowledge of the church may be incomparably greater, and his opinion may determine the direction of almost every deliberation.
None of this necessarily grants him authority over his brethren.
The other elders remain responsible to examine his proposals before Christ and his Word. They must be able to disagree when necessary, correct him without challenging a superior, and act as an eldership without requiring his personal authorization.
The difference may be expressed through a simple question:
Do the other elders ordinarily follow him because they trust his judgment, or must they follow his direction because his position gives him a right they do not possess?
In the first case, there is prominent leadership among equals.
In the second, unipersonal headship appears.
A church may therefore legitimately say:
“This brother leads us greatly, but he does not govern us as our superior.”
It may also say:
“He preaches more than we do, but he does not possess a greater right to govern.”
And it may explain:
“We ordinarily follow his initiative because we trust his gifts, not because his position places us under his authority.”
Unequal influence is compatible with parity. Unequal governmental right is not.
All Under the Sole Headship of Christ
This question must be understood in light of a fundamental truth of Christian ecclesiology: Christ is the church’s only Head.
Almost any ecclesiastical system can formally confess that truth. The more precise question concerns how those who exercise pastoral government are ordered in relation to one another under Christ.
We must ask:
Under whom does the eldership stand immediately within the order of pastoral government?
The word immediately requires clarification. We do not mean that elders receive private revelations directly from heaven, act independently of the congregation, or are free from ecclesiastical accountability.
Within a Baptist ecclesiology, the congregation retains the powers Christ has entrusted to it. The church recognizes its officers, judges the doctrine it receives, and exercises the congregational responsibilities established by Christ. The authority of the elders does not absorb the authority of the congregation.
Our claim is more specific: within the pastoral order, no elder should stand as a necessary head between Christ and the other elders.
All receive their office from Christ, although their calling is publicly recognized by the church. All answer to Christ for its exercise. All are subject to the same Word, and all must shepherd as members of one body.
One man may exercise far greater influence than the others upon the way the body discerns and acts. But that influence does not make him an additional level of government between Christ and his brethren.
No elder receives his right to govern from another elder. None is subordinated to another as to a pastoral head. None should possess, by virtue of another office he simultaneously holds, the right to govern those who compose the eldership with him.
The structure of a true plurality may be represented in this way:
Christ
↓
eldership
↓
church
This diagram represents only the order of pastoral oversight. It is not intended to exhaust all the powers Christ has entrusted to the congregation.
The structure we are criticizing adds another level:
Christ
↓
lead pastor
↓
eldership
↓
church
We are not accusing the lead pastor of replacing Christ. Nor are we claiming that those who defend this model consciously deny Christ’s headship.
The point is structural. The second arrangement introduces an additional level of pastoral headship. The elders no longer stand together under Christ alone, but also under the official direction of one of their members.
The central question is therefore not who possesses the greatest influence. It is this:
Do all the elders stand together under Christ’s headship, or does one possess, by virtue of his position, the right to direct the rest?
Prominent Leadership Within Parity
A true plurality need not operate like a motionless committee in which no one takes initiative and every responsibility is distributed uniformly.
The elders may permanently entrust one of their number with the ordinary preaching, the moderation of meetings, the coordination of ministries, the preparation of the agenda, and the public representation of the church.
It may even be prudent for these responsibilities to remain with the same man for decades.
The question is not how many activities he directs. The question is by virtue of what he directs them.
We may distinguish two relationships.
The first is functional precedence. Equals entrust one man with a particular responsibility because of his gifts, experience, or availability. His function comes from the body, remains under the body, and may be reviewed by the body.
The second is unipersonal headship. One man possesses, by virtue of his position, the stable right to direct those who share pastoral government with him.
Outwardly, the two situations might appear almost identical. In both, the same man might preach most sermons, moderate every meeting, and formulate nearly every proposal.
Yet the relationship would be different.
An elder may lead far more without possessing a greater right to govern.
What Poh Affirms About Parity
Before presenting the priority of the pastor, we must clearly acknowledge what Poh affirms concerning the equality of elders.
Poh does not reject all parity. He states that all elders are equal insofar as they occupy the same office of rule. Together they rule the church and, considered collectively, form one body. He also maintains that the teaching elder and the ruling elder are on parity “in respect of ruling” (Poh, 2017, § 7.2, paras. 1–7).
Poh favorably cites John Murray’s statement that, with respect to church government, the minister of the Word stands on complete parity with the other elders. He also cites John Owen’s teaching that teaching and ruling elders concur in the same acts of government, that all church authority resides in the eldership, and that decisions are determined by their common suffrage (Poh, 2017, § 7.2, paras. 8–21).
Poh also proposes the principle of the unity of the eldership. According to this principle, all the elders constitute one body and must act as one body. Responsibility for teaching and government belongs to the whole body, although tasks are distributed differently (Poh, 2017, § 7.2, paras. 17–27).
It would therefore be unfair to claim that Poh expressly denies governmental parity or grants the pastor unilateral power.
Poh does not teach that the pastor may impose decisions upon the other elders. His proposals must be considered by the body, and decisions are reached through consent and voting. He also acknowledges that the pastor must listen to the warnings and corrections of the other elders.
Our criticism is not that Poh fails to affirm parity.
The difficulty lies in determining whether the priority he prescribes can preserve the parity he declares.
What Poh Prescribes About Priority
Poh begins with an affirmation many of us share:
“There are two basic offices – that of elder and that of deacon” (Poh, 2017, § 5.1.5, para. 1).
Yet he adds that some elders also occupy another office:
“Within the one office of elder, therefore, we find certain elders who also occupy the office of pastor or minister” (Poh, 2017, § 5.1.5, para. 2).
Some men would therefore be elders, while others would simultaneously be elders and ministers of the Word.
Poh explains the distinction in this way:
“Thus, the Christian ministry has the priority not only because of the primacy of the word, the primacy of preaching, and the necessity of the call to the ministry, but also because it encompasses the two offices of the elder and minister of the word. As an elder, the pastor rules with the other elders. As a minister of the word, he alone preaches regularly in the church” (Poh, 2017, § 5.1.5, para. 5).
Up to this point, we might still think merely in terms of a stable difference of labor. An elder governs together with the others and, in addition, devotes himself regularly to the preaching of the Word.
The difficulty arises when Poh gives the teaching elder a priority that affects the direction of the body:
“Of the two types of elders, the teaching elder has the priority over the ruling elders” (Poh, 2017, § 5.1.6, para. 7).
He then concludes:
“Secondly, if there are more than one elder in the church, the pastor should be the leading elder. Elders lead the church, and the pastor (or one of them, if there are more than one pastor) leads the eldership” (Poh, 2017, § 5.1.7, para. 2).
The same tension appears in his exposition of the unity of the eldership:
“All elders are equal only in the sense that they occupy the same office of ruling. They are only equal in the general sense of being members of a body, the eldership, in relation to the other members of the church. Together, they rule the church. As one body, they govern the church. Within that body, however, there are differences. The pastor is to be the leading elder by virtue of ‘the priority of the ministry’. If there are more than one pastors in the church, one of them should be acknowledged as the leading elder” (Poh, 2017, § 7.2, para. 1).
Here we reach the center of the problem:
Poh affirms that the elders govern together as a body, yet prescribes that one of them direct the body by virtue of the priority of the ministry.
We should not immediately conclude that Poh openly confesses a superior governmental authority. We must ask what kind of direction he assigns to the leading pastor.
Parity Affirmed and Priority Prescribed
A form of government is not determined only by the names it gives to its relationships. It must also be examined according to the rights and duties it distributes among its officers.
Poh avoids calling the pastor superior. He affirms that authority resides in the body, that decisions are made collectively, and that all the elders participate in the same office of rule.
At the same time, he prescribes that one man must lead, that he does so by virtue of the priority belonging to his ministry, and that this function remains even when other pastors possess the same offices.
The difficulty does not depend upon an isolated word such as lead. The verb may refer merely to taking initiative, moderating, coordinating, or persuading.
The problem arises from the accumulation of elements:
- the pastor should normally preside;
- he does so by virtue of the priority of the ministry;
- one of several pastors must be officially recognized as the leading elder;
- the leading pastor guides the decision-making process;
- the other elders do not share that same position indiscriminately.
In his practical description, Poh says that the pastor puts forward his proposal or decision to the body, explains why it should be adopted, receives questions and suggestions, and then calls upon the officers to give their consent. He does not exclude other elders from proposing matters, nor does he permit the pastor to impose his will unilaterally. Nevertheless, he insists that the pastor’s leadership must be recognized in practice and that he leads the elders in the decision-making process (Poh, 2017, § 10.3, paras. 60–66, 75).
The criticism must therefore be carefully stated:
The problem is not that Poh denies parity in his definitions, but that he prescribes a stable priority whose operation must be examined to determine whether it preserves that parity or introduces unipersonal headship.
The Dilemma Priority Cannot Escape
The position of the leading pastor can be understood in only two ways.
Coordination Entrusted Among Equals
The elders may entrust one man with moderating their meetings, coordinating their work, preparing proposals, and publicly representing the body.
They may do so because he possesses greater experience, devotes more time to the ministry, knows the congregation better, or has a particular ability to order deliberations.
His leadership may be stable and highly influential. The others may ordinarily follow his judgment.
In this case, however, his function comes from the body, remains under the body, and may be reviewed by the body. He possesses no pastoral authority over his brethren. His opinion may carry far greater weight, but it does not possess greater value by virtue of a governing right belonging uniquely to him.
This is prominent leadership within parity.
A Right of Direction Belonging to His Position
The other possibility is that the leading pastor directs because his position gives him a power the other elders do not possess.
In that case, we are not dealing merely with an unequal distribution of tasks or with exceptional influence. There is a difference of right within church government.
This is unipersonal headship.
The dilemma is unavoidable:
Either priority consists only in coordination entrusted among equals, in which case it contains no governmental superiority, or it grants one man a stable right of direction that his equals do not possess, in which case it establishes unipersonal headship.
The unity of the body supplies no third alternative. Both a body of equals and a body directed by one man may act in unity.
Nor is it enough to say that the pastor does not possess the final word. Unipersonal headship need not be absolute or unilateral. It may operate through persuasion, voting, and consent, and still remain headship if one man possesses, by virtue of his position, the stable right to direct the others.
The Decisive Case: Several Pastors, but One Leading Elder
The possibility that a church may have several pastors allows us to examine the origin of priority more precisely.
According to Poh, all pastors are elders and ministers of the Word. If a church has two pastors, both hold the office of elder, both hold the office of minister, and both possess exactly the same combination of offices.
Yet one must still be recognized as the leading elder.
Poh goes so far as to explain that a man appointed as another teaching elder must understand that his function is to assist the first pastor in preaching and ruling the church. He must know that the first pastor is the leading elder and that he is his assistant, although later changes in the distribution of functions remain possible (Poh, 2017, § 8.3, para. 26).
This case is decisive.
The office of elder does not explain why one directs the other, because both possess it. The office of minister does not explain it either, because both are ministers. Nor does the combination of both offices explain the difference, because both possess the same combination.
When two men possess exactly the same offices, yet one must direct the other, the difference is not found in the offices they share. It is found in a directive position added to one of them.
The priority of the ministry might attempt to explain a difference between pastors and ruling elders. It cannot explain why one pastor should have priority over other pastors.
To produce the leading elder, the system requires something further.
If that additional element is merely a function prudentially distributed among equals, there is no governmental priority belonging to his position.
If it grants one man the stable right to direct the other pastors, there is unipersonal headship.
None of the Offices Explains the Leading Elder
The status of leading elder cannot simply be derived from any of the offices Poh recognizes.
It does not arise from the eldership, because every elder possesses that office.
It does not arise from the ministry of the Word, because every pastor possesses that office.
It does not arise from combining the two, because every pastor possesses the same combination.
The problem is not resolved by mentally separating the functions held by the same person. We must examine the final relationship established by the system.
If the pastor governs with his brethren as an elder but also possesses a position from which he directs them, he occupies a place they do not share.
Poh may not call this position a third office. We need not claim that he does. But if it gives one man a stable duty and right that the other pastors do not possess, it functions as an additional governmental position.
If the leading elder merely fulfils a responsibility distributed among equals, parity remains. If he possesses a right of direction belonging to his position, unipersonal headship exists.
Calling the relationship priority creates no third alternative.
Priority Is Not Another Kind of Plurality
Poh responds to John Murray by arguing that plurality may exist without parity because plurality simply means “more than one.” To illustrate the point, he speaks of several persons in a room or different objects in a box (Poh, 2017, § 7.2, paras. 3–4).
In a merely numerical sense, he is correct. Several men may exist without occupying equal positions. A church with five elders under the direction of one possesses a numerical plurality of officers.
But that is not the central question.
The recovery of a plurality of elders was not merely an attempt to multiply the number of men who receive the title. It sought to prevent pastoral government from continuing to culminate in one man.
We must therefore distinguish between:
- the presence of several elders;
- the plurality of pastoral government.
The presence of several governors does not make government plural when one of them possesses, by virtue of his position, the right to direct the others.
Governmental parity is not an optional variety of plural government. It is what allows us to say that direction has genuinely been entrusted to several men.
If one man also governs those who govern, a numerical plurality of elders may remain, but unipersonal headship exists over the body.
Does Scripture Establish an Additional Office of Minister?
Up to this point, we have granted for the sake of argument the existence of an additional office of minister of the Word. Even if we grant it, it does not explain why one of several pastors must be the leading elder.
Nevertheless, we must still ask whether Scripture actually establishes this office as distinct from the office of elder.
To answer fairly, we must consider Poh’s main exegetical objections.
Elders and Overseers in Acts 20 and Titus 1
In Acts 20, Paul summons the elders of Ephesus (v. 17) and then tells those same men that the Holy Spirit has made them overseers to shepherd the church of God (v. 28). Titus 1 displays the same pattern: Paul commands Titus to appoint elders in every city (v. 5) and then refers to the same officer as an overseer (v. 7).
Poh acknowledges that elders and overseers refer to the same persons. His response is that these texts identify the governing body but do not reveal its internal composition. In his view, the body may contain both teaching elders and ruling elders (Poh, 2017, § 7.1, paras. 1–4).
We may grant that Acts 20 and Titus 1, considered in isolation, do not settle every possible specialization among elders.
They nevertheless establish something important: the office of elder is the office of oversight. The burden of proof therefore rests upon anyone who claims that some of these overseers possess an additional office that grants them priority over the rest.
The texts permit diversity within the body. They do not themselves establish a difference of governmental rank.
The Verb to Shepherd and the Noun Pastor
Poh observes that Acts 20:28 and 1 Peter 5:2 use the verb to shepherd, rather than the noun pastor. He concludes that all elders perform shepherding work, but this does not mean that all hold the office of pastor (Poh, 2017, § 7.1, paras. 5–8).
The grammatical observation deserves consideration. We should not build the entire identity of these terms merely upon the relationship between a verb and a noun.
But the grammatical distinction does not prove a second office either.
The texts entrust the care and oversight of the flock precisely to the elders. They show that shepherding belongs to the office of elder. Additional evidence is necessary to transform pastor into a superimposed second office.
Moreover, even if that second office were demonstrated, it would still be necessary to prove that it grants authority over the other elders.
First Timothy 5:17
Poh understands 1 Timothy 5:17 as distinguishing two categories of elders: those who rule and teach, and those who only rule. The former would be teaching elders or pastors, especially devoted to the Word (Poh, 2017, § 7.1, paras. 3–4).
The text certainly recognizes a real difference. Some elders labor especially in the Word and doctrine and are worthy of particular honor.
That difference may be profound. One man may devote his entire working life to the ministry of the Word, receive full financial support, and preach regularly. Another may serve as an elder while maintaining secular employment and teaching less frequently.
Yet the text continues to call them all elders.
First Timothy 5:17 may explain differences of labor, commitment, support, and honor. It does not explicitly state that some have received another office or that they possess governmental authority over their fellow elders.
A stable difference of labor does not automatically constitute a difference of office. And a difference of office would not by itself prove authority over the other elders.
“Able to Teach” and “Able to Exhort”
Poh also responds to the argument from 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:9. He correctly observes that teaching and exhorting are broad terms that may include private instruction, counsel, and refutation, not only public preaching. The requirement that every elder be able to teach therefore does not mean that every elder must be the regular preacher (Poh, 2017, § 7.1, paras. 9–16).
We should grant this point.
Parity does not require all elders to possess identical preaching gifts or equal customary access to the pulpit.
These texts nevertheless show that every elder must bear a genuine doctrinal responsibility. No elder may be reduced to an administrator who is detached from teaching and the defense of truth.
The ability to teach does not require all elders to preach with the same frequency, but it prevents pastoral government from being separated from all doctrinal responsibility.
Ephesians 4:11
Poh identifies the “pastors and teachers” of Ephesians 4:11 with ministers of the Word or teaching elders. In his view, the context places them alongside other men especially entrusted with communicating the Word of God (Poh, 2017, § 5.1; § 7.1, para. 7).
We may grant that the text describes men especially devoted to the ministry of the Word.
But Ephesians 4:11 does not demonstrate that this ministry constitutes a second local office added to the eldership. Still less does it state that those who exercise it must govern the other elders or that one among several ministers must be the leading elder.
The text demonstrates the importance of the teaching function. It does not establish the governmental structure proposed by Poh.
The Angels of Revelation 1–3
Poh identifies the angels of the seven churches with human ministers who represent each congregation. From this singular representation, he finds support for the existence of a prominent pastor (Poh, 2017, § 7.1, paras. 3–4; § 5.1).
This interpretation is disputed. The angels may be understood in several ways, and the text does not call them leading elders.
Even if we granted that each angel represents a singular human minister, representation does not equal authority over fellow elders. A man may publicly represent a church without possessing the right to govern the other pastors.
A disputed interpretation cannot by itself bear the weight of establishing an additional office and its governmental priority.
The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689
The Confession identifies the ordinary officers of the church as “bishops or elders, and deacons” (26.8–9). It then recognizes pastors who are constantly devoted to the ministry of the Word and prayer and commands the churches to support them properly (26.10).
Poh understands this distinction as confirming his distinction between teaching and ruling elders.
Yet the reference to pastors constantly devoted to the Word may naturally be understood as a profound and stable specialization within the one office of elder.
The Confession recognizes diversity of labor and financial support. It does not explicitly state that the pastor possesses governmental authority over his fellow elders or that one of several pastors must direct the rest.
The exegetical conclusion should remain within what the texts establish:
Poh’s arguments may demonstrate differences of gifts, labor, commitment, financial support, and recognition among elders. They do not by themselves establish a superior governmental office. And even if an additional office of minister were granted, they still would not explain why one of several ministers must be the leading elder.
The Appeal to Mystery
Poh anticipates that his system may appear difficult to categorize and warns that we must not reject a doctrine simply because it cannot be reduced to perfectly ordered categories. To illustrate his argument, he appeals to the Trinity and to Christ’s one mediatorial office, which includes his functions as Prophet, Priest, and King.
The warning contains an important truth. Biblical revelation is not limited by the categories of the creature. Some doctrines contain truths whose relationship exceeds our capacity for exhaustive understanding.
But not every tension may be protected by an appeal to mystery.
A legitimate Christian paradox requires both poles to be clearly established by Scripture, to belong to the same revealed reality, and to require and illuminate one another. Neither may undo what the other establishes.
God is absolutely one and tripersonal. Divine unity and divine tripersonality are both revealed and necessary to confess the living God. Neither eliminates the other; together they guard us from false conceptions of God.
Something similar is true of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. Both are revealed and integrated within the relationship between the sovereign Creator and his responsible creatures.
Applied to Poh’s proposal, we must ask:
What are the two revealed truths, and how do they require one another?
One affirmation would be that pastoral government belongs to the eldership, whose members participate with parity in the acts of rule.
The other would be that one of them possesses, by virtue of his position, the stable right to direct the body, even when others possess exactly the same offices.
These affirmations do not require one another. Unipersonal headship does not complete parity or explain its unity. It introduces an exception precisely into what was said to be shared.
Mystery may protect revealed truths whose relationship surpasses our understanding; it cannot turn coordination among equals and unipersonal headship into the same form of government.
The comparison with Christ’s mediatorial office does not resolve the problem either. His functions as Prophet, Priest, and King are inseparable aspects of the work of the one Mediator. They do not describe the authority of one officer over other officers.
When one man directs others who possess the same offices, however, we are dealing with a concrete governmental relationship that must be defined and justified.
How to Recognize the Difference in Practice
The distinction between prominent leadership and unipersonal headship cannot always be identified merely by observing the outward functioning of a church.
We must therefore ask more precise questions:
Does the lead pastor possess greater influence or a greater right to govern?
Do the other elders ordinarily follow his judgment because they trust him, or because his position places them under his direction?
Does his coordinating responsibility come from the body, or from a priority belonging inherently to his position?
May the body reconsider who moderates, coordinates, and presents proposals?
May the other elders correct the lead pastor without challenging a superior?
May the eldership act legitimately without his personal authorization?
When several pastors exist, does one merely receive a different assignment, or is he regarded as the governing assistant of the first?
The question is not who speaks first or who succeeds in persuading the others most often.
The question is who possesses, by virtue of his position, the right to direct whom.
Two Structures That Must Not Be Confused
We may now bring the whole argument together.
Prominent Leadership Within a True Plurality
One elder may preach more, work more, regularly moderate the meetings, formulate most proposals, possess greater experience, and exercise extraordinary influence.
He may be the church’s principal public representative and receive special recognition because of his gifts and labor.
But he does not thereby possess pastoral authority over his fellow elders. His leadership depends upon the prudential recognition of his equals, and his proposals must be examined by them before Christ.
Here there is inequality of gifts, functions, and influence, but equality of governmental right.
Unipersonal Pastoral Headship
The relationship changes when one man possesses, by virtue of his position, the stable right to direct the eldership.
The others may participate, vote, and correct him. The lead pastor may govern with gentleness and sincerely seek common consent.
But if his position grants him a directive power that the others do not share, he no longer merely occupies a different function within the body. He occupies a place over the body.
Here several elders exist, but government culminates in unipersonal headship.
The alternative is clear:
Either the priority of the leading pastor is functional precedence entrusted among equals, in which case parity remains, or it is a stable right of direction belonging to his position, in which case it establishes unipersonal headship.
The second structure may contain several elders and even several pastors. It does not, however, constitute another kind of plural government.
Conclusion: The Structure Must Match the Parity Affirmed
The doctrine of the priority of the ministry seeks to protect legitimate concerns. It seeks to preserve the centrality of the Word, recognize the value of the regular preacher, secure clear direction, respect the diversity of gifts, and prevent the eldership from functioning like a committee without initiative.
We share these concerns.
We also acknowledge that Poh expressly affirms the participation of the body, common suffrage, shared responsibility, and the need for the pastor to receive counsel and correction.
The difficulty lies neither in his intentions nor in an explicit rejection of parity. It lies in the relationship between the parity he affirms and the priority he prescribes.
One elder may have far greater influence in government. He may be wiser, more experienced, more visible, and more persuasive. He may ordinarily conduct the meetings and formulate almost every proposal.
What he cannot possess within a true plurality is a greater right to govern his brethren.
The case of several pastors makes this especially clear. If two men possess the same offices, yet one must direct the other, the difference does not arise from the eldership, the ministry, or the combination of both. It arises from a directive position granted to one man.
There is no third alternative.
If that position means only coordination entrusted by equals, it contains no governmental priority. If it contains the right to direct equals, it ceases to be mere coordination and establishes unipersonal headship.
The final question is therefore not how many elders appear on the organizational chart. Nor is it enough to ask whether all participate, vote, or perform some pastoral labor.
We must ask:
Do all the elders stand together under Christ, with different functions and different degrees of influence but without one possessing the right to govern the others, or does one man occupy, by virtue of his position, the headship of the body?
In the first case, we have a true plurality of elders.
In the second, we have several elders under unipersonal pastoral headship.
Plurality does not consist merely in multiplying titles. It consists in pastoral government being genuinely shared by several elders under the sole headship of Christ. Influence may be highly unequal; the right to govern one’s fellow elders may not be.
Note on references: References to Boon-Sing Poh correspond to the digital edition of The Keys of the Kingdom, published by Good News Enterprise in 2017. Citations identify the relevant section (§) and paragraph number. Quotations from Poh are reproduced in their original English wording.
Bibliographic Reference
Poh, B. S. (2017). The Keys of the Kingdom. Good News Enterprise.
