Must a NT Church have a plurality of Elders??

[saturneptune]

It doesn't matter what you call them. It's how they function that defines them. If a church calls a group of men "deacons," though they are functioning as elders, then they're elders.

My point was that plurality of elders is inevitable.



Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. 1Ti 5:17

It seems that God has given elders are given some authority to rule. [And, no, I am not a minister myself, and neither do I desire the office.]

The only problem with calling elders deacons is that there is a need for deacons in a church to function as servants. So if I call elders deacons, what do I call deacons?

I do agree that there is authority for elder rule. It is up to the local church.

It takes a special person to fill the office of pastor. It takes patience, love, and discernment. I work with machinery, and it does not talk back. I found when I had second jobs working with the public I didn't handle some situations well. A pastor has to be a people person, able to listen, give advice, and lead. My hat is off to all who God has given those special set of talents.

 

[webdog]

It doesn't matter what you call them. It's how they function that defines them. If a church calls a group of men "deacons," though they are functioning as elders, then they're elders.

My point was that plurality of elders is inevitable.



Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. 1Ti 5:17

It seems that God has given elders are given some authority to rule. [And, no, I am not a minister myself, and neither do I desire the office.]

It does matter what you call them, else the requirements are moot.

 

[webdog]

I believe the number of elders should be proportionate to the number of the flock. A church consisting of 10 people probably can make do with one, but a church of 100 (just an example, nothing concrete) should have a plurality of elders. With the first church numbering in the thousands, a plurality of elders would be a given.

 

[rlvaughn]

Must a NT Church have a plurality of Elders??

Allan, perhaps there is some "wiggle-room" in your question "Must a NT Church have..." Are we saying that it must have it in order to be a true New Testament Church? Or that it must have it in order to be following the Bible in the best way? Or that it must have it in order to be operating like the churches of the New Testament?

The New Testament practice indicates a plurality of elders in each church (pastors plural instead of pastor singular). There is a consistent use of the word "elders" (plural) and the word "church" (singular). There were multiple leaders in Jerusalem (Acts 15:4), Philippi (Phil. 1:1), Ephesus (Acts 20:17ff.), and the churches to which James was writing (James 5:14). The use of "them" in Hebrews 13:7,17 also seems to be in agreement with the concept of plurality of elders.

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.
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.
Acts 20:17 - And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.
Phil. 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:
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:

There doesn't seem to be an obvious case of a single pastor model in the New Testament.

But to "must" have a plurality of elders I would say "no". Sometimes, according to some circumstances (hopefully temporary), they might even have none. Sometimes, again according to circumstances, they might have only one. Where I see a problem is that most Baptist churches seem to have settled on the single pastor model and prefer it over the scriptural example of plurality of elders. IOW, many of them seem to behave as if they would not follow the example even if they had the opportunity.

See also: http://landmarkbaptist.freeforums.org/plurality-of-elders-t423.html

And again as Jim said, in a Baptist church I never heard the word elder speaking as a pastor till about late 70's or early 80's.

Bob, I think this is probably kind of a regional thing. Records in this area show that elder was always the common term, and only began to wane in 1970s and 80s with the Missionary Baptists, though probably earlier with the Southern Baptists. The Primitive Baptists have used and consistently still use elder.

 

[Aaron]

The only problem with calling elders deacons is that there is a need for deacons in a church to function as servants.

That's not the only problem, but I wasn't talking about labels.

My point was NOT that deacons should be called elders or vice versa, my point WAS that a plurality of elders is inevitable. It just happens, even in churches who don't call them elders.

Every church, except the smallest ones, has a plurality of elders. That's my point, and my only point.

 

[EdSutton]

So if I call elders deacons, what do I call deacons?

Trustees?



Ed

 

[TCGreek]

In another thread this question was sort-of brought up.
Tom Bulter stated in a post in his thread "True Church Disqualifiers" this:


To this TCGreek responded:

So I stet up this debate thread to discuss this

I responded to TCGreek with this:

I think there is safety in a number of elders regarding doctrine and practice and Church disipline. But I have not found any scriptural mandate, command, or instruction that a church is required to have such.


Let the debate begin

Allan and everyone else,

I'm only going by what I see in Scripture.

Let's not be anachronistic now.

In every case, a pluarity of elders was mentioned.

 

[Bob Alkire]

Bob, I think this is probably kind of a regional thing. Records in this area show that elder was always the common term, and only began to wane in 1970s and 80s with the Missionary Baptists, though probably earlier with the Southern Baptists. The Primitive Baptists have used and consistently still use elder.

Brother, I'm sure you could be correct. I knew the term elder but not in Baptist churches. As a child I was brought up in a Presbyterian church and in my mid 20's I left them and became a member of a Baptist church. I didn't know what Primitive Baptists were until the mid 90's. But here in Florida I hadn't heard the term of elder used in Baptist churches till the 70's or 80's and Jim being in Canada must have been a lot like it was down here. Thanks for the information.

 

[Salty]

Elders take care of spiritual needs
Deacons take care of physical needs
Trustees take care of legal needs

Each of the offices may or may not have a pularity.
Also, I belive it is necessary to have a Chairman of the Deacons and Trustees - somone needs to be in charge.

However, NY State law actually has laws about Trustees see this link!

 

[PeterM]

To answer simply... No.

Many churches do have a "plurality" of elders... its called a ministry staff.

 

[Jim1999]

If I may, time and circumtances dictates what we need for a modern church to function and fulfill the demands of scripture in presenting the gospel, teaching the people and reaching the lost, home and abroad.

If we followed what happened in NT times, we would be meeting on rooftops, in open fields, behind rocks, along roadways and in homes. We read about the several thousands being in the church at Jerusalem, but we have yet to discover these huge, massive "buildings" that housed the multiple thousands in archeological research. Where are the many? We find other artifacts even dating back to the flood!

The important thing we follow as being a NT church is the doctrinal facts, and the essential doctrines: the lordship of Jesus the Christ and the word of God. Not the fact that Peter lied, had a fight with Paul, denied the Lord three times, but the fact that Peter loved Jesus and bowed to His every command.

I don't care if your pews are brown, white or black or in fact wooden chairs. I don't care if your building is one room schoolhouse or outstanding temple with stained glass windows, pulpit in centre or off to one side. I do care about what is preached and whether we bow before an holy God with all due respect, even in my sinfulness and faulty person.

Read the scriptures. In them we find all the faults of the people. We also find the truths that God is imparting to us through these imperfections. We emphasize the Paul and Peter had a fight over some details and we tend to forget that they each died for the same truth.

In the early days, if a church only paid a pastor $30.00 per week and provided a house, they could hardly afford all the extras in staffing. Volunteers did everything.

I took one church at $10.00 per week. I also worked as an architect and earned $40,000.00 in 6 months. The money is neither here nor there. If the church suffers then we have failed in our calling. So, as the church grew and prospered, we engaged a full time pastor with a decent wage and I moved on. My next church was rich and paid me $30.00 a week, but I cold work full time in ministry and that is what I was called to do.

How we governed the church depended on the world at the time and circumstances. We remained true to NT teaching, not in ecclesiology, as we understood it to be, but according to the doctrines of the faith once delivered to the saints.

As a chaplain in war, I ministered to a man or woman in uniform. I did not ask of their religion, I addressed their need on the battlefield. I viewed the church the same way all of my life. I was colour blind to their religion, but open-eyed to what Jesus wanted me to be and do.

We fight over minor differences, but are we, in fact, doing what God would have us do in reality.

Let us be about our Father's business and not get tangled in the minor things of scripture. We could very well end up like Peter, walking the water because the Saviour was in our vision, and sink in the water.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[webdog]

Allan and everyone else,

I'm only going by what I see in Scripture.

Let's not be anachronistic now.

In every case, a pluarity of elders was mentioned.

...but in every case we are not given the size of the church. It's apparent where there were a plurality of elders, the church was quite large at that time, growing very fast.

 

[EdSutton]

Two questions; two answers!

"Must a church have a plurality of Elders?"

A large and resounding "No!"

Biblically, otherwise there would have been no need for Paul to have left Titus in Crete to appoint the bishops/elders in the church or churches there. Nor would there have been a reason to return after some time to appoint elders in already existing churches, such as those in Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch. Nor did the church at Jerusalem start with elders, even after becoming not only the first church body, but a "mega-church" at that, for today's wannabe imitators, but they only had elders some years after the church was 'born'. (Ac. 11:30; 14:21-23; Tit. 1:5-11)

The real question should be:

"Should a church have a plurality of elders?"

An even larger and more resounding "YES!"

The very fact that Titus was left in Crete, in order to do this, and they returned to Lystra, Iconiom, and Antioch to accomplish this, shows its very importance.

In addition, I can find no instance, where any NT church had a single elder, as opposed to a plurality. The Jerusalem church had gathered a plurality of elders, even while having those with the gift of Apostle, in their midst. (Ac. 11:30) The 'church council' at Jerusalem had elders right alongside the Apostles, who appear to have equal authority, with even those who had been chosen by the Jesus (Ac. 15:6, 22,23; 16:4). The aforementioned churches all had this plurality of elders, as did the Church at Ephesus (Ac. 20:17), the church at Phillipi (Phl'p 1:1), the church James addresses regarding her sick (Jas, 5:14), and the church Peter is addressing (I Pet. 5:1,5) There was a plurality of elders who laid hands on Timothy (I Tim. 4:14), who BTW is an Apostle, confirming his gift, just as there were multiple hands laid on Barnabas and Saul by the church at Antioch, although here, these 'confirmers' are not identified as elders (Ac. 13:3).

{Pastor/Teacher is a spiritual gift, by express declaration. Why do we somehow think we can improve on the Bible, in this, by making Pastor and even worse, "Senior Pastor" the pinnacle of the offices in the local church??)

When addressing and exhorting elders of the particular church he is writing to in I Peter, he Peter does not initially here invoke his apostleship, but rather exhorts them as a 'co-presbyter', not that of any sort of primacy. Incidentally, for the two best known apostles, the 'Church' office, as relates to a given body, that Peter identified himself with was "sumpresbuteros" an elder of equal stature to any other, and Paul didn't even do that, but actually called himself a deacon, literally. Kinda' short on them 'control types', hunh?

The only times elder or bishop (singular) is used in an individual sense, that I find, is for identification, and qualifications, and culminates with the declaration of Jesus as Bishop of your souls. :jesus:

Multiple eldership important? You bet! That is exactly the reason why that this is is the practice and the model given in Scripture, IMO. :thumbs:

Ed

 

[gb93433]

Allan and everyone else,

I'm only going by what I see in Scripture.

Let's not be anachronistic now.

In every case, a pluarity of elders was mentioned.

Most every letter starts out with ____________ an elder. The practical part of me says that Paul started churches with him as the only pastor/elder. The others were young believers.

 

[gb93433]

...but in every case we are not given the size of the church. It's apparent where there were a plurality of elders, the church was quite large at that time, growing very fast.

The church met in multiple locations too.

 

[EdSutton]

Most every letter starts out with ____________ an elder. The practical part of me says that Paul started churches with him as the only pastor/elder. The others were young believers.

?????

Where do you get this?? Exactly 2 letters (II Jo., III Jo.) out of 21 start in this fashion, and Peter identifies himself as a "co-presbyter" or "fellow elder" in I Pet. 5:1, which is not the "starting" of the letter, by any means. There are exactly 4 or 5 instances where the word "elder" is used in the singular form ( 5-KJV, ASV; 4- NKJV, HCSB, NASB), as regards the churches, in any fashion, and I've just covered three of them.

And practical or no, not only does one does not find the words pastor and elder linked in Scripture, in some instances Paul was only passing through, for a day or so, and churches were formed, even so, I believe you will find.

Ed

 

[TCGreek]

Most every letter starts out with ____________ an elder. The practical part of me says that Paul started churches with him as the only pastor/elder. The others were young believers.

Paul and Barnabas planted churches on their first missionary campaign and then returned to ordained elders (Acts 14:23).

Paul was an apostle, not an elder in the "office" sense.

John is writing as an apostle, not on behalf of church elders.

 

[TCGreek]

...but in every case we are not given the size of the church. It's apparent where there were a plurality of elders, the church was quite large at that time, growing very fast.

Then wait until the church is big enough to have elders (Acts 14:23).

I see no Scripture where a single elder was ordained.

 

[Jim1999]

Why not stick with just pastors and deacons? It worked well for centuries.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[gb93433]

Why not stick with just pastors and deacons? It worked well for centuries.

A friend of mine who has been pastoring before he could get a driver's license told me that years ago you did not see all of the fuss and resumes going about. It was common for the people to pray and once they felt the leading from God then they would ask the person that God had given them.

In the first church I pastored we had a council. The council was made up of people who were ministry leaders. In that council was a lady who had been leading people to Christ all over the place. That lady had an excellent reputation among those in the community. She was a beacon of godliness to everyone especially the ladies in the church. She encouraged the men to lead as well. At the time I met her she was retired and blind. Someone would take her to the Bible study she led and they would play an audio tape of parts of the Bible. The would play a portion and then discuss the part they just played.

Unfortunately we have seen the large churches replace pastor after pastor in just a few years. Those of the old guard often spend too much time slapping the backs of each other. It is an effort to put their friends in nice places of employment and get a big salary. If one took a serious look at some religious ventures they would find nepotism all over the place too.

In contrast: I was friends with a pastor's son from a neighboring town. When the dad began to pastor the church it was only about 15 people and near death. The church had such a mentality that it was locked into having the same people and trying to stay alive. Slowly the church began to grow. I knew the pastor to be an encourager and a praying man. After being at the church about 25 years the pastor wanted to bring on a young man to train to replace him when he retired. By this time the church was about 300 in attendance. Little by little the new man preached more and more until eventually the senior pastor announced that the new man who had been in their midst for six years was the new pastor. By this time the senior pastor had cancer and would not live much longer. I saw a godly man in action and a new pastor who had the blessing of the former pastor. It was about 16 years ago that the pastor today began his ministry at that location. The church has grown in an incredible way. It is running about 2200 in attendance. The church is continuing on just like it always has. The former pastor's family, children, and grandchildren still attend and work as lay people in the church leading a variety of ministries. It is a though the senior pastor never died. The current pastor knows God's blessing and often speaks highly of the former pastor who trained him and blessed him. At the time of the decision the pastor did not have cancer and just planned to retire. It was within just a few months after the time he had originally planned to retire when he died. God is continuing to bless the church and its staff because of that decision. No doubt god's hand was on that church and on those men.

Unfortunately we do not often see that in ministry today.