Elders in the NT Church

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by MikeinGhana:
So with a "plurality of elders" who has a vision from God for a direction in ministry the church should go in?

The church, with the bishops and deacons. The epistles refer to a body of variously gifted individuals. Each gift plays its part, with Jesus, not the pastor, as the head of the body.

Do you consider the Baptistic structure of a pastor and several assistant pastors, such as a youth pastor, a pastor of education, a visitation pastor, etc., as a plurality of elders?

Though it is in a sense a plurality of elders (several instead of just one), I do not think it is a reflection of the Biblical pattern of plurality of elders. The passages dealing with elders do not indicate one elder who had the preeminence bestowed upon him.

While the world standard of operation usually is an hierarchy, Jesus said it should not be so among His servants. "But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you:"

What indicates that Jesus put Peter in charge over the other apostles? What indicates he was removed from being in charge and replaced by James? If they were in charge in an authoritative sense, this seems to violate the principle Jesus laid down for them in Matthew 20.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Brother,

It seems impossible to demonstrate that all elders in teh NT were equal in authority. It seems patently clear that Peter was the leader in early Acts, and James was in ACts 15. I am not sure any exegesis that could deny that, apart from the presumption that it is true.

When you quote Jesus about exercising dominion, it seems you are making Jesus talk about something he wasn't talking about. You indicate he was talking about heirarchy. He says he was talking about the nature of leadership: dominion vs. servant. His point is that a leader is not a "lord" (as Peter puts it), but a servant.

 

[Lacy Evans]

http://www.nccn.net/~brennanp/BEphamphStrauch/PAMPHBEDOC.html

This is a very good book on the subject.

 

[rlvaughn]

Before we get too far along, perhaps it would wise to define terms. The terminology "in charge" has been used, as well as "authority", "equal", and perhaps others. We might not all always be talking about the same thing.

In charge - when I refer to no one elder being "in charge", I mean that there is not one elected by the church or the elder body to be in a position of authority over the rest. For example, in a group of elders on staff at a church, if there is a "senior pastor" everyone knows he carries more weight than the others. He is "in charge".

Authority - when I refer to the elders being of "equal authority", I mean the same as above. There is not a "senior" or "lead" pastor who is elected and recognized by that as being higher than the rest. When I say one doesn't have "authority" over the others, I mean that person is not placed in a position that his decisions & declarations have more weight by virtue of that position. When I refer to the elders being equal, I mean they are of equal standing; equal in the sense that there is not one ruling over the others. But they are not identical.

The elders work together. There are differing in gifts and differing in amounts of experience. As needs, problems and circumstances arise, leadership rises from within the eldership to meet those needs based on their gifts and experiences. One may lead in one instance and another in another. Probably the main practical difference in what I am saying from those who disagree, is that "leading" elders move as leaders by applying their spiritual gifts and having them recognized by the church, rather than being appointed to leadership over and above others.

I offer this by way of explanation so that someone does not think I am meaning one thing when I mean another. Hope this all makes sense.

 

[rlvaughn]

Now to the Scriptures. Some of these cases on their own may seem to prove little. But when the consistency of them becomes apparent, they speak volumes.

Acts 14:23 - Paul & Barnabas ordained elders in every church in Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch. Nothing is notable that would indicate any of one the elders is different from the others.

Acts 15 (esp. 2,4,6,22,23) - With the church and the apostles, the elders deliberate the question "except ye be circumsized ye cannot be saved". No one elder seems to be distinguished from another. They are mentioned as a body or group. Paul & Barnabas take the lead in opening the session, declaring how God was working among the Gentiles. Certain Pharisees rejoin against their testimony. Peter rebutts, recalling how God sent him to Cornelius. Quietened by Peter's address, the body listens to Paul & Barnabas again. Then James takes the lead in closing the session, giving his "sentence" (KJV; judgment, NAS). This might be taken as authoritative, as in James making the decision. But should it be? The apostles, elders and the whole church did not acquiesce to James because of his authority, but gladly agreed because it seemed good to them.[This James is not James the brother of John (Acts 12:2), but apparently James the Lord's brother; seems to be called an apostle by Paul in Gal. 1:19]

Acts 20:17 - Paul called the elders of the church of Ephesus to meet him in Miletus. He addresses them equally, as a body, exhorting them to feed the flock over which the Holy Ghost made them overseers. He met with them all, taught them all, exhorted them all, warned them all, and prayed with them all. No one is drawn to the forefront for special charges or recognition.

Phil. 1:1 - The church at Philippi has plural elders. Paul & Timothy write to the saints at Philippi. Bishops are addressed, but none more than others.

1 Thess. 5:12,13 - The church at Thessalonica has plural elders. Those that labour among and are over are a "them" plural. "And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; And to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake." None are said to "be over" them more, or to be esteemed more.

I Timothy 5:17-20 - Those who "rule well" are plural in number. While this is general instruction to Timothy to teach others, the practical application appears to be plural elders in a singular church. Who is going to count them worthy of double honour? Who is going to not muzzle them? Who is going to hear accusations? Who is going to rebuke them? The local church.

Hebrews 13:7,17 - "Them which have the rule over you and watch for your souls" are described in a plural manner. One is not said to rule more or to watch more, or that one is to be obeyed more or remembered more.

James 5:14 - The sick are to call to themselves the elders of the church. Admittedly, the author is writing a general epistle, but in a real-life situation the singular sick person is instructed to call elders plural. The lack of a presbytery or plural eldership might not make that impossible, but would certainly mitigate against it being readily followed.

Rev. 2:1,8,12,18,3:1,7,14 - I mention this passage because of the common view that the "angel" of the church is the (singular) pastor. If this is true, it seems to be so in exception to all other cases noted. Several possibilities exist, including the fact that angel in its simplest meaning is simply the messenger from or to the church in each of these places. Or as Hanserd Knollys contends, angel could be used figuratively as a collective noun representing the elders of the church (especially since this is a book of signs & symbols). Nevertheless, it seems that the main burden is for those against plurality of elders to show why their interpretation is not consistent with the rest of the New Testament.

Other mentions of elders in the churches or passages that might have application, IMO: Acts 11:30; Acts 13:1; Eph. 4:11; I Tim. 3:1-13; I Tim 4:14; Titus 1:5ff., I Pet. 5:1ff., & III John 9.

Side note - the same idea appears to be true when the church at Jerusalem appoints deacons. Yes, two rose to a prominence of sorts because of their gifts and activity. BUT, the church appointed seven men equally over the work and did not assign one a title or status over and above the others.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by rlvaughn:
In charge - when I refer to no one elder being "in charge", I mean that there is not one elected by the church or the elder body to be in a position of authority over the rest. For example, in a group of elders on staff at a church, if there is a "senior pastor" everyone knows he carries more weight than the others. He is "in charge".

The senior pastor may be in charge until someone else decides his way is better.

I was a part of a church which went from one pastor being in charge and the elders using their gifts to do ministry in their respective areas.

Later one of the elders got the bright idea that all elders were equal and no one better than another. The problem was that they could not make decisions and get things done. They would wait until all the elders agreed on everything before they would do anything. It got to the point where no men would volunteer to do anything. I was asked to be an elder and told them, "No" and why. I could get more done by myself than the entire group of elders. I got more done in ministry with those I enlisted in one month than those men could get done in a year. Eventually that church got down so low that they could hardly pay their bills. The church started fighting. Many rose up against the elders. The church was so low in attendance that it reach the lowest point it had seen in 30 years. Finally the elders asked me to come talk with them. After listening to them I realized they simply could not make decisons and none of them had any ministry responsibility. They were working together getting nothing done. Not one of them had recruited anyone to help them do ministry because they did everything together. The problem was they did little. The problem started with one man who was an elder about 30 years ago and ended with the same man. Finally they got a new pastor after the interim basically told them they were wrong. They allowed the new pastor to lead and things are going great now. A huge change came in just a few months. The church is back to the same style of leasdership it was about 30 years ago. It is also the same way of doing things they had done since the church began. Each elder oversees a part of the ministry but the senior pastor oversees the work of the church. Ministry is being done and the people love their new pastor. The funny thing is that the new pastor is not near as good of a leader as the pastor they had 30 years ago and told him he was wrong.

Submission is the key to leadership and unity.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by rlvaughn:
Acts 14:23 - Paul & Barnabas ordained elders in every church in Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch. Nothing is notable that would indicate any of one the elders is different from the others.

There is a huge difference betweeen Paul and Barnabas. Who was the leader?

 

[rlvaughn]

GB, as to your first post - folks can give experiential evidence to all variations of leadership styles gone awry. They all will. Men are sinners. If a church has a single pastor, he can mess up. That doesn't prove single pastors are wrong. If a church has plural elders, they can mess up. That doesn't prove plural elders are wrong. The Bible is the standard by which we judge, not our experience or experiments.

As to Paul & Barnabas - First, I think you fail to differentiate here between assigned leadership and natural leadership, gifts & calling (cf. Acts 9:15). As far as the church of Antioch setting apart Paul & Barnabas, they did not put one "in charge" over the other. See Acts 13:1-4. They set them apart to the work to which God had called them. God obviously had a special calling for the Apostle Paul. Even at that, though, there was not a contrived authority under which Barnabas assumed he must always acquiesce to whatever Paul wanted. See Acts 15:36-39. There is probably also the apostolic element that must be figured in. I do not believe there was a "head apostle" (pope maybe??) and "assistant apostles". But the apostles in relation to the early church occupied a special place not held by any officers today.

But, secondly, the main point of Acts 14:23 was about them appointing plural elders. This they did when they went to the churches of Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch (Pisidia). This they did in each place. This they did without electing or ordaining one elder in charge over the others.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by rlvaughn:


But, secondly, the main point of Acts 14:23 was about them appointing plural elders. This they did when they went to the churches of Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch (Pisidia). This they did in each place. This they did without electing or ordaining one elder in charge over the others.

Who told them to appoint elders?

The church was made up of many house churches which had one leader each.

In servant leadership the leader does not appoint himself as leader. It is the congregation who allows him to lead. His leadrship is proven by those he leads. The problem we have so much of today is that fewe wnat to lead and even fewer have rpoven their leadership by those they are currently leading.

Isn't it rather obvious when you look at how many leaders in churches are making disciples?

In my over 30 years in the church and in business I have never seen so many lazy peope in the congregation complain about their pastor and expect so much of him and give so little.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by rlvaughn:
As far as the church of Antioch setting apart Paul & Barnabas, they did not put one "in charge" over the other.

Nobody is in charge over another anyway.

Put ten people in a room and you will soon find out who is eventually leading.

As for Paul and Barnabas: when two are working together often there is nothing spoken about leadership. They just get the job done.

I think that is the issue about the ant in scripture.

 

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by gb93433:
Who told them to appoint elders?

I'm not sure what your point is. In the immediate context there is no mention that anyone told them. In the broader context of Acts (& the rest of the New Testament) we see them following a pattern. The churches they had been in previously had elders.

Originally posted by gb93433:
The church was made up of many house churches which had one leader each.

Which church, and based on what?

Originally posted by gb93433:
...when two are working together often there is nothing spoken about leadership. They just get the job done.

I don't recall that Paul spent much if any time pointing out he was in authority over someone. As you say, he "just got the job done." He was prone to call others co-laborers, fellow laborers, etc. To him it was not important who planted and who watered, but that God gave the increase.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by rlvaughn:

The church was made up of many house churches which had one leader each.

Which church, and based on what?


We know that from history. Another good example is in Philemon. The did not have buildings as we know them. They met in homes.

Philemon 1,2 "Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother, to Philemon our beloved brother and fellow worker, and to Apphia our sister, and to Archippus our fellow soldier, and to the church in your house:"

About appointing elders: Titus 1:5, "For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you,"

 

[rlvaughn]

GB, I am not questioning whether they met in houses/homes (Rom 16:5; 1 Cor 16:19; Col 4:15; Phlm 1:2). I am asking how you came to the conclusion that one house church = one leader (only).

 

[Dr. Bob]

Originally posted by gb93433:
There is a huge difference betweeen Paul and Barnabas. Who was the leader?

Barnabas, without question.

He was Jupiter, Paul Mercury (messenger of Jupiter).

Look at the progression. Barnabas took Paul under his tutelege and care, worked with him (always mention Barnabas and Saul in that order in Acts 11,12,13 first part).

Then toward the conclusion of their mission, Paul shifts toward more attention by the writer (Luke, who opts of follow Paul, not Barnabas for the next 10 years). Read the end of Acts 13 and then the Council in Jerusalem and it is Paul mentioned first.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by rlvaughn:
GB, I am not questioning whether they met in houses/homes (Rom 16:5; 1 Cor 16:19; Col 4:15; Phlm 1:2). I am asking how you came to the conclusion that one house church = one leader (only).

Knowing about the size of homes it is likely that a home would have held about 20 t0 25 people. I don't know of anything cast in stone about this though. There may have been more than one but there is no evidence to suggest one way or the other that I am aware of. We do know there was nore than one house church in a church in the area.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob:
Barnabas, without question.

He was Jupiter, Paul Mercury (messenger of Jupiter).

Look at the progression. Barnabas took Paul under his tutelege and care, worked with him (always mention Barnabas and Saul in that order in Acts 11,12,13 first part).

Then toward the conclusion of their mission, Paul shifts toward more attention by the writer (Luke, who opts of follow Paul, not Barnabas for the next 10 years). Read the end of Acts 13 and then the Council in Jerusalem and it is Paul mentioned first.

Very good point. I know a Barnabas who knew his retirement was coming. Little did he know what God knew though. That pastor hired a young man to be his assistant pastor to eventually become the pastor. He trained that man for six years. At the end of his time the pastor came down with cancer. The assistant stepped right in and became the full time pastor. Nobody could talk about the way it was done before. The pastor announced who the new pastor was and gave his blesssing. Shortly afterward he died. That was the best thing that happened to that church. The former pastor's family attends church there and is very involved. That church has exploded with growth. In the past 8 years that church has gone from about 500 to over 2000. The pastor attributes that to the former pastor's blessing and training. I would wish that kind of transition on every godly church and pastor. Wouldn't it be great if every pastor could thank the former pastor?

 

[richard n koustas]

Originally posted by gb93433:

The church was made up of many house churches which had one leader each.

Do you have a reference for this statement?

 

[richard n koustas]

oops, i didn't realize that this thread continued onto a third page...

 

[EdSutton]

'GB's' last sentence in his last post:
" Wouldn't it be great if every pastor could thank the former pastor?"
Many do - Too bad it is often for leaving. Ed

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by richard n koustas:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gb93433:

The church was made up of many house churches which had one leader each.

Do you have a reference for this statement? </font>[/QUOTE]Acts 2:46 Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart,
Acts 5:42 And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they kept right on teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ.
Acts 8:3 But Saul began ravaging the church, entering house after house, and dragging off men and women, he would put them in prison.
Acts 20:20 how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you publicly and from house to house,
1Cor 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.
Phle 1:2 and to Apphia our sister, and to Archippus our fellow soldier, and to the church in your house:
2Joh 1:10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting;