Eight Is Enough?
On the previous post, a comment was made about a plurality of elders. While we see this practice in the New Testament, what wisdom and insight is available to us today concerning this issue? Would there be a reason to have a plurality of elders or could/should a church have a single elder? Are we following the scriptural pattern when most churches have one elder, or are we violating scripture? Once again, since this affects so many of us ministers, let's remember one thing - even if we disagree on this issue, we are still brothers in Christ and on the same team! Now, let the debate begin!
On the previous post, a comment was made about a plurality of elders. While we see this practice in the New Testament, what wisdom and insight is available to us today concerning this issue? Would there be a reason to have a plurality of elders or could/should a church have a single elder? Are we following the scriptural pattern when most churches have one elder, or are we violating scripture? Once again, since this affects so many of us ministers, let's remember one thing - even if we disagree on this issue, we are still brothers in Christ and on the same team! Now, let the debate begin!
Posts
15 comments:
I believe the fact of a plurality of elders per church in most NT churches in Scripture shows this to be allowable, yet there is no command for such. So while I believe we ought not ever look down on someone for associate pastoring, youth pastoring, senior citizen pastoring, etc... we also ought not demonize the singular elder position.
I believe best case scenario is the example of multiple elders, but finances, lack of pastors, etc may not be able to have such. Also, it is obvious that some churches have felt God's call to receive multiple elders, whilst others do not feel any such calling. Since there is no direct command (other than that given to certain people to ordain elders in churches), we should not take it as the ONLY way, but rather just the best.
If it is possible, it should be done. If it isn't, then surely God wouldn't hold you to such a standard?.
Would there be a reason to have a plurality of elders or could/should a church have a single elder?
I believe "should have a single elder" is an unscriptural statement. To say we should do something for which there is no biblical example is to get way out on a unscriptural limb. There is a consistent unvarying example in the New Testament of plurality of elders. "Could have a single elder", though, I take as a different thing. A church could have one or even none for a period of time because of the circumstances of inavailibity or a number of other reasons. But to aspire to do it the way not shown in scripture when we could follow the scriptural example is a totally different thing, in my opinion.
Are we following the scriptural pattern when most churches have one elder, or are we violating scripture?
No, we are not following the pattern. We are violating it if we have deliberately determined we will not follow it. I agree with Bro. James that we ought not demonize the single elder position. I believe we should "demonize" the staunch opposition to plurality of elders that is seen in many Baptists. There is a good example of this in Paige Patterson's defense of the single pastor model in the four views of church government book (can't think of the name of it right now).
Not to move the debate, but just want to note that my view of the NT plurality of elders is different from the modern plural model which is a hierarchical situation with a senior pastor at the top of the hierarchy.
James,
From what I have studied and understand, I too believe that it is allowable. Now as to the exact details (a hierarchical method or equal plane method), I have differing ideas. I'll talk more about this in a minute on my next comment.
I also agree that we should not "demonize" a singular elder position (I agree with Robert as well that we should not "demonize" a plurality of elders idea).
I think lack of finances is a prime example of why many churches do not have a plurality of elders. Now, to step off a different direction, I believe some would argue about whether or not a minister should be paid "full-time" pay (salaried, etc.) (If you can explain this idea better than me...please do!) If salary was not an issue, then some churches could possibly have a plurality of elders. Of course, another problem is that of either a lack of ministers (elders) or possibly too many church splits which then dilute the number of ministers available.
Well, I'll add more in a minute.
Robert,
Yes, the "should/could" problem can either point you in an unscriptural direction or point you in an allowable direction.
I don't remember the name of Paige's book either, but I will try to find it.
Also, concerning the hierarchical method that we see today - would you say that James (considered by many to be the Pastor of the church in Jerusalem) was equal with the other elders or was a leading elder? I see a plurality of elders, many times equal, yet I also a plurality of elders with many times one or two taking the leadership position. Now, whether this was due to God's will or due to human nature (i.e. personalities) I'll leave open for debate.
Of course, Christ did say for them to not be masters over each other...so...
The book is Who Runs the Church?: 4 Views on Church Government, Steven B. Cowan, Editor (Zondervan). Paige Patterson takes the single-elder congregational view and Sam Waldron takes the plural-elder congregational view. The other two views discussed are episcopal and presbyterian. Very good reading. I highly recommend it.
To you last comment, imo, in a properly functioning plural-elder situtation the leadership would flow naturally from each elders particular giftedness rather than an arbitrarily established "hierarchy".
According to Revelation 2 and 3 the letters were written to THE angel, pastor, of the Church of the Church at Laodicea, Philadelphia, Ephesus etc.
The is a definite article and it signifies one pastor.
Regardless of what one thinks on this issue it is clear that the New Testament practice was 1 Pastor with perhaps multiple ministers.
God is going to hold a pastor accountable for his time serving in a Church...not a team of co-pastors Hebrews 13:7, 17. This will include what he allows his differing ministers (music, youth, education etc) to do under his watch.
You WILL NOT find definitive evidence in the scripture to support co-pastors but one will find definitive support for one church with one pastor who has different ministers (ordained or not) serving under his authority and headship.
Brother Big J, I do not understand where we find definitive support for one church with one pastor who has different ministers serving under his authority and headship. Where is this definitive evidence?
In the New Testament practice there is a consistent use of the word "elders" (plural) and the word "church" (singular). No definitive evidence of a single pastor/leader. The only possible exception is the view that the "angel" of the church in Rev. 2:1,8,12,18,3:1,7,14 is THE (singular) pastor. But if this is true, it is an exception to the other cases.
There are other possible interpretations of Rev. 2-3 that do not contradict the consistent occurrence of plural elders in the historical and doctrinal books in the New Testament. For example, angel in its simplest meaning is the messenger from or to the church in each of these places. An old English Baptist preacher, Hanserd Knollys (1599–1691), believed angel was used figuratively as a collective noun representing the elders of the church. Revelation is a figurative book of signs and symbols, and I don't think most of us take the "angel" literally.
Nevertheless, it seems that the main burden is for those against plurality of elders to show why their interpretation of Rev. 2-3 is not consistent with the rest of the New Testament (or explain how it can be consistent).
Rather than write more on the subject at this time, I would refer you to my blog post on Plurality of elders.
A quick excerpt from Hanserd Knollys' Exposition of the Book of Revelation. The rest can be seen at the link given.
"This Ephesian Church, at the first planting thereof, was a particular congregation consisting of a few baptized believers...The angel of this church, and the angels of the other six Asian Churches, were not of the holy elect celestial angels of God, those ministering spirits, nor was this angel any one of the apostles of Christ...Nor was this angel any one individual man or minister, that had the superintendence over, or precedence above all the other ministers in this church, as being the Apostle John's delegate or substitute in his absence; for we read not of any such in this prophecy of the Revelation...But by Angel in this and all the other epistles written to the seven churches in Asia, we are to understand the episcopacy, presbytery, and ministry in each particular church, unto whom the charge, oversight, care and government thereof was committed by the Holy Spirit, whom the Apostle Paul called touv presbuterouv, Ac 20:17 and episkopouv, Ac 20:28; elders and bishops, among whom none were lords over God's heritage, {1Pe 5:1,2,3} mhd wv katakurieuontev twn klhrwn, not as them that over-rule the clergy; Arias Mont. Neg; ut dominantes cleris. So the word 'Angel' in all these seven epistles, is a noun collective, comprehending all the bishops and presbyters, called elders, {Ac 20:17} in this Church of Ephesus, so in all other churches of Christ in Asia, and elsewhere."
The ONLY scripture I've ever seen to even remotely suggest a singular pastor at a church is the Revelation passage you just gave. 2 Problems.
Problem #1:
I've given many (over 10) passages that prove beyond shadow of a doubt that each church in the Scripture had multiple pastors/bishops/elders, whatever you wanna call them. You've only given one single reference. This can not, and never will, negate the plethora of other scriptures in support of multiple pastors at each church.
Problem #2:
You would have a very hard time proving these "angels" are pastors, and not messengers who read the letter to the church.
Actually I gave more than just one passage...I referenced the Hebrews passages and gave quite a plain explanation...the Lord is going to hold THE pastor accountable for his time...not a TEAM of pastors.
Furthermore, if I counted them right I referenced 7 passages in one book *Revelation 2 and 3) where singular pastors are referenced.
Finally did Paul send Timothy to work or Timothy plus some others. I cant remember was Timothy the only one circumcised or was a team circumcised and sent.
Just checking but I think I have referenced more than your 10 brutha! :)
Sorry brother Hebert. I meant that I only saw you reference one EXAMPLE, and I included these Revelation ones into the same group, since it is debatable. I would like to point out no one has proven these "angels" were pastors as opposed to letter readers. If the history records are correct, most early churches had a man who sent letters, and read leaders to the church. He was the "messanger". His job was to accurately convey the words (literally) and the emphasis or inflection as well. This position was very comman. So these 7 church "angels" could very well have been the church messengers (which appears to me interesting since the word angel means messenger.) While there might be thoughts either way on it, it is purely speculation since the Bible just doesn't say. So we should not use these as our basis.
#2 - Thanks for the Hebrew passage. In verse 7 (both English and Greek) we find one should remember "them" plural who have rule over you (plural). Not remember him who has rule over you. Also it says "their" conversation, not "his".
#3- Verse 17 also mentions a plurality of men keeping watch care over a church. So thanks for that verse also.
And with your "finally" scripture of Timothy, I believe you will find these verses interesting. Let us compare 1 Timothy and Titus.
Tit 1:5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:
(Left him there to ordain elders in every city)
And compare this with the following verses.
1Ti 1:3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
1Ti 5:16 If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.
1Ti 5:17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
Notice Timothy's job, like that of Titus', was to train up the elders there. In 1 Timothy 5:16, we see a singular church. In 1 Timothy 5:17, we see any church member calling for the elders. In 1 Timothy 1:2,3 - we find Timothy charging PLURAL men to teach the Ephesian church properly.
This sounds an awful lot like what Paul and barnabas did ordaining elders in Acts. But even if it isn't, I don't see how someone could suggest Timothy is the singular pastor of a church, with the obvious 1 Tim 5. reference to a single church member calling for the plural elders of the singular church.
Brother J. Lemme put it into perspective to you. The word "elder" and "bishop" in the singular sense are used only 9 times in the New Testament. Almost all of (if not all of) these are reference to a specific pastor, or the office of such. None of these can be pinpointed as the singular pastor of one church for sure. With speculation, maybe. Without good reason for speculation, though, we find no such cause. Here they are, and I want you to HONESTLY and unbiasedly (not a word, huh?) tell me how many of these suggest a singular pastor of a single church as either an example or a command?
BISHOP (singular)
(1 Timothy 3:1) This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
(1 Timothy 3:2) A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
(Titus 1:7) For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
(1 Peter 2:25) For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.
ELDER (singular)
(1 Timothy 5:1) Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren;
(1 Timothy 5:19) Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.
(1 Peter 5:1) The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
(1 Peter 5:5) Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.
(2 John 1:1) The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth;
(3 John 1:1) The elder unto the wellbeloved Gaius, whom I love in the truth.
If you were totally honest as I believe you will be, you will find only three references that possibly suggest a singular pastor. The first refers to Jesus, so we won't include that since we know there are pastors under Him. The next two are the 2nd and 3rd John references. These are up for debate, but let us suppose it means there is only ONE pastor. To which church is it referring? We don't know. There just isn't a whole lot there. As I've said before, the "angel" references COULD refer to pastor, but unless we have sufficient evidence to suggest such, we should not believe it despite how much it has been taught or how widely it has been believed. And except for these two John references, do we have ANY other suggestion of such a thing?
Now, to give you the benefit of the doubt, let us assume you are right. That gives you 7 references with the churches of Asia, and 1 with John (as he prtobably isn't the elder of two churches at the same time).
Concerning the references to plurality of pastors, elders, and bishops (plural), we have 16 references. They are as follows.
PASTORS
Ephesians 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
(So, to some churches, he gave pastors PLURAL and teachers PLURAL, or treaching pastors PLURAL as some might say).
BISHOPS
Php 1:1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:
(So the church at Phillippi, we find bishops PLURAL and deacons PLURAL). This surely cannot be disputed, that there were plural elders at the single church of Phillippi.
ELDERS
(Acts 11:30) Which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul.
There are obviously plural elders at the church of Jerusalem.
(Acts 14:23) And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.
EVERY single church had plural elders ordained in them. These are the ones Paul and Barnabas left to care for every church. Notice elders here is plural, and EVERY church is collective singular.
(Acts 15:2) When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
Jerusalem still has elders.
(Acts 15:4) And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.
Again, plural elders at the church of Jerusalem.
(Acts 15:6) And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
Elders coming together (possible non-specific since it could be elders from different churches, so we don't learn anything for sure from here).
(Acts 15:22) Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
Definitely a single reference of one church (the whole church) to the many elders.
(Acts 15:23) And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
Still elders.
(Acts 16:4) And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem.
Still the same, plural.
(Acts 20:17) And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.
ELDERS of another singular church. Hmmmm, interesting?
(Acts 21:18) And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.
Non specific. Speculation here.
(1 Timothy 5:17) Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
Speculation here, though I speculate with all the previous scriptures and the fact that verse 16 tells us that the "church" singular should not be charged.
(Titus 1:5) For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:
Plural elders to be ordained by Titus in every city. Non specific, but if one has to speculate, it is plural.
(James 5:14) Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:
One sick person calling for the plural elders of the singular church.
(1 Peter 5:1) The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
Elders, plural, among these strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia.
So, of these, we can be almost 100% sure 10 or more refer to specific instances of plural elders in single churches. We could suggest all 16 do refer to such. I could EVEN say that the singular "elder" and "bishop" references that use an indefinite article suggest a plurality since it is choosing an indefinite ONE out of a group, as opposed to the definite article referring to the one and only one separated from all other ones.
If you include the Hebrews reference you gave, with plural reference to "them" who rule over you, we have a few more.
I conclude with this. I did a complete and total search of the New Testament and gave in an unbiased way all possible references to a pastor or pastors using the words I know that refer to such (bishop, pastor, elder). The word angel is under dispute and so cannot be a deciding factor, but the words elder, bishop, and pastor seem not to be disputed. So without any further explanation, I'll simply say this. The Scriptures truly do speak for themselves, and we'd be best advised to believe them despite what we have been taught, what we have believed, or what we want to believe.
Bro. JamesCharles, I often stand amazed at your energy and effort.
In sum, what we have is the fact that on NT occasions where the elder/church relationship is clear, they all are cases of plural eldership. There are zero obvious cases of the single elder model.
Post a Comment