Church Polity

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Siegfried:
1 Tim. 5:17 also argues for a plurality of elders in one church. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why mightn't these elders be in different churches? Paul is not writing to a church but to Timothy with regards to principles of church behavior and responsibility. I do not see any reference to more than one church in this verse. Furthermore, I see no necessity of multiple elders in this verse.

Furthermore, it is clear in churches that pastors have different strengths and this is a statement about what should be honored. Some pastors "rule well" -- that is they are great administrators and leaders. That doesn't make them great preachers and expositors of the word.

[ February 09, 2002: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
I think church can be used collectively. Furthermore, understanding that "church" can mean the total number of saved people without regard to a particular locale (i.e., building), the church at Ephesus could be made up of a number of churches. I don't think your argument is stronger than mine in any way.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Pastor Larry, I see several problems with this. Understanding that "church" can mean the total number of saved people without regard to a particular locale does not help your position. You will need "church" to also be defined territorially in order to reconcile the ideas you have presented. I do not know if you believe that, but it is not the Baptist concept of the church. Pastors are not officers of the church universal or a church territorial, they are officers of the church local. First, you are dealing with silence - assuming that there may have been several churches in the cities to which these passages refer. The general context of Acts 20 is against this as well. Paul, speaking to elders (church officers), told them to feed the flock of God (singular) over which the Holy Ghost had made them overseers. This charge is not regarding the church universal, for it would have no overseers. Thus it is either regarding the church (local) at Ephesus, or a territorial church of Ephesus made up of all the total number of the saved in Ephesus or the total number of local churches in Ephesus. Either of these last two would require the office of pastor (overseer) to be a broader territorial office rather than a local church office. For example, you Pastor Larry are made an overseer by the Holy Ghost of a specific flock that you are to pastor, not of all the churches or all the saved in your city. There is no biblical concept of THE church of New York, THE church of Houston, THE church of Detroit, or THE church of Ephesus. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Acts 14:23 uses the word κατα and it is translated as "every" apparently only here in the NT uses (NASB). It seems that they appointed elders "according to" the churches. I do not know that we must see a distributive use of it here.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I am willing to agree that it could be translated differently, but not that it is translated incorrectly. I think that in most major Bible versions you will find it translated "every". At least that is true of the ones I have. That does not in itself prove you are wrong, but does put a considerable weight of scholarship against you. Even translated as you suggest it could still mean the same thing and not help your argument.

[ February 09, 2002: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]

 

Pastor Larry,

I agree that 1 Tim. 5:17 doesn't demand multiple elders.

I also think I understand your point. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're suggesting that while every church has at least one elder, not all churches have one that labors/works hard at preaching and teaching.

I've understood it to mean that Paul was differentiating between different responsibilities among elders in one church. While all had a ruling function, only a subset were responsible for preaching and teaching.

I suppose either view could be valid. Do you see a reason why not or why one is to be preferred. Again, I agree that a multiplicity may have been merely a statement of what existed without being intended to be normative.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Siegfried:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're suggesting that while every church has at least one elder, not all churches have one that labors/works hard at preaching and teaching.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Do you see a reason why not or why one is to be preferred. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To me several issues are involved. One, the church as the body as a single head, Christ. The picture of the body/Christ relationship is one of husband-wife where, again, there is a single head. Two, the whole issue of leadership. A many headed monster becomes a practical nightmare. Even in churches with "equal elders," there is always someone who is the undisputed head, whose opinion carries more weight than the others. It is the simple nature of leadership.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There is no biblical concept of THE church of New York, THE church of Houston, THE church of Detroit, or THE church of Ephesus. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The NT does refer to the church at a particular city. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Acts 13:1 (ESV)
Now there were in the church at Antioch prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen a member of the court of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

Romans 16:1 (ESV)
I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church at Cenchreae,

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> . Pastors are not officers of the church universal or a church territorial, they are officers of the church local. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So does that mean that my calling as a pastor ceases at the front door of the church I serve now? I understand I have no ruling authority over, say First Baptist Church in my town. That's why they have their elder(s) there. This is not a good argument.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>you are dealing with silence - assuming that there may have been several churches in the cities to which these passages refer. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
1 Corinthians 16:19 The churches of Asia greet you. Aquila and Prisca greet you heartily in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.
Colossians 4:15 Greet the brethren who are in Laodicea and also Nympha and the church that is in her house.
Philemon 2 and to Apphia our sister, and to Archippus our fellow soldier, and to the church in your house:

Why would there be a reference to the church in these homes if there was only one church per city in these particular instances?

 

For those who believe that a plurality of elders is a must for every local church, would two elders for every church suffice in your mind? After all, two is a plural number.
Just an interesting (and somewhat loaded) question I always like to throw out in this discussion

 

Even if a church had "plurality of elders" there will always be one rising to the top as the leader.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> A many headed monster becomes a practical nightmare. Even in churches with "equal elders," there is always someone who is the undisputed head, whose opinion carries more weight than the others. It is the simple nature of leadership. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pastor Larry,

I couldn't agree more, having been put in a situation like that once myself (in a non-church setting).

My main point is not that every church needs to have equal elders, or even multiple elders necessarily. I do believe that to be the biblical norm, but I can't prove that was always the case.

I also believe that many Baptist churches are un-biblical in their polity when deacons perform functions of leadership that Scripture ascribes to elders.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pioneer:
Even if a church had "plurality of elders" there will always be one rising to the top as the leader.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
...the whole issue of leadership. A many headed monster becomes a practical nightmare. Even in churches with "equal elders," there is always someone who is the undisputed head, whose opinion carries more weight than the others. It is the simple nature of leadership.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Brethren, whether or not it is the nature of leadership or it has been your experience is not a scriptural argument. Just because it is does not mean it should be. Where does the Bible command or principles endorse ONE man rising to the top as a leader? Constrast "Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them..." or Jesus' telling the apostles that "the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them...but it shall not be so among you," or His exaltation of the servant nature when saying, "whosoever shall be chief among you let him be your servant." Is this rising to the top an exhibition of the spiritual nature or the sinful nature?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
...the church as the body has a single head, Christ. The picture of the body/Christ relationship is one of husband-wife where, again, there is a single head...A many headed monster becomes a practical nightmare...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Brother, it seems you are coming close to saying that the pastor is the head of the church, but I will let you clarify for yourself. As for me, I am convinced that Christ, not the pastor/s, is the head of the church.

[ February 11, 2002: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TomVols:
For those who believe that a plurality of elders is a must for every local church, would two elders for every church suffice in your mind? After all, two is a plural number.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Perhaps I do not fit the criteria to answer your question, since I do not believe a church must have a plurality of elders. What I have said before, and will repeat for this forum, is that a church is wrong to choose to have only one elder when then could have more. Some churches may providentially have only one. Some may have none. This is sometimes of necessity. But I would no more suggest that a church stick to their tradition of only one elder when God has providentially placed more than one in their church, than I would suggest that a church stay without a pastor when God has providentially provided them an opportunity to have one. This is different from saying they must have many elders. But I have seen many churches that have qualified men in their body that they will not use, while placing the whole burden on one man's shoulders (unfortunately, sometimes that one man loves to have it so).

Now, with that out of the way, I'll proceed to answer your question. Yes, two elders are plural (more than one, which is all you can make from the scriptural references), and while it might not satisfy someone's legal definition of plurality, it does constitute a plurality in the sense that most people mean when referring to this subject.

[ February 11, 2002: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TomVols:
The NT does refer to the church at a particular city.
Acts 13:1 (ESV)
Now there were in the church at Antioch... Romans 16:1 (ESV)
I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church at Cenchreae,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I have nowhere argued that the NT does not refer to a church at a particular city. What I am denying that the reference to a church at a particular city refers to a number of churches plural as one church singular. Was the church at Antioch all the churches at Antioch or a local church? Was the church at Cenchrea all the churches at Cenchrea or a local church? Was Phebe a servant of a local church or of all the churches at Cenchrea? Where is the evidence of more than one local church is these two places?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So does that mean that my calling as a pastor ceases at the front door of the church I serve now? I understand I have no ruling authority over, say First Baptist Church in my town. That's why they have their elder(s) there. This is not a good argument.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It is a perfectly good argument. Brother, while your calling may be universally recognized, the fact is that your office as pastor does cease "at the front door of the church you serve," as you plainly recognize that you have no authority at the First Baptist Church of LaFollete. Yes, they have pastors there, and only those pastors are their pastors. And, conversely, they are not pastors of THE church at LaFollete, but are pastors of the First Baptist Church.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>1 Corinthians 16:19 The churches of Asia greet you. Aquila and Prisca greet you heartily in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm not sure how you're connecting this since it doesn't say the church of Asia (singular), but rather the churches of Asia (plural). If there was one territorial church it would be the church of Asia, not churches.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Colossians 4:15 Greet the brethren who are in Laodicea and also Nympha and the church that is in her house.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This does say not the church in Nympha's house was in Laodicea, which connection you would need to bolster your argument.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Philemon 2 and to Apphia our sister, and to Archippus our fellow soldier, and to the church in your house:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Again I'm not sure how this helps you, since you must connect the church in Philemon's house with some "the church at..." to prove there was more than one church in the city.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Why would there be a reference to the church in these homes if there was only one church per city in these particular instances?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>First, you need to find an instance where the church in someone's home and another church in the same city is referred to as "the church at..." Second, these three scripture references actually militate against the argument you are presenting, since recognizing these house churches as churches contradicts the idea that there was one territorial church in each city.

Brethren, I must say that you all have blindsided me with this argument. I hardly expected Baptists to argue for a territorial church (if that is what you are doing). Brother Tom, do all the churches of LaFollete (or all the saved of LaFollete) make up THE church of LaFollete? If so, who are the pastors of THAT church?? I'm not sure what you are saying.


[ February 11, 2002: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rlvaughn:
Brother, it seems you are coming close to saying that the pastor is the head of the church, but I will let you clarify for yourself. As for me, I am convinced that Christ, not the pastor/s, is the head of the church.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The pastor is called a ruler. He is told to be able to manage because if he can't manage his own household well, how shall he manage the house of God. He is said to have watch over the church. So yes, he is the head of the local church. That is no way diminishes Christ's headship. He is an undershepherd, ruling with humility.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Brethren, whether or not it is the nature of leadership or it has been your experience is not a scriptural argument. Just because it is does not mean it should be.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think these principles of leadership are part of the wisdom with which God created the world. We can say we don't like it but it is the way things are and there is no reason to believe God intended it to be otherwise. Diotrophes may have loved to have the preeminence. However, he is not condemned for having preeminence but rather for loving it. Furthermore, it seems to have been a position that he was not entitled to. I will agree with you that an arrogance should not accompany leadership. It is servant leadership. But abuses should not drive us away from the role that God has called pastors to fulfill -- that of leader.

 

Pastor Larry, though a pastor/pastors may rule, manage, feed, and lead the flock, the way in which he carries these out does not imply that he is HEAD of the church. Early you argued that having more than one pastor created a multi-headed monstrosity. No you have returned to a church having two heads - Christ and the pastor. How so?

Second, that a pastor (or pastors) may lead the church does not imply that one has to rise to the top. I am not suggesting that there is no leadership in the church at all. What I am questioning is whether there is some scriptural reason why one man must rise to the top?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rlvaughn:
Pastor Larry, though a pastor/pastors may rule, manage, feed, and lead the flock, the way in which he carries these out does not imply that he is HEAD of the church. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It seems hard to manage, rule, teach, preach, and lead unless you have have the authority to do so. It is not a supplanting of Christ or an equality with Christ. The pastor, as I said earlier, is the "undershepherd" if you will.

 

A pastor does have authority, but it is not an authority in which he speaks or orders and it is done (or even has to be). Christ's authority on the other hand is complete - what He commands is law, what He speaks should be done, there is no room to question, only to obey. The pastor leads by "thus saith the Lord," but the congregation may "search the scriptures daily to see whether these things are so." It is what Christ says, not what the pastor says, that is authoritative. I guess the real bottom line for me, though, is that I have a problem calling the pastor the head when the Bible does not do so, and when it only refers to Christ in the position.

 

It seems as if Rlvaughn and Pastor Larry are pretty close in what they believe. It seems we're nit picking over the word "head" and "lead." It seems both of you are saying Christ is the head of the church but the church is led by the pastor/elder(s). I don't think Larry is arguing for the pastor to be a corporate CEO. And I don't think Rlvaughn is discounting pastoral/elder leadership. Am I oversimplifying this?

 

Don't worry Mr. Vols. I am watching this thread closely in case you pastors go to fightin'!!!

Clint Kritzer
Moderator

 

Probably not, Tom. But you should know it's always easier to pick the nits rather than let them turn into lice.

 

Yeah Tom, I was going to make a similar comment. I don't think we are that far apart. We seem to differ on the term we use to describe it. But as RL poignantly put it, it is easier to pick nits ...