The Moses model of church leadership refers to a structure of governance in which there is a singular, authoritative leader at the top who delegates responsibilities to others. This model gets its name from Moses, who led the Israelites out of Egypt as recorded in the Old Testament books of Exodus through Deuteronomy.
Moses occupied a unique position of authority as God’s appointed leader of Israel. God spoke directly to Moses and entrusted him to communicate His words and instructions to the people (Exodus 19:3-9). Moses had an intimate, direct connection with God that sets him apart from all other prophets in the Old Testament (Numbers 12:6-8).
As the leader of Israel, Moses had tremendous responsibilities. He settled disputes among the people and judged matters of law (Exodus 18:13-16). He oversaw administration and logistics for a community of over a million people as they wandered in the wilderness (Exodus 18:21-22). He interceded and prayed for the people when they sinned against God (Exodus 32:11-14, 30-34).
But Moses also wisely delegated authority to others. On the counsel of his father-in-law Jethro, Moses appointed leaders over thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens to help judge the people and maintain order (Exodus 18:17-26). He commissioned Joshua to lead the Israelite army in battle against the Amalekites (Exodus 17:8-13). Moses shared the Spirit that was on him with 70 elders to help shoulder the burden of leading Israel (Numbers 11:16-17, 24-25).
So in summary, key aspects of the Moses model of leadership include:
- A clearly established, single leader with ultimate authority.
- The leader has a special connection with and revelation from God.
- The leader communicates God’s words to the people as a prophet.
- The leader makes important decisions on behalf of the entire community.
- The leader delegates responsibility to trustworthy officials under his charge.
Examples of the Moses Model in the Early Church
The Moses model can be seen in the leadership structures of the early church. The 12 apostles, and Peter in particular, emerged as the top leaders of the first Christian community in Jerusalem (Acts 1:15-26, 2:14, 37-42). Peter and the other apostles had spent three years under Jesus’ direct teaching and were eyewitnesses to His ministry, death, and resurrection. After Jesus’ ascension, they continued to receive revelation from the Holy Spirit to guide the church (Acts 15:28). As the apostles preached the gospel after Pentecost, the church expanded rapidly, so they appointed deacons to help minister to people’s practical needs (Acts 6:1-7).
Later, James appears to have become the primary leader of the Jerusalem church (Acts 12:17, 15:13, 21:18). He spoke with authority at the Jerusalem Council recorded in Acts 15. While the entire apostolic group and elders deliberated together, James delivered the final verdict on the matter. Throughout the New Testament era, apostles continued to be recognized as the highest level of leadership, passing on their teachings to each new generation of Christians. They appointed elders/overseers to shepherd local congregations under their oversight (Acts 14:23, 20:17, 28; 1 Peter 5:1-2).
The Moses model was not perfect, however. Moses faced complaints and rebellions from among the Israelites. Likewise, murmuring arose even among the first Christians in Jerusalem when Greek-speaking widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food (Acts 6:1). No human leader since Moses has matched his level of intimacy with God or flawless exercise of authority. All church leaders are flawed sinners in need of God’s grace. So while Moses provides a pattern for single-leader authority and delegation, his model alone is insufficient. The New Testament contains other examples and instructions that balance singular leadership with plural leadership by elders.
Plurality of Elders in the New Testament
While the Moses model operated in the first churches, leadership by a plurality of elders emerged as the predominant model across New Testament churches. For example, Paul appointed elders (plural) in each church he founded (Acts 14:23). The Jerusalem church had elders who assisted the apostles with leadership roles (Acts 15:2, 15:4, 15:6, 15:22-23). Paul instructed both the Ephesian and Cretan churches regarding the qualifications and responsibilities of elders (1 Timothy 3:1-7, 5:17-20; Titus 1:5-9). And Peter exhorted the elders (plural) among his readers to dutifully shepherd their congregations (1 Peter 5:1-5).
According to 1 Timothy 5:17, these elders “ruled” and “directed the affairs” of their churches. Yet they did this as a collective group guided by the Holy Spirit, not as singular autocrats. For example, Acts 15 records a deliberative decision-making process among the apostles and elders in Jerusalem concerning whether Gentile believers needed to be circumcised. After much discussion, Peter, Paul, Barnabas, James, and the other elders reached a united consensus directed by the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:25, 28).
Thus, churches led by multiple elders balance authority between single leaders and shared leadership. Having multiple elders allows churches to benefit from a diversity of spiritual gifts and wisdom applied to decisions, while still retaining clear lines of authority and accountability. The elders can humbly submit to one another and cooperatively guide the church through the Spirit’s leading.
Moses and Plurality in Church History
Throughout church history, church governance has swung between the Moses model of singular leadership and leadership by a plurality of elders. In the first few centuries A.D., regional bishops emerged who oversaw churches in important cities. Early church fathers such as Ignatius and Irenaeus wrote about obedience to individual bishops who succeeded the apostles. The Roman Catholic Church later elevated these bishops into a hierarchical system of clergy. Local churches were shepherded by a single priest, subject to district bishops and archbishops, with the Pope as the supreme church authority centered in Rome.
Many Protestant reformers pushed back against hierarchical church authority and advocated for leadership by multiple elders/presbyters in each local congregation. John Calvin was a notable proponent of the presbyterian model where elders govern together. He argued the word “bishop” in the New Testament is synonymous with “elder” or “pastor”, not a higher office. Presbyterian and Reformed churches continue to be governed by sessions and ministerial bodies rather than single pastors.
Yet other Protestant traditions such as Methodists and Baptists adopted more of a Moses model, with power concentrated in a single pastor per church. Non-denominational churches today also commonly center around a senior pastor. However, most large churches balance the senior pastor’s role with a group of associate pastors and lay elder boards.
In recent decades, some churches have experimented with newer leadership models. “Team-based” ministry shares leadership across a group of pastors who lead collectively. Many cell-based churches meet in small groups led by unpaid leaders, with little centralized authority. The emerging church conversation has promoted more decentralized and participatory leadership drawing from online communities. But most mainstream evangelical churches continue to operate under a singular head pastor or team of pastors functioning as elders.
Strengths and Weaknesses of Different Models
The Moses model has benefits and drawbacks that churches should carefully consider. Clear lines of authority help make swift, aligned decisions. Less bureaucracy exists when one leader charts the course. Centralized teaching helps maintain doctrinal unity when congregations easily number in the thousands today. Members enjoy continuity in the senior pastor’s long-term vision. Some argue that God’s biblical design includes authority flowing down from singular headship, whether in marriage, the family, governments or the church.
However, sole leadership by one fallen individual tends toward abuse and lacks accountability. Limits on pastoral tenure can help prevent pastors from amassing too much power. Churches led exclusively by a senior pastor lack the wisdom, gifting and leadership development that comes from distributing responsibilities among many under-shepherds. Leadership focused in one charismatic figure draws glory away from Christ toward a personality cult. The plurality of elders model helps churches avoid both dictatorship and anarchy.
Yet shared leadership models also have pitfalls. Diffused authority means slower, awkward decision-making by committee. Lack of strong direction can stunt church growth and allow conflict or false teaching to spread unchecked. Congregants can get confused when given mixed messages from multiple pulpit voices each Sunday. Cell groups meet practical needs but require extra effort connecting isolated groups into unified larger body.
In the end, church leadership structures require prayerful adaptation to each congregation’s particular context, needs and maturity. Moses provides a pattern for delegation under visionary leadership that churches would be unwise to dismiss entirely. But the wisdom of plural elders reinforces the ultimate Headship of Christ over His church and guards against pastor-as-celebrity models. Healthy churches employ a balance of singular leaders, wise plural leadership, and member participation guided by the Spirit.
Principles for Balancing Singular and Plural Leadership
How should contemporary churches blend the Moses model and plurality of elders for optimal biblical governance?
Here are several principles to keep in mind:
- Distinguish between church offices and spiritual gifts. All members have Spirit-empowered gifts, but not all may fill official leadership offices (Ephesians 4:11-13).
- Develop both individual leaders and teams. Moses needed help judging Israel but still led key events like Exodus and receiving the Ten Commandments.
- Invest singular leaders with sufficient authority to lead decisively but not dominate autocratically. Dictatorship ruins unity.
- Cultivate strong coaching relationships between senior pastors and emerging leaders. Young leaders need personalized mentoring.
- Let designated officers speak into major decisions, but streamline everyday logistics. Elders should focus on spiritual direction more than administrative details.
- Have clear criteria for appointing additional elders. Adding elders shouldn’t become a popularity contest or power grab.
- Protect pastoral authority by removing chronically subversive or immoral individual members when necessary. Sheep safety comes before inclusiveness.
- Humility and servant leadership should permeate all levels of leadership. No leader has absolute authority besides Christ.
Implementing these principles will empower both strong individual leaders and wise plural counselors to serve the church as Christ intends.
Conclusion
The Moses model of concentrating authority in a single leader while delegating tasks to trustworthy deputies portrays aspects of ideal biblical leadership. Yet leadership by multiple elders also aligns with New Testament practices and protects against autocracy. Throughout church history, tension has existed between singular authority and plural cooperation in governance.
Today’s churches should thoughtfully blend Moses-like leadership with shared leadership by cohesive teams under Christ’s Headship. Distinguishing between offices and gifts enables all members to contribute through their Spiritual gifts without confusing roles. Investing individual leaders with sufficient authority for clear direction, while instituting proper accountability through a plural elder board, stimulates unified church health and growth to God’s glory.