Must a NT Church have a plurality of Elders??

[ktn4eg]

Why not stick with just pastors and deacons? It worked well for centuries. [Bolding mine--ktn4eg]

Cheers,

Jim

As long as you're referring the office of pastor in the plural sense!

This is not to say that a church with just one pastor [I can't say one SINGLE pastor since Paul indicated that he {NOT SHE !!} is to be the husband of one wife {and I'm not got to go into what precisely "one wife" means since that's already been hashed out in other previous posts {with all five sides having provided solid Biblical proof that each of the five sides is right while the remaining four sides are unscriptural!!!}] is unscriptural, nor that the one pastor isn't doing his best as he can (w/ the HS and the Bible being his guide---along with lots and lots and lots of prayer (both by him and for him!), but given the still fallen nature of man being the way it is, there is also that underlying possibility that (usually unintentionally and very gradually) the one pastor can wind up being more of a dictator than the caring undershepherd he's supposed to be.

This may be why in most cases the NT refers to and is addressing local churches as having a plurality of elders. (NOTE: The NT doesn't define precisely how many men are required for there to be a "plurality" either. Grammatically, "plural" must mean at least two, but beyond that there is no quantifying limit placed on the expression "plural[ity].")

The OT several times refers to there being both strength and wisdom in numbers [Granted, of course, that each member of that "numbers" also be led, guided & directed by the same HS & the same Bible & and backed up w/ lots and lots and lots of prayer---both by them and for them.].

At the church of which I'm a member ( www.lighthouseministries.org ), we'd had a plurality of elders for years, with each elder being specifically responsible for certain areas of our varied ministry, but all of them collectively responsible both for each other as well as for each and every member, family, and those around each member and/or family.

Does this plurality of elders guarantee 100% that there never was nor ever will be no problems with anybody or anything that comes our way??

No, it doesn't. But I'd venture to say that we've had a lot fewer unresolved issues with them than we had before we had a plurality of elders.

 

[Jim1999]

From experience over 50 years, I tend to disagree. I've seen more problems in churches with multiple pastors. I have also seen pastors actually work at pastoring instead of sitting about on a computer all day saying how it should be.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[ktn4eg]

From experience over 50 years, I tend to disagree. I've seen more problems in churches with multiple pastors. I have also seen pastors actually work at pastoring instead of sitting about on a computer all day saying how it should be.

Cheers,

And, each of these churches that have had a plurality of elders [You've called them "pastors" whereas I referred to those at my church as "elders"---but I won't quibble over the semantics involved with each term.] in which you experienced problems have had---as I stated that mine does---:

1) Written job descriptions outlining their specific areas of responsibility,
2) Meet with each other as a group on a regular [usually weekly] basis,
3) Are each led, guided, & directed by the very same HS and the very same Bible as the others,
4) Are backed up by lots and lots and lots of prayer both by them and for them,

Right?

 

[gb93433]

The OT several times refers to there being both strength and wisdom in numbers [Granted, of course, that each member of that "numbers" also be led, guided & directed by the same HS & the same Bible & and backed up w/ lots and lots and lots of prayer---both by them and for them.].

No, it doesn't. But I'd venture to say that we've had a lot fewer unresolved issues with them than we had before we had a plurality of elders.

There is also strength in the wrong direction if the numbers are going the wrong way and it happens more than one can imagine.

 

[Tom Butler]

Supporters of the elder-led church government appeal to
1. Scripture support
2. It works well.
3. First-century practice

Supporters of congregational government with pastors and deacons appeal to
1. Scripture support
2. It works well.
3. Baptist practice for several hundred years, like 2,000..

Seems to me that a church should decide which method it wants to use. If you have unspiritual people in those responsibilities, you'll have problems either way.

Jim1999's observation that Baptists have had pastors and deacons for hundreds of years should not just be blown off as unscriptural. Sure, practice doesn't automatically mean scriptural, but it surely carries a lot of weight for me.

Remember in Acts, where Jerusalem believers had all things in common? It wasn't communism, as some have suggested. It was a form of communalism. But the practice was not mandated for any other congregation. In fact, we never hear of it again, probably because it didn't work.

The congregation I serve runs 60-70 in Sunday worship. Our one elder is handling things quite well.

 

[gb93433]

1) Written job descriptions outlining their specific areas of responsibility,
2) Meet with each other as a group on a regular [usually weekly] basis,
3) Are each led, guided, & directed by the very same HS and the very same Bible as the others,
4) Are backed up by lots and lots and lots of prayer both by them and for them,

Right?

A pastor's job is not defined by a written job description. It is much like being a farmer. You do what needs to be done and do it wisely. The things Jesus did would not fit into a written job description.

The church my wife and I were married in was a beacon in the area but for about 26 years it became a church of the living dead. It had elders who always worked for consensus. One of the elders had come from a Plymouth Brethren background. He was a troublemaker that appeared nice and humble to most. A few years ago we moved back to the area and were shocked at what we saw. The church was on the road to serious death. They were beginning to have trouble paying their bills. They had ousted three pastors. One of them had worked with youth and was a godly man. He had started a led a youth outreach that ended up being about 1000 high school students. The church we attended became a great church and had numerous ministries and leaders.

When I returned I was one of the few who knew what had happened over the years. So I met with the elder. I explained to him how he had caused such trouble and also explained to him that there was more than one type of church government in the Bible. He had never had anything to do with planting a church so I explained what that was like so he could understand. Finally the elders and staff asked me to meet with them. So I laid out for them what I saw among them and what their trouble was. Not one of them were in charge of any ministry and not one of them were discipling anyone. All of them had different gifts and were seeing things from a different point of view. Because of this they could not come to any consensus. The elder was there too as I explained about consensus. Consensus is nothing more than compromise and a blending together of ideas so they become the same when God has not made them the same. Today they are back to like the church was 26 years ago and they are now growing. That elder relied on his background in a little stagnant church and tried to persuade everyone that things should be done as he saw it. People in the church continued to listen to him except the pastors of that church. When I was asked to preach at that church he spoke with me and insulted me as though I had pulled a trick on him when I gave an invitation. I told him that the fact was that I had permission from the music man in charge at the time to give that invitation. He was not a happy man when he saw several come forward for prayer and various other things. In the congregation that day was a non-Christian lady who expressed to her daughter how she felt that I and the pastors cared enough to care for those people.

Today they have a new pastor and the ministry is doing very well. That same elder is working in cooperation with one another and the pastor.

 

[gb93433]

?????

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.

You are right. I was thinking of something else.

 

[Jim1999]

The Bible is essentially the story of redemption from beginning to end. On that it is relatively complete. It is not an history text. I am sure there is a lot of history we don't know from scripture. We must rely on profane history for this information. Different times, different needs. Not all the churches in NT times are listed in the Bible. We just can't definitively say that all had a plurality of pastors.

Let's just make sure the pastors are the spiritual leaders they were intended to be and never mind how many there are.

Oftentimes missionaries went to a foreign country, new language and alone. They established churches, pastored them alone and had very little thought for pay. I never asked a prospective church what they paid. I answered the call and got n with the business at hand. My first church offered 5 pound a month and a free bicycle.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[saturneptune]

It seems like there are two types of elder rule. One, it seems from the posts that elders share the responsiblity of pastor. The church in which I was raised (PCA), had a board of elders and the pastor was considered chairman. He basically did what a single pastor does in a Baptist church. The board of elders basically took the place of congregational votes. There is a big difference.

 

[Allan]

Ok, were are beginning to go into a different direction (no real problem there) but let me re-itterate my question.

MUST a Church have a plurality of elders [to be a proper NT Church]?

To this question, for those who believe so, please provide scriptural support which instructs or commands churches to be set up this way.


I know that scripture speaks of a plurality of elders to certain churches AND to certain churches IN areas (making it a plurality regarding all the churches being addressed. Such as the church (singular) in Jerusalem. There was no one church (that I can find historically or biblically) but most probably many individual churches that were one in unity thus one whole church body of many. This church (singular) in Jerusalem is always addressed but I haven't seen any proof that over 3000 people met in one place everyday eating, studying, praying, fellowshipping, and praising God. So here we have an instance of many churches being called one church body. Thus if there were one pastor in a church you would not know about it because all the elders of all those churches were addressed as one body- therefore a plurality is the proper discription.

How many churches were in Ephesus? Just one? This city during 1st century time was considered to be the second largest city in the known world with a population ranging from approximately 200,000 upwards to 350,000 (some other sourses saying as high as 400,000). Are we to believe that Timothy was establishing a mega-church and not several new churches and their pastors/elders while also ordaining other pastors/elders to existing churches? Therefore this is another example of writing concerning multiple churches as one body due to the unity and sharing of their understanding and scriptures with one another.

Please note - the scripture do not address every single church. This is why I want to see the scriptures which pertain to the instruction of or commanding to a plurality of eldership in every church.

Or .. take Peters charge in 1 Peter 5:1 where he speaks to the 'elders' which are amoung you of whom he (Peter) was also an elder.
NOW - was Peter writing to just one church since he states himself to an elder among them. No it was not to just one church as shown at the beginning of the Letter..

1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

He tells in chapter 5 the elders that are among them (of whom he is one) to rule well. The eldership here is to the many and he includes himself in this body of elders. So the plurality here of elders is not concerning a single church body but mutlitiple ones of which Peter includes himself.

These above are just examples where by a plurality can not necessarily be derived as being from or in one particular church but to them many being spoken to/of as a whole or one.

So the question is still to be answered by many.

MUST a church have a plurality if elders in order to be a proper NT church.
If so please provide scripture where instruction is given concerning this or commanded.


MY answer is no a church does not have to have a plurality of elders in order to be a proper NT Church. However...
I agree with Aaron who stated that it is not necessary but it is (or should) an inevitable thing as the church grows both physically in number and spiriutally into maturity.

 

[ktn4eg]

Supporters of the elder-led church government appeal to
1. Scripture support
2. It works well.
3. First-century practice

Supporters of congregational government with pastors and deacons appeal to
1. Scripture support
2. It works well.
3. Baptist practice for several hundred years, like 2,000..

Seems to me that a church should decide which method it wants to use.

Which is exactly what the man God called to start my church some 30+ years ago to do some 10+ years ago. [BTW, this very same man has continued on in the capacity of an elder--an "equal among equals," so to speak.

The vote was nearly unanimous....98.9% as I recall.

If you have unspiritual people in those responsibilities, you'll have problems either way.

Read the entire contents of the 2d last paragraph of my 06:42 post of today.

See also the conditions listed in my post(s) my church established prior to her vote to be an elder-based church. Plus, of course, those specifically mentioned in the NT's requirements for elder(s).

BTW, I did fail to mention that my church has had to vote to dismiss one elder for failing to comply with one of her stipulations necessary for that of an elder. He's gone; my church has continued to go on.

Even Christ Himself had serious issues with one of His own--Judas Iscariot. Judas Iscariot "resolved(?)" those issues in his own way(s). He's gone; the church that Jesus founded has continued to go on.

Jim1999's observation that Baptists have had pastors and deacons for hundreds of years should not just be blown off as unscriptural. Sure, practice doesn't automatically mean scriptural, but it surely carries a lot of weight for me.

Forgive me if I gave you the impression that I consider any other local body of belivers than that of a multple-elder-based one as unscriptural.

I don't believe I actually wrote that this is what I think, but in either case (directly or implied) if that's the impression I left with you, I beg your forgivenss.

Remember in Acts, where Jerusalem believers had all things in common? It wasn't communism, as some have suggested. It was a form of communalism. But the practice was not mandated for any other congregation. In fact, we never hear of it again, probably because it didn't work.

My views on that particular situation can be found in my response to LeBuick's posting in the thread "Is Socialism Communism."

Briefly, my views on that situation basically mirror yours. :thumbs:

The congregation I serve runs 60-70 in Sunday worship. Our one elder is handling things quite well.

And I praise God that she does and will continue to do so. And hopefully you've already been preparing the congregation God has called you to undershepherd for the time when (for whatever the reason may be) you are no longer her undershepherd.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Years ago, the man whom God led to form this local body of believers that I call my church began doing this by asking this body to vote on becoming an elder-based church.

A decade of time has proven the wisdom of that decision because about 7 years ago God in His infinite wisdom allowed that very same man to become the victim of a disease closely resembling Parkinson's Disease in many of its symptoms. This has progressively led to his decreased physical capacity to do all that he'd like to do as a man, a husband (to his wife that has her own share of physical disabilities), a father and grandfather, and as a pastor.

Thanks to modern technology, much of what he still needs to do can be done from his home where he can tend to both his wife's needs and the responsibilites he still has as one of the elders. In addition to that, he can also help tend to the needs of his father who's been recently diagnosed with an increasingly dibiltating form of cancer.

Moreover, he has repeatedly mentioned to our church that God now seems to be leading him even further away in the direction of undershepherding a local body of believers and more closely in the direction of being something like an international missions co-ordinator dealing primarily with the six major foreign missions works that over the years God has allowed my church to establish on two different continents.

God, of course being the all-wise, all-knowing God that He is, began to prove that to us here--about two years ago-- in a rather concrete way by leading another body of believers in a neighboring community that had been meeting together for some 15 or so years (but without a phyiscal plant of their own) to begin discussions and several votes on at least 4 different levels what will "officially" culimate tomorrow January 4, 2009) when:

1) These "two shall become one!"
2) Their group of elders and our group of elders will "officially" become one group of elders!
3) Paraphrasing what Ruth told Naomi--your people shall become mine and vice versa!, and
4) The man who once was their "Leading Elder" shall become our "Leading Elder!

Please pray for this momentous occasion in the lives of what was once two autonomous bodies of believers who've now chosen to become one autonomous body of believers!

I'm excited about what God has in store for the church to which He led me to join some 15+ years ago!!

Yes, like most any church, we've had some bumps along the way, and I'm sure our suspension system will continue to be tested a time or two in the future.

Thankfully, that suspension system is directly connected to the Solid Rock of her Founder---Jesus Christ!! :jesus:

 

[ktn4eg]

There is also strength in the wrong direction if the numbers are going the wrong way and it happens more than one can imagine.

I will refer you back to what I stated in the bracketed portion of my post of 07:20 AM this morning.

 

[gb93433]

I will refer you back to what I stated in the bracketed portion of my post of 07:20 AM this morning.

I am not sure what your point is.

 

[Jerome]

some 10+ years ago.

Oh, so that's what you meant when you said your church had had elders for "years".

 

[ktn4eg]

Ok, were are beginning to go into a different direction (no real problem there) but let me re-itterate my question.

MUST a Church have a plurality of elders [to be a proper NT Church]?

To this question, for those who believe so, please provide scriptural support which instructs or commands churches to be set up this way.


I know that scripture speaks of a plurality of elders to certain churches AND to certain churches IN areas (making it a plurality regarding all the churches being addressed. Such as the church (singular) in Jerusalem. There was no one church (that I can find historically or biblically) but most probably many individual churches that were one in unity thus one whole church body of many. This church (singular) in Jerusalem is always addressed but I haven't seen any proof that over 3000 people met in one place everyday eating, studying, praying, fellowshipping, and praising God. So here we have an instance of many churches being called one church body. Thus if there were one pastor in a church you would not know about it because all the elders of all those churches were addressed as one body- therefore a plurality is the proper discription.

How many churches were in Ephesus? Just one? This city during 1st century time was considered to be the second largest city in the known world with a population ranging from approximately 200,000 upwards to 350,000 (some other sourses saying as high as 400,000). Are we to believe that Timothy was establishing a mega-church and not several new churches and their pastors/elders while also ordaining other pastors/elders to existing churches? Therefore this is another example of writing concerning multiple churches as one body due to the unity and sharing of their understanding and scriptures with one another.

Please note - the scripture do not address every single church. This is why I want to see the scriptures which pertain to the instruction of or commanding to a plurality of eldership in every church.

Or .. take Peters charge in 1 Peter 5:1 where he speaks to the 'elders' which are amoung you of whom he (Peter) was also an elder.
NOW - was Peter writing to just one church since he states himself to an elder among them. No it was not to just one church as shown at the beginning of the Letter..

He tells in chapter 5 the elders that are among them (of whom he is one) to rule well. The eldership here is to the many and he includes himself in this body of elders. So the plurality here of elders is not concerning a single church body but mutlitiple ones of which Peter includes himself.

These above are just examples where by a plurality can not necessarily be derived as being from or in one particular church but to them many being spoken to/of as a whole or one.

So the question is still to be answered by many.

MUST a church have a plurality if elders in order to be a proper NT church.
If so please provide scripture where instruction is given concerning this or commanded.


MY answer is no a church does not have to have a plurality of elders in order to be a proper NT Church. However...
I agree with Aaron who stated that it is not necessary but it is (or should) an inevitable thing as the church grows both physically in number and spiriutally into maturity.

And I have no basic argument with that either.

A local church may start out small....Mine did [even though I myself was not one her members at the time---Maybe that's why she grew at the time! :thumbs: ].

But, just as an individual child, the natural tendency is ultimately to grow---in both size and maturity---it would seem to imply that the number of her undershepherds ought to grow as well. [Supply specific scriptures for that, you ask!! I can't say that I can do so....but then I can't supply chapter and verse in the Bible where the LORD is quoted as having said, "Let there be gravity" either.]

No clear concensus seems to exist regarding how fast--and to what extent--both kinds of grow ought to occur......and some will see the two as being diametrically opposed one to the other....but some kind of overall growth in both aspects ought to be taking place.

I hope that this will help clarify my particular view(s) on this question that Allan has posed for us.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW, Allan, how's global warming working out for you up there where you are? :tonofbricks:

 

[ktn4eg]

I am not sure what your point is.

Granted, of course, that each is led, guided, and directed by the HS and the Bible, and with lots, and lots, and lots of prayer both for and by him...

.....is what I wrote.

Hope that clarifies things for you.

[BTW= "HS" = "Holy Spirit" ----and no disrespect to Him is intended by the abbrevation any more than do I consider it disprespect to abbrveiate the names of Books {each of which are God-breathed}.]

 

[Jim1999]

ktn4eg
Sometimes a man is called to a troubled church that needs a combination of iron hand and gentle heart. He is there to resolve certain issues which have played havoc with that church. Growth in membership doesn't always happen before that man moves along and the evangelist type pastor takes over.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Allan]

But, just as an individual child, the natural tendency is ultimately to grow---in both size and maturity---it would seem to imply that the number of her undershepherds ought to grow as well. [Supply specific scriptures for that, you ask!! I can't say that I can do so....but then I can't supply chapter and verse in the Bible where the LORD is quoted as having said, "Let there be gravity" either.]

Understood.. What I was explaining is that scripture does tell us what is required for faith and 'practice' regarding our personal lives and even our coming together. It does state that there needs to a pastor/elder over a church for leadership and guidance. What it does not tell us specifically or even infers is that there 'needs' to be a plurality from the start or that there 'needs' to be a plurality period. It does show us that wisdom is found in a multitude of counsilors but it never states or implies that a church can not be or is not opporating biblically unless we have a plurality of elders.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

BTW, Allan, how's global warming working out for you up there where you are? :tonofbricks:

[/QUOTE]
LOL.. at present we are expecting 4 to 6 inches of snow with about a 1/2 inch already on the ground and it is still coming down pretty good

 

[Jerome]

The Reformed Baptists were among the first to jump on this contemporary "plurality of elders" bandwagon four decades ago.
This excellent article by John Reisinger describes the results of their experiment:

"Several years ago a group of Reformed Baptist pastors published a book entitled Shepherding God's Flock. The book was specifically aimed at trying to correct a growing problem of abusive eldership within that movement. The very fact the book was written and published is testimony to the severity of the problem about which these men were concerned."

"The book has one great weakness. None of the authors in the book makes any attempt to trace the problem to a root cause. They have purposely kept the theme of the book to one subject, namely the abuse of eldership. How and why that abusive attitude came into being, was nurtured, and allowed to grow is not discussed. All of the authors treat the tyrants against whom they are writing as aberrations of their own doctrine of eldership. We would suggest that it is possible that the tyrants are in reality the logical conclusion to that very view of eldership and as long as the same system of eldership is maintained tyrannical men will continue to arise in their midst."

"Some Reformed Baptists, as well as others, have attempted to wed two things that are totally opposite. These men have tried to put elements of Presbyterianism into a semi-Baptist framework and managed to destroy the strengths of both systems and exaggerate the weakness of both systems."

 

[ktn4eg]

Understood.. What I was explaining is that scripture does tell us what is required for faith and 'practice' regarding our personal lives and even our coming together. It does state that there needs to a pastor/elder over a church for leadership and guidance. What it does not tell us specifically or even infers is that there 'needs' to be a plurality from the start or that there 'needs' to be a plurality period. It does show us that wisdom is found in a multitude of counsilors but it never states or implies that a church can not be or is not opporating biblically unless we have a plurality of elders.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

LOL.. at present we are expecting 4 to 6 inches of snow with about a 1/2 inch already on the ground and it is still coming down pretty good [/quote]

What Allen said! On both topics!!!