Featured A question about Church government

In our congregation, we have a pastor, bishop and elder. He's the same man.

I base that view on Acts 20:28. Paul has called the Ephesian elders to Miletus to give them some farewell words.

Here's the way I see it. Paul calls the elders of FBC Ephesus to Miletus. He says the Holy Spirit has made them overseers (bishops). Paul also urges them to take care of the flock, which is he role of a shepherd (pastor).

So, we have one man. Elder is his title. Bishop and Pastor are his jobs description.

So, my church meets the biblical requirement that we have pastors (bishops, elders) and deacons.

We have some churches which have what they call senior pastors. Then they have other pastors assigned various responsibilities. I think that's biblical.

Now, I'm looking for some help here. if you have elders, do they function as a "board?" How do they relate to the congregation? Do the elders also function as pastors? I have no experience in an elder-led church which functions as a "presbytery." So I need more educating on how it works in Baptist churches.

 

Our elders are responsible for preaching, teaching, and spiritual oversight (defending the church from error). Pastors and elders are essentially the same office. The requirements of both are the same, although we recognize the main preaching elder is a separate among equals. We have a plurality of elders. We believe there is wisdom in that. It prevents one man from becoming seduced by power.

Instead of a presbytery I think you mean a "session." Yes, a plurality of elders is similar to a session but also different. As Baptists we believe in the limited autonomy of the local church (limited in that Christ is the head of the church). We do not answer to a more authoritative body like a presbytery.

What stops the elders from constituting an oligarchy? For starters the elders must be in complete agreement on any decisions or recommendations they make. Secondly, our constitution allows for charges to be brought against an elder who is delinquent in his duties.

 

Thank you, Reformed. I used the term presbytery because of the Greek presbuteros, elder.

Permit me to ask further: Would you compare or contrast the elders with the "staff" of say, Pastors/Associate Pastors? If one is a pastor/associate pastor, is he by definition an elder and bishop?

I can understand how pastor/associate pastors can be seen as servant-leaders. Can the same be said about the elders in your church. Are they more leaders than servants, or vice-versa?

And, would you describe how your elders function as distinguished from Presbyterian elders? I'm in a learning mode here, so I appreciate the help.

 

Since we do not have associate pastors I can only answer the question from my point of view. Pastors, whether they are senior or associate, are elders. The pastor would be a separate among equals. He may be full time and be financially supported by the church because he labors at preaching and teaching on a full time basis. But from an authority standpoint he is equal to the other elders. That equality of position keeps the pastor accountable.

I don't believe a leader can be a true leader without being a servant. Our Lord displayed humility through service to others. Elders are to do the same. Deacons are in more of a service role, but that does not alleviate elders from being a servant-leader.

 

Seems to me that we're talking about the same thing using different terminology.

For instance, in my church we have a pastor and ministers of music. In other churches we might be called worship leaders. In others, worship pastors. We are all ordained, but I was ordained a deacon, not an elder. I also teach on occasion, and although I am a layman, I will fill the pulpit in a couple of weeks.

We could call our congregational music leader a worship pastor, I suppose.

We have one pastor,but we're a small church and don't need more than one.

One of our pastors several yeas ago described himself as chief among equals. He was emphasizing that there is no distinction between clergy and laity, except in the obvious ways.

Does the Bible mandate a plurality of elders/ bishops/pastors if it doesn't need them?

 

The offices of the church are elder (including the pastor) and deacon. Worship leaders and ministers of music are not offices of the church, although a church may decide to have these positions. In all actuality it is the elder who leads worship. While elders are the primary teachers, deacons can also teach if the elders consider them capable. They teach under the authority of the elders.

If you call him "pastor", is he an ordained elder?

How small is small? We have 40-50 people on a given Lord's Day. We have three elders and two deacons. If all spiritual authority is vested in one man how does that provide accountability?

We've used the term separate among equals, but that refers to division of responsibilities among the elders. Elders are to never become lords over their congregations. They are redeemed sinners like everyone else. But they have been set in authority, and that is a distinction.

Who determines that a plurality of elders is not needed?

[This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you—
(Titus 1:5 ESV)

Elders is in plural. Even a small church has need of accountability.

 

But it says appoint elders (plural) in every town. So, yes, Crete has more than one town, but Paul was still telling Titus to appoint multiple elders in each town.

 

Could it be that elders were needed in each town because there was more than one congregation in each town. This would make sense if believers met in houses, which had limited capacity.

Thanks for this discussion. I'm listening and I'm learning.

 

In order to justify this mandatory-plurality-of-elders-even-in-the-smallest-Reformed-Baptist-church scheme/nonsense, Reformed/Herald/MorseOp/etc., is going beyond what even Calvin saw in Titus 1:5:

Calvin's Commentary on Titus 1:5

"It is a point which ought to be carefully observed, that churches cannot safely remain without the ministry of pastors, and that consequently, wherever there is a considerable body of people, a pastor should be appointed over it. And yet he does not say that each town shall have a pastor, so that no place shall have more than one; but he means that no towns shall be destitute of pastors."

 

I'm a Baptist. I agree with Calvin on soteriology not ecclesiology. But I have told you that before.

 

J. Calvin was a pedobaptist with a state religion, quite similar to the religion still seated on Vatican Hill , Vatican II notwithstanding. His soteriology and ecclessiology are bogus.

Now what?

It is no wonder, Satan himself is become an angel of light.

Let God be found true and every man a liar.

Beware the wolves dressed like sheep.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Peace,

Bro. James

 

Oh to be sure Calvin's church government was faulty.

But as this was Calvin's Commentary on Scripture, he couldn't honestly advocate a presbyterial system.

Spurgeon noted that Calvin was at his best when constrained by Scripture:

"In his expositions [Calvin] is not always what moderns would call Calvinistic" —Charles Spurgeon, Commenting and Commentaries



Baptists have long rejected the scheme recently being peddled by 'Reformed' Baptists:



William Rider (first pastor of what came to be Metropolitan Tabernacle Baptist Church, London) in 1656:

"in the word Elders is comprehended all officers in the Church, with the Ministerial work also, . . . and so Elders is distinguished into several offices in the Church, as Bishops and Deacons . . . . Philip. 1.1 vers. where the Apostle writeth to the Saints, with the Bishops and Deacons: so Paul to Timothy writes of the qualifications of the Bishops and Deacons ; not Elders and Deacons ; you shall never in all the Scripture find Elders and Deacons expressed."


Benjamin Keach (prominent signer of the 1689 LBC) in 1701:

"Moreover, the Deacons are to be helps in Government. Some think Paul calls the Deacons Elders, when he speaks of Elders that rule well [I Tim. 5:17] (as our Annotators observe)"


SBTS's Greg Wills, "The Church: Baptists and Their Churches in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries":

"Most churches agreed with Georgia’s Powelton Baptist Church, whose members concluded in 1811 that lay elders were "unnecessary and not sufficiently warranted in scripture." Many of these held that the pastor and deacons jointly constituted the eldership. South Carolina’s Tyger River Baptist Association, for example, judged in 1835 that "the eldership of the church" consisted of "the ministers and deacons."


Shaftsbury Baptist Association, 1804 Circular Letter:

"It appears to us that Bishops, or teaching Elders and Deacons, are the only standing officers to be ordained in the Church. These are both called Elders, 1 Timothy 5:17. . . .By these Elders, we understand Bishops and Deacons; and we have not learned from the scriptures, but that these two are the only officers to be ordained in the Christian Church."


American Baptist Magazine, 1829:

"The term elder was, probably, a general term equivalent to our word officer; and thus it could be applied to a pastor, or to a deacon ; and the elders of a church included the pastor or pastors and the deacons."


The Sword and Trowel, 1866:

"the term elder is applied both to bishops and deacons. This might be supposed to prove too much, as though there had been no separate offices in the Church. It goes, in fact, just to the extent we require, that distinct officers were recognized by the Church, but they were lovingly blended together. There was no contention about a name as expressive of an authority, which it would have been sacrilege for others to invade."

 

I want to make this clear in my own mind.....your claiming Doctrines of Grace is bogus, correct!

 

I'm fine with that. The Bible teaches a plurality of elders. Others are entitled to their plurality of errors.

 

The doctrines of grace did not originate with Jon Chauvin. They go all the way back to Gen. 3:15. They have never needed reformation. They are authored by the Lord.

Calvinism is seriously tainted by infant baptism which goes along with salvation by works. Reforming does remove the leaven.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Peace,

Bro. James