Because our bylaws do not define a specific procedure for discussions like these, Pastor Steve encouraged a three-step, intentional process:

• Investigation: is elder-led congregationalism biblical
  • Book study with key deacons: Why Elders? by Benjamin Merkle
  • Church-wide sermon series through 1 Timothy
  • Explain and encourage church members to book study
• Implications: what might an elder-led model look like for FBC Barstow?
  • Leadership meeting: Biblical & Practical Questions
  • Introduce other resources
• Implementation: how are we going to do this?
  • Propose bylaw and constitution revision team
  • Revised bylaw and constitution discussion & vote
  • Train current deacons and elders
  • Pray and seek new deacons and elders

We have taken several steps in this process thus far:

• Book study with key deacons (Rob Bolton, Kenny Devries, Wade Harris) (Winter 2024-2025)
• Church-wide sermon series on 1 Timothy (February-June)
• Explanation and book suggestions to church members (March 30th business meeting)
• Leadership meeting with discussion (October 12th)
• Information packets available to the church (October-November)

Currently, we are in the “introduce other resources” phase, and we are prayerfully moving forward to implementation beginning in December, 2025.

The previous information packets (available in the church lobby) gave three reasons for having this discussion: (1) our church is committed to the Bible, and we should discuss changes if they are biblical; (2) our culture is changing, and we should respond to discouraging trends of sin that require additional accountability; and (3) our church is growing, both numerically and in leadership, and now is a great time to take this opportunity and refine our leadership structure.

Furthermore, the previous packet explained that we are encouraging a move to elder-led congregationalism because it is (1) biblical as the clearest and most prominent example provided in the New Testament is of a plurality of elders leading local congregations; (2) helpful as it provides help for our pastors and staff in various giftings of leadership; (3) healthy as it provides accountability for pastors, especially the “Senior Pastor”; and (4) practical as it provides clarification on the roles of both pastors (leading through teaching and shepherding) and deacons (leading through serving).

Alongside these reasons, there are a few statements that can be made:

First, this change does not intend to imply that FBC has been wrong in the past. We have been blessed as a church with pastors and deacons throughout our history, and we pray that this will continue! In fact, it may be stated that FBC Barstow has always had elders (even though we haven’t called them that). For 80 years, God has used godly men to shepherd our church through times of prosperity as well as times of difficulty. We have been blessed by mature, Christlike pastors who aren’t hungry for power and welcomed accountability. In some ways, this change isn’t really a change at all but, rather, formalizing what we have practiced informally for many decades. This may lead you to ask, “Then why do this?” The purpose behind changing our formal leadership structure is to (1) add clarity and (2) ensure that we continue this course.

Second, although our church has been healthy for much of its history, there will always be a need to grow until Christ returns. FBC Barstow isn’t perfect, and there have been both times of growth as well as times of difficulty in our history, and we do not believe elder-led congregationalism will make us perfect, either. However, we believe an elder-led congregational model of government will be more (1) biblical, (2) helpful, (3) healthy, and (4) practical for us as a local church. What we have done in our history is great, and we believe this change will lead us to be even greater in the future. While past experience info​rms, it does not dictate the present and future.

Third, there have been questions over the last several years about the leadership structure of our church: What is the role of deacons? Are “associate pastors” all on the same level of authority or is there a hierarchy? What are the qualifications for ministry leaders, deacons, and pastors? What are the roles of extra-biblical groups such as the church council and trustees? These changes will provide needed clarity for these questions and several others.

While the majority of Southern Baptist churches over the last 100 years have not had an elder-led system of government, this does not mean elders are foreign to our history.

• Our statement of faith, the Baptist Faith and Message, allows for churches to have elders as it states that the “Two scriptural offices are that of pastor/elder/overseer and deacon,” allowing for the language of elders (“Article VI.” 2023 amendment to the BFM 2000).
• This language was also included in the first edition of the Baptist Faith and Message in 1925: “Its Scriptural officers are bishops, or elders, and deacons.”
• The Abstract of Principles (1858), the statement still used by the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary as a guideline for its professors, states “The regular officers of a Church are Bishops or Elders, and Deacons.”
• The first president of the Southern Baptist Convention, William B. Johnson (1782-1862), encouraged churches to follow the practice of a plurality of elders in his book, “The Gospel Developed through the Government and Order of the Churches of Jesus Christ” (1846).

This practice was apparent in churches prior to 1900 but fell out of practice in the 20th century for various reasons, including a lack of qualified individuals to be elders and the popularity of charismatic solo-pastors.

Furthermore, Baptists have supported an elder-led congregational government before the Southern Baptist Convention existed.

• The London Baptist Confession (1644) and the Philadelphia Confession (1688) both uphold the office as biblical. 
• Among others, prominent English Baptist Charles H. Spurgeon followed this practice and encouraged others to as well. He states, “When I came to New Park Street, the church had deacons, but no elders; and I thought, from my study of the New Testament, that there should be both orders of officers. They are very useful when we can get them, – the deacons to attend to all secular matters, and the elders to devote themselves to the spiritual part of the work; this division of labour supplies an outlet for two different sorts of talent, and allows two kinds of men to be serviceable to the church; and I am sure it is good to have two sets of brethren as officers, instead of one set who have to do everything, and who often become masters of the church, instead of servants, as both deacons and elders should be.” (Spurgeon, Autobiography 3:22)

Reflecting on the historical evidence, John Piper concludes, “The least we can say from this historical survey of Baptist Confessions is that it is false to say that the eldership is unbaptistic. On the contrary, the eldership is more baptistic than its absence, and its disappearance is a modern phenomenon that parallels other developments in doctrine that make its disappearance questionable at best.” (John Piper, Biblical Eldership: Shepherding the Flock of God Among You, Appendix 1)

You can read more on this in the article by Phil Newton provided in the church lobby.

No, it does not. Our church remains a proud member of the Southern Baptist Convention, and, as the previous answer states, the SBC welcomes elder-led churches. We also are not interested in changing our name from what it has been for many years.

No, it does not. As Baptists, we believe the “congregationalism” part of “elder-led congregationalism” is vital, as the congregation maintains the final voice in all matters of church membership, discipline, budget, constitution & bylaws, church property, and church officers.

Practically, business meetings at First Baptist would look exactly the same under the elder-led model, and no current authority of the congregation will change. The congregation will have the final vote on elders and deacons, just as they do currently.

The elders will have authority currently given to the senior pastor and church council. The primary change in this new governance structure will include adding more voices and giftings to decision-making, not less.

Some argue against this model as not “practical” for church growth and ministry, as more people will be involved in decision-making and there is less “freedom” for the senior pastor to lead. However, this does not have to be the case. As explained in the previous packet, we believe this model is more practical as it clarifies roles and encourages men to rise up to biblical qualifications.

Historically, others have adopted the elder-led model and their churches grew tremendously through ministry and evangelism, such as the previously-mentioned Charles Spurgeon.

Furthermore, the biblical example of church governance encouraged ministry and evangelism rather than hindered it as the church continued to grow. For example, this model was put into practice in Acts 6:1-6 with the separation of “servants” (i.e. deacons) and “teachers” according to tasks, and the “word of God spread, the disciples in Jerusalem increased greatly in number, and a large group of priests became obedient to the faith” (Acts 6:7).

Yes, some Southern Baptist leaders, such as seminary presidents Paige Patterson and Daniel Akin, have argued for a “single pastor with board of deacons” model for church government where a senior pastor leads alongside the deacons and only adds other pastors when necessary.

There are a few primary arguments these scholars bring up:

• First, a plurality of elders is not commanded in the Bible. This is true. However, this does not mean it isn’t the wise approach (see Question 8 below).
• Second, there are examples of “solo” leaders in the Bible such as Moses, David, and Paul. However, a couple of responses can be given to this point. First, Moses’s father-in-law saw the “solo leader” model as unhelpful and dangerous, and he encouraged Moses to establish other leaders to help avoid burnout (Ex 18:15-23). This is closer to an elder-led approach than a solo pastor approach. Second, none of these were pastors in the New Testament church, and we should first look to evidence in the churches for models of church governance. The abundance of evidence in the New Testament points to a plurality of elders in every congregation.
• Third, some churches do not have enough qualified men to have both deacons and elders. This might be true and might force churches to have solo pastors at times. However, this does not mean we shouldn’t strive for plural elders and deacons if we can.
• Fourth, this model may limit the influence and leadership of the senior pastor. These scholars point to the importance of a singular voice in preaching and vision for the church. However, the elder-led model does not necessarily negate the role of a senior pastor, especially to handle the primary preaching and administrative duties of the church. We have suggested a model with both a plurality of elders and a senior pastor.

You can read more in the handouts from Sojourners and Strangers by Gregg Allison provided in the church lobby.

No, the Bible does not command local churches to have multiple elders. However, this does not mean we shouldn’t strive to follow the biblical example as “best practice.” The Bible also doesn’t require us to vote on church matters, have a statement of faith, baptize by immersion, or pay our pastors, but we do so because of biblical examples that we believe are helpful, healthy, and practical. We believe elder-led congregationalism is similar: the Bible does establish the example of the early church, and we believe there is wisdom in following the biblical example, even if it is not commanded.