The word "angel" or "a(n)gelos" means messenger, not pastor. These verses in Revelation do not prove there is only a single pastor for every church. In fact, one must presuppose the idea of single pastor-leaders (vs. plurality of pastors) before getting that meaning from those passages. All cases of pastors of which we are aware in the New Testament are cases of plurality of pastors.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Plurality in leadership??
- Thread starter Pastor_Bob
- Start date
In Titus 1, Paul tells Titus to arrange for the selection of elders for the churches there. Clearly, that refers to an office.Originally posted by Pastor_Bob:
Everytime you see the word "elder" in the NT, it is not referring to an office in the church. Jesus used the the word "presbuteros" long before He ever established the church.
The better proof of this is the word used in 1 Tim 3:1 and Titus 1:7 which is episkopos, meaning overseer or manager. It is given to a man in the singular, not to a group in the plural. Additionally, the verb form is used in Acts 20:28 and 1 Peter 5:1-2 showing that the work of the overseer is done by the elder/pastor. In other words, in the NT, the elder/pastor/overseer all refer to the same office.On the other hand, the word "pastors" in the NT is the Greek word "poimen." It denotes leadership such as a shepherd would lead his sheep.
If we take a serious look at the historical background of church leadership in the NT we see the younger pastors being mentored by the older more experienced. But each church was made up of many more smaller churches each with a leader. The church at Ephesus was comprised of several churches within the region of Ephesus. It was not one large assembly. In fact the early church met in homes. I am not sure America has the same context and therefore it would be difficult to duplicate the same context. If we were under persecution we could probably duplicate the same context. During communistic rule many churches were established but were referred to the underground church. Each little meeting had a leader.
No one man is an expert at any one thing, Therefore I believe it would be wise for a pastor to surround himself with wise men who would hold each other accountable.
Some of the towns where Paul planted churches were up to 120,000 population. A person would not very likely walk to a large assembly in a town that size. So it is very practical to have much smaller churches with one pastor each.
If we look at the NT we see that pastors were chosen, appointed and sent out. We see different ways that they were selected. In one church I was involved with they believed in a plurality of elders. At one time the elders were selected from among the people in the congregation. A person's name was submitted on a piece of paper by someone in the congregation. After the name was submitted the pastor then spoke to the person. If the person agreed to serve as an elder then their name was brought before the congregation. The pastor would say something like, "xxxx's name has been submitted to serve as an elder (or what ever office it was). If there is any reason why you believe they shouldn't serve please let me know." After some time went by the person's name will be brought before the congregation again. At that time the congregation wil be told that xxxx has agreed to serve as an elder or deacon and we will have a meeting to ask any questions you would like. Those men at that time were great men of God.
But later one man he persuaded the elders to get smaller and that they should make all the decisions (all in the name of biblical). Everyone of the men now are weak and are not leading. They don't disciple people nor do they share their faith. The church is now dying and is at about 25 percent of what it once was.
A plurality of elders can be good if the men are godly leaders. But then you don't need government to control godly people. They are workers.
Paul never emphasized the office but rather the function. All qualifications are in the present tense. A pastor is different than just the qualifications. He is a godly leader. The function of any believer is to reach others not to control them.
No one man is an expert at any one thing, Therefore I believe it would be wise for a pastor to surround himself with wise men who would hold each other accountable.
Some of the towns where Paul planted churches were up to 120,000 population. A person would not very likely walk to a large assembly in a town that size. So it is very practical to have much smaller churches with one pastor each.
If we look at the NT we see that pastors were chosen, appointed and sent out. We see different ways that they were selected. In one church I was involved with they believed in a plurality of elders. At one time the elders were selected from among the people in the congregation. A person's name was submitted on a piece of paper by someone in the congregation. After the name was submitted the pastor then spoke to the person. If the person agreed to serve as an elder then their name was brought before the congregation. The pastor would say something like, "xxxx's name has been submitted to serve as an elder (or what ever office it was). If there is any reason why you believe they shouldn't serve please let me know." After some time went by the person's name will be brought before the congregation again. At that time the congregation wil be told that xxxx has agreed to serve as an elder or deacon and we will have a meeting to ask any questions you would like. Those men at that time were great men of God.
But later one man he persuaded the elders to get smaller and that they should make all the decisions (all in the name of biblical). Everyone of the men now are weak and are not leading. They don't disciple people nor do they share their faith. The church is now dying and is at about 25 percent of what it once was.
A plurality of elders can be good if the men are godly leaders. But then you don't need government to control godly people. They are workers.
Paul never emphasized the office but rather the function. All qualifications are in the present tense. A pastor is different than just the qualifications. He is a godly leader. The function of any believer is to reach others not to control them.
This article may help you understanding the subject... I believe that Biblical Eldership and Plurality of Elders in the church is Biblical.
click here: BIBLICAL ELDERSHIP
Thanks,
Richard
click here: BIBLICAL ELDERSHIP
Thanks,
Richard
Richard, I read the article by Strauch. The problem I see is his assumption of the church. He builds and entire theology upon one definiton which he never defines. But he calls his view biblical. His historical presupposition of what the church was is wrong. The church in scripture is a number of smaller cell type churches meeting and called the church. (Look at Philemon).The church at Ephesus and any other place was more than one local church. So if you were to take a pastor from each smaller local church and call them elders then you could call that a plurality of elders. Yes, it was a plurality of elders being mentored and led by Paul. In the NT wee see Paul mentoring "elders." He is a single leader training them as pastors. Those pastors he is training do not have the same wisdom and experience as he does. He clearly makes numerous decisions apart from those he is training. The ministry is not about a plurality of elders or not or style of church governement but about getting the job done. Ever see a church started with a plurality of elders? The vision starts with one man most of the time. Ever see any church that has a plurality of elders and they sit in a big room trying to make every decision where everyone agrees. I can show you several dead and dying churches that do that. However I have seen chruches that believe in a plurality of elders where the pastor is the main teacher, trainer and leader. Each of the elders are reponsible for a particular ministry. That kind of ministry works. But the other does not. God has gifted each person differently and to sit and discuss about something that someone else has no wisdom about makes no sense. I have sat in those kinds of meetings where I mentioned about doing evangelism and many of the others discussed how they thought it should be done. I have only done it numerous times in communities. I have been mentored by much more experienced men. They had little experience. I should have been mentoring them but instead they talked and talked about their ignorance professing their ignorance as wisdom. The person with the God given giftedness is truly the leader and should be recognized as such. I have seen those same men tell the pastor about how hs theology should be. Again I saw their ignorance of Greek and Hebrew.
Having perfect government does not win people to Christ and disciple them. Only people do that. Look at the ants how they work. They just work and get the job done. I have never seen a man who was rowing the boat ever spend time rocking it. A busy man does not have time to waste on futile discussions that produce no fruit.
Having perfect government does not win people to Christ and disciple them. Only people do that. Look at the ants how they work. They just work and get the job done. I have never seen a man who was rowing the boat ever spend time rocking it. A busy man does not have time to waste on futile discussions that produce no fruit.
rb, thanks for the link on the Strauch material. I have printed it so I can read it later.
gb, yours is an interesting position, and if you could make the case, I guess that the argument over plurality of elders would seem to be a moot point. Of course, I don't think the case can be made, and if so, it would certainly indicate an historically wrong approach by Baptists to the issues of church autonomy, sovereignty and independence. It would also call into question why those Baptists who hold this position are not a part of the larger "church" in their city or province, with a plurality of elders serving over all of them. If the case is not made, we are right back to the consistent Biblical model of plurality of pastors in local church bodies.Originally posted by gb93433:
The church in scripture is a number of smaller cell type churches meeting and called the church. (Look at Philemon). The church at Ephesus and any other place was more than one local church. So if you were to take a pastor from each smaller local church and call them elders then you could call that a plurality of elders.
As I see it we have Americanized the scripture and tried to clearly set boundaries and define what each office is. The Bible does not do that. Paul in the list of qualifications stresses the function not the office itself. Do you see how much of the time in the Bible is spent by Jesus and Paul on the issue. It is close to zero.
Every elder in the NT was a reproducer not just a decisionmaker. Today we have a lot of pew sitters who try to make decisions and never lead someone to Christ or ever disciple anyone. I have talked with elders of elder rule churches who have never led someone outside of their immediate family to Christ. Can you even imagine that among the NT leaders? If a "leader" has never discipled someone then how can he lead a church to spiritually reproduce itself. I have met with numerous pastor search committees and ask them about who is living for Jesus Christ because of their life. Almost every person sheepishly tries to hide when I talk about that. The answer is almost zero. When I ask them about their devotional life it is close to the same. Usually the answer is that they don't have enough time. I even heard those answers when I was a student. One time a lady wrote me the nicest letter telling me how much she wanted me to come but how the other leaders were embarrassed by my questions. The time is short and we just don't have time to sit and argue about how to reach people when we are unwilling to step outside into the community and meet people.
In my first pastorate there was a much older pastor who helped me along and was all for me. Several times he came to hear me preach. I knew he loved me and wanted to see me be successful. He was a pastor who pastored other pastors over the years. Someone in his first pastorate did the same thing for him.
Probably the closest thing I can think of to the biblical model is an association of churches where the older pastors help the younger pastors.
Leadership is not about who rules the roost but who rules the rooster. We are here for the glory of God not personal glory. The kingdom workers never make church government an issue. The only issue with them is reaching others and discipling them.
Start taking some of those "leaders"to do ministry with you and you will very quickly find out who is following Jesus and is willing to pay the cost.
It's not about having the right model as it is about leadership.
One man I knew for 20 years died just a few years ago. He was not an elder or deacon or leader in the church until the lasst few years of his life. He told me he didn't have time to because he was discipling people. But when he died there were more than the church could hold. Many had to stand outside. There were about 640 there. Many were not there because they were on the mission field. Loads of people are living for Jesus Christ because of his life. He was a builder in the area. The local lumber yard closed for the funeral. The service alone was three hours. Person after person stood up and said how they know Christ because of this man.
He worked and didn't sit still to argue about how to do something. He just got it done. About 10 years later the church is down to about 25 percent of what it was. The elders are still arguing about how to do things. They won't work. They just talk about ministry but never do it.
One man made a huge diference in the lives of so many.
Every elder in the NT was a reproducer not just a decisionmaker. Today we have a lot of pew sitters who try to make decisions and never lead someone to Christ or ever disciple anyone. I have talked with elders of elder rule churches who have never led someone outside of their immediate family to Christ. Can you even imagine that among the NT leaders? If a "leader" has never discipled someone then how can he lead a church to spiritually reproduce itself. I have met with numerous pastor search committees and ask them about who is living for Jesus Christ because of their life. Almost every person sheepishly tries to hide when I talk about that. The answer is almost zero. When I ask them about their devotional life it is close to the same. Usually the answer is that they don't have enough time. I even heard those answers when I was a student. One time a lady wrote me the nicest letter telling me how much she wanted me to come but how the other leaders were embarrassed by my questions. The time is short and we just don't have time to sit and argue about how to reach people when we are unwilling to step outside into the community and meet people.
In my first pastorate there was a much older pastor who helped me along and was all for me. Several times he came to hear me preach. I knew he loved me and wanted to see me be successful. He was a pastor who pastored other pastors over the years. Someone in his first pastorate did the same thing for him.
Probably the closest thing I can think of to the biblical model is an association of churches where the older pastors help the younger pastors.
Leadership is not about who rules the roost but who rules the rooster. We are here for the glory of God not personal glory. The kingdom workers never make church government an issue. The only issue with them is reaching others and discipling them.
Start taking some of those "leaders"to do ministry with you and you will very quickly find out who is following Jesus and is willing to pay the cost.
It's not about having the right model as it is about leadership.
One man I knew for 20 years died just a few years ago. He was not an elder or deacon or leader in the church until the lasst few years of his life. He told me he didn't have time to because he was discipling people. But when he died there were more than the church could hold. Many had to stand outside. There were about 640 there. Many were not there because they were on the mission field. Loads of people are living for Jesus Christ because of his life. He was a builder in the area. The local lumber yard closed for the funeral. The service alone was three hours. Person after person stood up and said how they know Christ because of this man.
He worked and didn't sit still to argue about how to do something. He just got it done. About 10 years later the church is down to about 25 percent of what it was. The elders are still arguing about how to do things. They won't work. They just talk about ministry but never do it.
One man made a huge diference in the lives of so many.
Pete Richert
New Member
I think the Bible clearly teaches a plurality of elders. I also think the Bible sort-of-clearly teaches that the elders are in some sort of leadership (and definitly teaching), so I take the position that leadership should be a plurality of elders.
However I generally focus their leadership more on the spirtual health and guidence of the people and not so much on decisions for where money should go, buildings, which hymnal, how many services etc. By default they will also lead those decisions but there may be people in the church with the "gift of administration" who are better suited. The point is, that those things arn't the point. The elders should be focus and striving for every spiritual step of everyone in their care.
Personally, I think of pluraility of leadership is healthy for any body, espeically a church. That doesn't mean that one guy doesn't take more initiative in finnally decisions or isn't looked up to more or respected for wise counsil and therefor agreed apon more, it just means that many men get together and pray and exhort and encourage and decide with many voices what is best for their flock.
However I generally focus their leadership more on the spirtual health and guidence of the people and not so much on decisions for where money should go, buildings, which hymnal, how many services etc. By default they will also lead those decisions but there may be people in the church with the "gift of administration" who are better suited. The point is, that those things arn't the point. The elders should be focus and striving for every spiritual step of everyone in their care.
Personally, I think of pluraility of leadership is healthy for any body, espeically a church. That doesn't mean that one guy doesn't take more initiative in finnally decisions or isn't looked up to more or respected for wise counsil and therefor agreed apon more, it just means that many men get together and pray and exhort and encourage and decide with many voices what is best for their flock.
Bartimaeus
New Member
Our form of government is this: As Pastor I advise. Then other men are asked for their opinions,thoughts and concerns. We meet a few days later and ask for a verbal position and answer from all men present and in good standing. Unanimous position moves the church. "They were all in one place in one accord". No jokes please. Now you have our way of governing.
May I ask a simple question? What do we do with the scripture where James the Bishop of the church at Jerusalem says, "Wherefor my sentence is...."? Acts 15:19 This is clearly singular authority. He made the decision, he was the judge and made the conclusion. The judgement was not without advisement, yet the finality of it was one voice.
Thanks --------Bart
May I ask a simple question? What do we do with the scripture where James the Bishop of the church at Jerusalem says, "Wherefor my sentence is...."? Acts 15:19 This is clearly singular authority. He made the decision, he was the judge and made the conclusion. The judgement was not without advisement, yet the finality of it was one voice.
Thanks --------Bart
This happens because deacons try to fill to the void left by the absence of elders. The role of Deacon is different than the role of Elder. The Elders are charged to be ministers of the Word (teachers) and the Deacons are to be servants to the church members. The best model for any church is to have both elders and deacons.Part of the problem is when churches have deacons in leadership positions.