Why Independent Eldership?

A question that those who encounter my new book on church polity might be tempted to ask is what is meant by independent eldership, and why is this worth highlighting? Rather than being an irrelevant part of how I describe eldership, it’s important to see that the biblical case for independency is the ground on which other matters of church polity stand.

The Crucial Importance of Congregationalism

The basis for that claim is simple. New Testament churches existed even when they did not have elders to oversee them. Whilst we can see it was not the long-term plan, and we might argue it is not ultimately healthy to remain this way, it is nevertheless true that churches existed – and there was no question they were operating as legitimate churches – even though they had no elders (cf. Titus 1:5; Acts 14:21-23). Mike Gilbart-Smith points out:

Congregationalism is in fact more fundamental to the government of the local church than even the existence of elders in each church. Under the Holy Spirit the church is both competent to discern what a Christian is (through her understanding of the gospel) and who should be treated as a Christian (through the preservation and maintenance of a true doctrine and morality within the church). These responsibilities are given to the local church as a whole and may not be passed onto a smaller group within the church or those outside of the congregation. (emphasis original).¹⁰

The Biblical Depiction of Independence

The independence of the local church is clear in the New Testament. In Matthew 18:15-20 Jesus gives the responsibility of enacting church discipline to the local church. The steps for church discipline begin with one believer to another, then two or three as witnesses and, if the individual still does not repent, Matthew 18:17 says – clearest in the Tyndale Bible – ‘If he heare not them tell it vnto the congregacion’. The King James Bible, that used the majority of Tyndale’s translation, pointedly changed the word congregation to church in order to support external structures and maintain the position of the bishops and, most significantly, the King as supreme governor. King James I specifically commissioned his 1611 version in response to the perceived political problems with Tyndale’s translation and some awkward notes in the Geneva Bible translation. The KJV text is largely the same as Tyndale’s but for such political changes. Nevertheless, Tyndale’s earlier translation makes clear it is the congregation who are to be told, not an external bishop. It is clear that church discipline is to be handled within the church and not through external structures.

My book provides a more detailed survey of the Bible’s teaching on the independence of the local church, providing ample evidence for the fact that throughout the New Testament, we see self-governing, local churches responsible for their own affairs and answerable ultimately to Jesus. They handled matters of administration, church discipline, ministry, and evangelism themselves. The letters of the New Testament are written to local churches who were expected to organise themselves and respond to Apostolic instruction as a congregation. The only external authority we see is that of the Apostles.