Democracy in Church???

[tragic_pizza]

Back in the old days, the Presbyterians referred to all church officers as elder. Teaching Elders were the preachers, and Ruling Elders made up the session.

I think the use of "elser" as opposed to "bishop" is a throwback to Calvin's polemic against Catholicism, though I am not sure I can prove this.

 

[LeBuick]

The N.T. does not speak of only one elder or preacher in a church. There was a group of elders with various gifts some of which were the preachers. The "obey those who have the rule over you" type scriptures never say "obey Him". It is always plural. Today we have the single pastor (or senior pastor) system. Since the N.T. churches had a group of elders type government, some of the scriptures are not directly applicable to our form of church government. The church has a constitution and bylaws to provide a balance in church government since we are not organized like the N.T. church.

Though there were other Elders (Preachers) in the NT Church there was still one man in Charge. This is true of most every board. Peter, Paul, Timothy and Titus to name a few in the NT Church. In those days, when things grew beyond the Pastor (Highest Elder) it went to the Apostles who were given Apostolic Authority which means that either 1. they started the Church or 2. a decendant of an Apostles Church or 3. The Church agreed to be under their influence or control. The modern day Church agrees to this authority when they accept all scripture are true and written by divine inspiration etc...

http://library.winworld.cc/pdf/190.pdf#search="Apostolic Authority"

http://www.conservativeonline.org/journals/02_06_journal/1998v2n6_id05.htm

Unfortunately, Apastolic Authority is no longer acknowledged in Churches except for Catholics, Mormons, COC, JW etc... This means there is no one above the Pastor except God, his Son and the Scriptures. Christ and his Church is not a democracy, it's a theocracy.

 

[Taufgesinnter]

In some Churches any decisions are taken via Vote and in some the Pastor has the final authority??

Which one is Biblical and which one is not???


If a church believes that the pastor is the sole authority and he is the one that God placed so what he says goes... I mean he will listen to opinions but there will be no votes.. he makes the final decision is that from GOD.


At the same time...

If a church believes always in making votes on elected officials... is that right or wrong?

Which one is Biblical ???

To know which is biblical, why not consult a personal disciple of one of the apostles, to find out how the apostles themselves understood Scripture on the matter? Read Ignatius of Antioch, disciple of John.

 

[drfuss]

LeBuick writes:
"Though there were other Elders (Preachers) in the NT Church there was still one man in Charge. This is true of most every board. Peter, Paul, Timothy and Titus to name a few in the NT Church. In those days, when things grew beyond the Pastor (Highest Elder) it went to the Apostles who were given Apostolic Authority which means that either 1. they started the Church or 2. a decendant of an Apostles Church or 3. The Church agreed to be under their influence or control. The modern day Church agrees to this authority when they accept all scripture are true and written by divine inspiration etc... "

If there were no Apostles in the local church, then the church was run by a group of elders. There is no scriptural evidence that one elder was in charge. If you know of any, I would like to see it.

For instance in Acts 20, when Paul meets the large group of Ephesians elders, there is no mention of a leading elder. Had there been a leading elder as you suggest, I think he certainly would have been mentioned. All the elders are treated equally as Paul prayed for them all.

 

[Brother Bob]

Pro 11:14
Where no counsel [is], the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors [there is] safety.


Pro 24:6
For by wise counsel thou shalt make thy war:
and in multitude of counsellors [there is] safety.

 

[LeBuick]

If there were no Apostles in the local church, then the church was run by a group of elders. There is no scriptural evidence that one elder was in charge. If you know of any, I would like to see it.

For instance in Acts 20, when Paul meets the large group of Ephesians elders, there is no mention of a leading elder. Had there been a leading elder as you suggest, I think he certainly would have been mentioned. All the elders are treated equally as Paul prayed for them all.

Is this what you're referring to?

Acts 20:17 And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.
18 And when they were come to him, he said unto them, Ye know, from the first day that I came into Asia, after what manner I have been with you at all seasons,

Looks like Paul called the meeting so he probably ran the meeting.

A more interesting meeting was in Acts 15. This was when they met regarding the circumcision. You have to go to Gal 2:9 before you find, "And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars,". It is believed James was head at this meeting. Any meeting, especially with Baptist present, with no one to moderate or run the meeting would be chaos. God is not the arthur of confusion so everything should be done in order.

 

[drfuss]

Is this what you're referring to?

Acts 20:17 And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.
18 And when they were come to him, he said unto them, Ye know, from the first day that I came into Asia, after what manner I have been with you at all seasons,

Looks like Paul called the meeting so he probably ran the meeting.

A more interesting meeting was in Acts 15. This was when they met regarding the circumcision. You have to go to Gal 2:9 before you find, "And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars,". It is believed James was head at this meeting. Any meeting, especially with Baptist present, with no one to moderate or run the meeting would be chaos. God is not the arthur of confusion so everything should be done in order.

Yes, Paul (the missionary) ran this special meeting in Acts 20. But that is not the question. The group of elders ran the regular operation of church and there is no indication of a leading elder among them. Had there been a leading elder, he would probably have been mentioned in Acts 20.

In Acts 15, the Apostles in Jerusalem ran the meeting. In other churches where no Apostles were present, a group of elders jointly ran the church.

Originally Posted by drfuss
If there were no Apostles in the local church, then the church was run by a group of elders. There is no scriptural evidence that one elder was in charge. If you know of any, I would like to see it.

 

[LeBuick]

Originally Posted by drfuss
If there were no Apostles in the local church, then the church was run by a group of elders. There is no scriptural evidence that one elder was in charge. If you know of any, I would like to see it.

I follow you now, Timothy was left in charge in Ephesus

1 Timothy 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,

However, keep in mind, Ephesus was a large city, a Capitol city so many Chruches were formed. That might account for the multiple elders. We also know of Appolos having success there and Aquilla and Pricilla being leaders.

John is also said to have spent his last years there.

 

[drfuss]

I follow you now, Timothy was left in charge in Ephesus

1 Timothy 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,

However, keep in mind, Ephesus was a large city, a Capitol city so many Chruches were formed. That might account for the multiple elders. We also know of Appolos having success there and Aquilla and Pricilla being leaders.

John is also said to have spent his last years there.

In 1 Timothy 1;3, Paul delegated his authority as an apostle to Timothy to perform a specifie task as indicated: so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer nor devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. Timothy was not one of the elders in the church, but was there for a specific task authorized by the Apostle Paul and when he was done he moved on. In I Timothy chapter 3, Paul gives Timothy instructions on the qualifications of overseers that Timothy may have to appoint on behalf of Paul. After Timothy left, the group of elders ran the church as in other churches. Note that Timothy was not task to be an elder.

Paul gave the same type tasks to Titus. In Titus 1:5, The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you. Note that elders (plural) were to be appointed in every town (every church).

IF a church had an apostle, the apostle was in charge of the church because he had first hand knowledge and experience concerning Jesus ministry. This is the reason why Paul devoted parts of his letters to establish himself as an apostle. Paul had the authority of an apostle like the other apostles. He delegated that authority to Timothy and Titus for specific tasks.

Concerning many churches in Ephesus, granted they probably met in small groups most of the time due to facility limitations. However, these groups probably had more than one elder since we know that small churches (Titus 1;5) had plural elders. Again, had there been a leader among elders at Ephesus, he would have been mentioned in Acts 20:17-36.

The N.T. churches had a group of elders that were in charge of the church if no apostles were present.