What do you think?
Rate this book
Counterpoints
Who Runs the Church?: 4 Views on Church Government
Churches have split and denominations have formed over the issue of church government. Yet while many Christians can explain their particular church's form of rule and may staunchly uphold it, few have a truly biblical understanding of it. What model for governing the church does the Bible provide? Is there room for different methods? Or is just one way the right way?In Who Runs the Church? Four predominant approaches to church government are presented by respected proponents: * Episcopalianism (Peter Toon)* Presbyterianism (L. Roy Taylor)* Single-Elder Congregationalism (Paige Patterson)* Plural-Elder Congregationalism (Samuel E. Waldron). As in other Counterpoints books, each view is followed by critiques from the other contributors, and its advocate then responds. The interactive and fair-minded nature of the Counterpoints format allows the reader to consider the strengths and weaknesses of each view and draw informed, personal conclusions.
320 pages, Paperback
First published September 1, 2004
62 people are currently reading
267 people want to read
About the author
Steven B. Cowan
59 books17 followersSteven B. Cowan (M.Div.; Ph.D.) is the Jim Young Professor of Religion and Associate Professor of Christian Studies at Louisiana College in Pineville, La.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews
April 11, 2025
Im biased, I think the Congregationalist was the weakest, followed by plural elder independent, then Presbyterian, and lastly, the strongest case is Anglicanism. But again. I’m biased and Presbyterian and Anglican are all interpreting the same passages differently. Anglicans just have the historical tradition, an understanding of James as bishop in acts 15, that strengthens their case for me.
January 13, 2024
To summarize candidly:
Toon is rhetorically gifted. On many accounts, his persuasive ability was impressive, to say the least. I also deeply admire his reverence for Church History and the *visible* unity of the Church. His fatal flaw, in my view, is also his greatest strength. He stretches so far in asserting the importance of Tradition that I struggle to understand what keeps him from the Roman Road. His Anglican convictions seem, on the basis of his critiques, arbitrary to me. Though, his critiques of the others do still hold water in many cases.
Taylor reads somewhat dry, yet seemed most balanced in his spirit and purpose. He didn’t try to do too much, and in the end, I thought his closing remarks were where he read most clear and persuasive. I would argue his epistemic humility may have been what made him most convincing, even while I think he showed a great mixture of adherence to tradition and faithful exegesis with consideration for cultural development. (I’m a convinced Presbyterian, make of that why you will.)
Patterson was the least impressive, both in rhetorical ability and in what seemed to be an incapacity to effectively understand and engage the arguments of the other three interlocutors. This frustrated me, as misrepresentation and re-directing seemed to overwhelm nearly all of his writing.
Waldron was, without question, the most thorough, frequently taking up considerably more space to both make his case and respond to others. On the one hand, I think his efforts clearly display his allegiance to and reverence for the Word of God. This is worth a strong commendation. On the other hand, I think this approach of Waldron’s clearly demonstrated the validity of Toon’s critique in particular (along with Taylor in another sense), which is that asserting a *plain* reading of the text as authoritative, in the face of so much difference amongst convinced Christians, is an issue that demands far more hermeneutical humility than Waldron displays. He asserted, vociferously, far more than was “plain.” An A for effort, nonetheless.
What was danced around by all, but never deeply pondered, is the role culture/context *ought to* play in how we understand what is normative for Church Government. Toon blamed Presbyterian/Baptist plausibility on modern democracy and individualism. The other three essentially allowed for episcopacy as an understandable development in the pre-modern world. Even the context of the OT/NT were heavily engaged and useful in exegetical explanation! But none ever seemed to consider what the Lord may have designed as it pertains to cultural/contextual adaptation. Meaning, what if there *are* biblically grounded principles and examples *and* the development of Church Government has not only followed historical/sociological plausibility structures, but may have been *designed* to do so? What if unity-in-diversity is the design, *even when it comes to Church government!* But I digress.
This book is a helpful survey. Definitely take a look!
Toon is rhetorically gifted. On many accounts, his persuasive ability was impressive, to say the least. I also deeply admire his reverence for Church History and the *visible* unity of the Church. His fatal flaw, in my view, is also his greatest strength. He stretches so far in asserting the importance of Tradition that I struggle to understand what keeps him from the Roman Road. His Anglican convictions seem, on the basis of his critiques, arbitrary to me. Though, his critiques of the others do still hold water in many cases.
Taylor reads somewhat dry, yet seemed most balanced in his spirit and purpose. He didn’t try to do too much, and in the end, I thought his closing remarks were where he read most clear and persuasive. I would argue his epistemic humility may have been what made him most convincing, even while I think he showed a great mixture of adherence to tradition and faithful exegesis with consideration for cultural development. (I’m a convinced Presbyterian, make of that why you will.)
Patterson was the least impressive, both in rhetorical ability and in what seemed to be an incapacity to effectively understand and engage the arguments of the other three interlocutors. This frustrated me, as misrepresentation and re-directing seemed to overwhelm nearly all of his writing.
Waldron was, without question, the most thorough, frequently taking up considerably more space to both make his case and respond to others. On the one hand, I think his efforts clearly display his allegiance to and reverence for the Word of God. This is worth a strong commendation. On the other hand, I think this approach of Waldron’s clearly demonstrated the validity of Toon’s critique in particular (along with Taylor in another sense), which is that asserting a *plain* reading of the text as authoritative, in the face of so much difference amongst convinced Christians, is an issue that demands far more hermeneutical humility than Waldron displays. He asserted, vociferously, far more than was “plain.” An A for effort, nonetheless.
What was danced around by all, but never deeply pondered, is the role culture/context *ought to* play in how we understand what is normative for Church Government. Toon blamed Presbyterian/Baptist plausibility on modern democracy and individualism. The other three essentially allowed for episcopacy as an understandable development in the pre-modern world. Even the context of the OT/NT were heavily engaged and useful in exegetical explanation! But none ever seemed to consider what the Lord may have designed as it pertains to cultural/contextual adaptation. Meaning, what if there *are* biblically grounded principles and examples *and* the development of Church Government has not only followed historical/sociological plausibility structures, but may have been *designed* to do so? What if unity-in-diversity is the design, *even when it comes to Church government!* But I digress.
This book is a helpful survey. Definitely take a look!
May 8, 2019
I've had this on my list to read for ages, and as I continue to refine my thinking on what form of church polity is most biblical, this was a helpful read. One I will likely revisit time and again.
The contributors to this counterpoints volume all made various good points, and I learned from each of them, even those I ultimate disagree with in their conclusions. It sharpened my thinking and pointed out some areas where "my side" is in error. The arguments were clear and well done from each perspective.
A note about one contributor. Paige Patterson has had a recent and public fall from grace, so I was worried that might color my reading of his perspectives here. The recentness of his fall and if and when we read disgraced theologians is a topic for another day, but while I admit, I found his "voice" at times more argumentative than the others, his arguments were mostly sound, and it's still worth wrestling through.
See also, podcast from The Gospel Coalition -- Church Polity is Your Friend episode for a similar three-person panel discussion on various forms of church polity.
The contributors to this counterpoints volume all made various good points, and I learned from each of them, even those I ultimate disagree with in their conclusions. It sharpened my thinking and pointed out some areas where "my side" is in error. The arguments were clear and well done from each perspective.
A note about one contributor. Paige Patterson has had a recent and public fall from grace, so I was worried that might color my reading of his perspectives here. The recentness of his fall and if and when we read disgraced theologians is a topic for another day, but while I admit, I found his "voice" at times more argumentative than the others, his arguments were mostly sound, and it's still worth wrestling through.
See also, podcast from The Gospel Coalition -- Church Polity is Your Friend episode for a similar three-person panel discussion on various forms of church polity.
August 17, 2020
This book delivers exactly what it promises - four different views on church government, explained and defended by representatives of each view. While each view is well explained, it’s dry reading. Likewise, when each author defends their position from the criticisms of the other authors, the most common refrain seems to be, “If so and so had actually understood my position, then...” As a result, it gets repetitive.
Bottom line, if you want a book outlining the main Protestant views of church government, this is a great resource, just don’t expect it to be riveting.
Bottom line, if you want a book outlining the main Protestant views of church government, this is a great resource, just don’t expect it to be riveting.
August 18, 2022
This iteration of the Counterpoints series covers four views on church government: episcopalianism (bishop rule, Anglican), presbyterianism (PCA), single-elder congregationalism (SBC), and plural-elder congregationalism (1689). The discussion and debate was insightful to the key issues and theological foundations of each position. I may be biased, but I believe Dr. Waldron provided the best case in favor of plural-elder congregationalism.
July 27, 2023
A helpful framework for and against church leadership paradigms: Episcopalian/Anglican bishopric, Presbyterian (teaching and ruling elders), single-elder led congregationalism, and plural-elder led congregationalism. Although I liked elements of each and was also annoyed by each, I ended up agreeing most with Samuel Waldron's argument for plural elder led congregationalism.
The historic debate around the emergence of the bishopric was an interesting piece of this book as well. Ultimately though, there wasn't one way that was outstandingly "right" and a number of the disagreements felt like unnecessary bone picking.
The historic debate around the emergence of the bishopric was an interesting piece of this book as well. Ultimately though, there wasn't one way that was outstandingly "right" and a number of the disagreements felt like unnecessary bone picking.
January 8, 2025
This is good, but PERSPECTIVES ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT is a bit better as it keeps a narrower focus and tends to develop arguments in a straightforward manner of presenting verses in context and then arguing for a specific synthesis. This book relies much more on systematic theologies developed before one comes to the book and requires more familiarity with reformed tradition(s). That said, the detail and specificity of the views presented here will be helpful and the two books work well together.
May 13, 2021
I really enjoyed the structure of this book. Overall, I think it’s a necessary read for every Christian. The only change that could be made would to be include a pastor to defend the CEO model of ecclesiology. I’m only half kidding.
November 2, 2025
This is a great introduction and comparison of the major views regarding church government.
After reading 300+ pages of debate, I have decided to become even more Presbyterian
After reading 300+ pages of debate, I have decided to become even more Presbyterian
August 27, 2017
In one sense this book accomplishes its goal and convinces the reader that the canonical scriptures cannot adjudicate what is the "correct" form of church government. On the other, one has to laugh at the two (Southern?) Baptists at the end who insist that the New Testament is perfectly clear on the issue and disagree on whether churches should be run by a plurality of elders or a primary elder! I wouldn't turn to this book as a first entry into the topic of church government.
October 1, 2022
Such a helpful book! I came out different than I went in.
The book presents 4 different views of church government written by 4 different authors. After each explanation, the other 3 authors critique that position.
The 4 views covered include:
1 - Episcopalian (hierarchical) by Peter Toon
2 - Presbyterian by Roy Taylor
3 - Primary Elder Congregationalism by Paige Patterson
4 - Plurality of Elders Congregationalism by Sam Waldron
Having grown up in a Baptist context, I really appreciated hearing arguments for other forms of church government. Unfortunately, even after lengthy explanations and replies and final statements, the authors don’t agree on which is the right view. All 4 of the views have good support, but if I had to list them in order of how compelling the arguments were, here’s how I would rank them:
4 (least compelling) - Primary Elder Congregationalism
3 - Episcopalian
2 - Pluralist of Elders Congregationalism
1 (the winner 👏🏼) - Presbyterianism
I want to point out a few key things about the Presbyterian section: both Taylor (presb) and Waldron (Baptist) agree that multiple elder rule is the best and most biblical position and their arguments for it were pretty solid; one of the points that Taylor made that I most appreciated is that local churches ought to be “interdependent” not “independent” which is what separates him from Baptists in ecclesiology; although he had much strong biblical support, my biggest disagreement with Taylor is with how he uses the OT to support his NT ecclesiology. I think strict Covenant Theology has too much continuation between how Israel functions and how the church ought to function.
The book presents 4 different views of church government written by 4 different authors. After each explanation, the other 3 authors critique that position.
The 4 views covered include:
1 - Episcopalian (hierarchical) by Peter Toon
2 - Presbyterian by Roy Taylor
3 - Primary Elder Congregationalism by Paige Patterson
4 - Plurality of Elders Congregationalism by Sam Waldron
Having grown up in a Baptist context, I really appreciated hearing arguments for other forms of church government. Unfortunately, even after lengthy explanations and replies and final statements, the authors don’t agree on which is the right view. All 4 of the views have good support, but if I had to list them in order of how compelling the arguments were, here’s how I would rank them:
4 (least compelling) - Primary Elder Congregationalism
3 - Episcopalian
2 - Pluralist of Elders Congregationalism
1 (the winner 👏🏼) - Presbyterianism
I want to point out a few key things about the Presbyterian section: both Taylor (presb) and Waldron (Baptist) agree that multiple elder rule is the best and most biblical position and their arguments for it were pretty solid; one of the points that Taylor made that I most appreciated is that local churches ought to be “interdependent” not “independent” which is what separates him from Baptists in ecclesiology; although he had much strong biblical support, my biggest disagreement with Taylor is with how he uses the OT to support his NT ecclesiology. I think strict Covenant Theology has too much continuation between how Israel functions and how the church ought to function.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 14, 2021
This book presents four viewpoints on how the church should be governed: Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Single Elder Congregational, and Multi-Elder Congregational. Four authors present their viewpoints with the other three providing responses. Then, each author receives space for a final response. If one does not see the way that his/her church is governed from these options, it can likely be seen in one of the explanations.
The book is balanced, and it provides good opportunity for readers to consider the four major viewpoints on church government. We used it for a seminar that we ran at the church. It is a good place to begin discussions.
The book is balanced, and it provides good opportunity for readers to consider the four major viewpoints on church government. We used it for a seminar that we ran at the church. It is a good place to begin discussions.
November 17, 2019
This book was helpful in my going from zero knowledge to a little knowledge about the different types of church government. It would be helpful to have a sheet of paper stating the authors' names with their respective views, especially when they engage one another in the response sections. I did not give it 5 stars because many times the authors misunderstood each other's positions and were attacking strawmen arguments. I would definitely welcome a more heavy editing hand to remove all these misguided engagements that would confuse many first time readers (to the topic).
February 10, 2018
Very thorough and and thoughtful book. It's always amazing to me how such well educated and brilliant men can come to such different conclusion. It's why I love books like this. They give me a good introduction into why each camp holds the view that they do, and a reminder to hold my own with a humble and teachable attitude.
June 6, 2020
Eh. Overall the arguments are fair representations but none are made as convincingly as I might have hoped. I appreciate the graciousness shown between authors for the most part though the Episcopal spokesman seems to have a chip on his shoulder. Not an exhaustive breakdown but helpful if you’re looking to examine the major church polities.
December 24, 2020
I honestly didn't think any of the arguments were super convincing. Not sure any of the contributors clearly demonstrated from scripture why scripture demands a particular form of church government.
September 28, 2021
Excellent representation of 21st century arguments for four dominant positions of church government.
January 7, 2024
It was decent. I’m biased, but Taylor had the best arguments, though there were others made by the other authors that were helpful, though rather deficient in my view.
March 23, 2024
Partially read! My review is only for the chapter I read by Sam Waldron and his view (plural-Elder congregationalism)!
October 5, 2024
Overall helpful in defining these positions. Most of the contributors do a good job but Patterson’s contributions are borderline embarrassing. I think I’m a Presbyterian!
April 15, 2016
This book is a collection of essays and responses that articulate four views of church government: Episcopalian, Presbyterianism, single-elder congregationalism, and plural-elder congregationalism.
If one believes the blueprint of church government should be OT + NT + First five centuries of (selective) church history, then Episcopalian is the way to go.
If one's creed is Sola Scriptura, but maintains that the blueprint is discovered in a syncretism of both Old and New Testament government (i.e. Israel=the Church) then Presbyterianism is a better option.
If one's creedal positions are confined to Sola Scripture, and furthermore, if that person believes the church to be strictly a New Testament institution, then congregationalism is the only valid option.
Since I am a Baptist in ecclesiology, I am also a committed congregationalist in polity. Thus, the first two perspectives have no appeal to me. The real issue I was interested in was the dialogue on the two kinds of congregationalism. Congregationalism implies two things, democracy and independence. The church membership has the final say, although they elect elder/pastors that lead them (democracy) and the church has no outside earthly authority (independence).
Paige Patterson defends the single-elder view, and Samuel Waldron defends the plural-elder view. The arguments they put forth and interactions they share were for me (a Baptist) the best part of the book. Waldron is more on the offensive here, submitting that it is necessary for a church to have a plurality of elder/pastors, and that those pastors must be equals. Patterson is on the defensive. He does not argue that the New Testament issues a command against having a plurality. But nor does it issue that command. And if a church were to elect a plurality, there is no Scripture that demands they must be equal in rank or influence. Patterson also points to the fact that evangelical leaders who defend the plural method (e.g. Dever, MacArthur) lead churches that unquestionably have de facto leadership from one individual.
To summarize the differences between Waldron and Patterson, Waldron maintains that both plurality and parity (equality) are mandated and therefore necessary to the well-being of the church. Patterson says that while it is not, by NT standards, sinful or wrong to have a plurality, it is not commanded, and therefore unnecessary, and argues further that single-elder is more practical, and at the very least, primary-elder is necessary.
I enjoyed this discussion and would like to find a book on this issue that only debates the single/plural perspectives of NT congregationalism.
If one believes the blueprint of church government should be OT + NT + First five centuries of (selective) church history, then Episcopalian is the way to go.
If one's creed is Sola Scriptura, but maintains that the blueprint is discovered in a syncretism of both Old and New Testament government (i.e. Israel=the Church) then Presbyterianism is a better option.
If one's creedal positions are confined to Sola Scripture, and furthermore, if that person believes the church to be strictly a New Testament institution, then congregationalism is the only valid option.
Since I am a Baptist in ecclesiology, I am also a committed congregationalist in polity. Thus, the first two perspectives have no appeal to me. The real issue I was interested in was the dialogue on the two kinds of congregationalism. Congregationalism implies two things, democracy and independence. The church membership has the final say, although they elect elder/pastors that lead them (democracy) and the church has no outside earthly authority (independence).
Paige Patterson defends the single-elder view, and Samuel Waldron defends the plural-elder view. The arguments they put forth and interactions they share were for me (a Baptist) the best part of the book. Waldron is more on the offensive here, submitting that it is necessary for a church to have a plurality of elder/pastors, and that those pastors must be equals. Patterson is on the defensive. He does not argue that the New Testament issues a command against having a plurality. But nor does it issue that command. And if a church were to elect a plurality, there is no Scripture that demands they must be equal in rank or influence. Patterson also points to the fact that evangelical leaders who defend the plural method (e.g. Dever, MacArthur) lead churches that unquestionably have de facto leadership from one individual.
To summarize the differences between Waldron and Patterson, Waldron maintains that both plurality and parity (equality) are mandated and therefore necessary to the well-being of the church. Patterson says that while it is not, by NT standards, sinful or wrong to have a plurality, it is not commanded, and therefore unnecessary, and argues further that single-elder is more practical, and at the very least, primary-elder is necessary.
I enjoyed this discussion and would like to find a book on this issue that only debates the single/plural perspectives of NT congregationalism.
Read
January 9, 2017Why is your church structured the way it is? Have you ever given serious thought and study to what the Bible and church history have to say about it? If the church is the bride of Christ, which he paid for with his own blood, why do so many think that merely the habits of our forbears or our personal preferences should carry the day in church government?
Thankfully, Cowan (editor) has provided us with a great primer for the subject. With episcopal (bishop hierarchy), presbyterian (close & binding associations of local congregations), and congregational (independent) methods explained and cross-examined, this is a great place to start to learn and wrestle with the subject. Additionally, the proponents of congregationalism provide both a single-elder and a plural-elder leadership model to compare. Each author is gracious, principles, and committed to their view as the one that is essential to the health of the church.
My thoughts? I think Toon has it right:
"Might I suggest that a person already has something in mind when he goes searching the books of the New Testament - and that something has some part in what he finds and then defends. So often the claim of sola Scriptura is in reality this: the Bible as interpreted by me, or by my group, or by a small part of the church during one specific period in history and in a certain cultural context, or by this or that school of thought. Let us not misunderstand - the Bible is and must be the full and final authority for the church of God. However, not only is the Bible written in languages that few of us know, but we read and interpret it in given contexts with our own particular mind-sets shaped by all kinds of forces."
Thankfully, Cowan (editor) has provided us with a great primer for the subject. With episcopal (bishop hierarchy), presbyterian (close & binding associations of local congregations), and congregational (independent) methods explained and cross-examined, this is a great place to start to learn and wrestle with the subject. Additionally, the proponents of congregationalism provide both a single-elder and a plural-elder leadership model to compare. Each author is gracious, principles, and committed to their view as the one that is essential to the health of the church.
My thoughts? I think Toon has it right:
"Might I suggest that a person already has something in mind when he goes searching the books of the New Testament - and that something has some part in what he finds and then defends. So often the claim of sola Scriptura is in reality this: the Bible as interpreted by me, or by my group, or by a small part of the church during one specific period in history and in a certain cultural context, or by this or that school of thought. Let us not misunderstand - the Bible is and must be the full and final authority for the church of God. However, not only is the Bible written in languages that few of us know, but we read and interpret it in given contexts with our own particular mind-sets shaped by all kinds of forces."
September 8, 2011
Very helpful on a topic I knew very little about. The bottom line, in my mind, is this: if you believe in the authority of church history on parity with scripture, episcopalianism; if you believe the NT church is a continuation of the OT nation of Israel, presbyterianism; and otherwise, congregationalism. Those who know me will know where I land on that ;-) (Incidentally, the book has two types of congregationalism, and the distinction between those wasn't as clear cut in my mind.)
September 29, 2012
A great introduction to the 3/4 most common forms of church government. Each contributer gives a fair and detailed presentation of their view and the subsequent rebuttals are helpful for thinking each one through critically. Worth reading from cover to cover to gain a fuller understanding of each polity and its implications for the local church. I was probably most impressed by Waldron's arguments for Plural-Elder Congregationalism and Taylor's case for Presbyterianism.
September 27, 2012
A very helpful discussion between various scholars from different church traditions. I would have rated this higher if the Episcopalian view was better defended. I was not a big fan of that author and thought he could have made a better case for his position.
April 25, 2013
Great overview of the major positions on church polity. The book is written like a debate. Each author presents their argument, then the other authors offer rebuttals. They each give a closing statement at the end. I love the format!
Looking forward to reading more Zondervan Counterpoint books.
Looking forward to reading more Zondervan Counterpoint books.
December 20, 2011
A thorough look at four prevalent views of polity in evangelicalism. Each contributor brings scholarship, logic, exegesis, and conviction to the table.
October 15, 2012
zzzzzzzzzzzzz...
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews