Discussions of models of church polity and governance are frequent, and frequently heated. While there are several models in the large scheme of "church," there are two that are most often brought up in evangelical circles: plurality of elders vs. single elder. Perhaps it would be more accurate to describe them as plurality of equal elders vs. senior pastor. A plurality of elders seems to usually exist of more than one elder (I know, profound), all conceived of as equals. Decisions by the "elder board" are usually unanimous, and everyone's position is given a theoretical equal weight.
A senior pastor model seems usually to vest the pastoral office in one man, with all of its leadership and authority roles and functions. The model frequently has other elders, usually called assistants, but there is a clear demarcation of authority and responsibility. In many churches, assistant pastors or associate pastors are frequently described as "extensions of the pastoral office." The senior pastor will often (if he is wise) seek the advice and input of others (assistants, deacons, members with experience, etc). However, in the end, he is "the man."
Without delving into the whole question, 1 Timothy 5:17-25 has been rattling around in my head for a few months on this topic, so I thought I would dump it out here and see what it brings out of the woodwork.
In this passage, we see a single man (Timothy) charged with the oversight of problems in the church at Ephesus. He is particularly charged with the discipline of sinning elders and selection of other elders. In this passage, Paul makes no apparent reference to anyone in authority other than Timothy, whom he has left there to straighten out the mess (1:3ff.) In fact, the whole book is addressed to Timothy as if Timothy is "the man" in the church at Ephesus.
Here's the question: If the NT really envisions a true plurality of elders, all equal in authority, then why does not Paul address them? In Acts 20, he had no problem addressing the elders as a group. Here, they are notable by their absence. He addresses Timothy alone as if he has this authority and responsibility. Why?
Some might argue that Timothy was an apostolic delegate while pastors today are not. This is true, but of what relevance is that? How does that give Timothy more authority or responsibility than a man today?
I am persuaded that the biblical model at the very least allows for a heirarchical model in the local church (senior pastor, possibly with other elders). I see no real practical viability to a plurality of elders, even though it might sound good in theory. But I wonder if this passage carries any water for the single leader position.
Feel free to bat it around if you wish. I would be interested in your comments, particularly if you happen to actually know something about the topic.
17 comments:
Let me bat some questions right back at you, Larry:
First, you write: "Here's the question: If the NT really envisions a true plurality of elders, all equal in authority, then why does not Paul address them? In Acts 20, he had no problem addressing the elders as a group. Here, they are notable by their absence. He addresses Timothy alone as if he has this authority and responsibility. Why?"
I don't understand this question, at all. Timothy was not an elder; he was an apostolic representative. Therefore, it is completely irrelevant to the elder issue because it confuses the office of elder with the office of apostle. But you anticipate my objection and continue:
"Some might argue that Timothy was an apostolic delegate while pastors today are not. This is true, but of what relevance is that? How does that give Timothy more authority or responsibility than a man today?"
Because we don't have any apostles or apostolic representatives today, do we? You seem to assume that Timothy is functioning in an elder capacity. He is not. His assignment there was temporary and specific (1 Tim. 1:3 and esp. 3:14-15). And, yes, APOSTLES had more authority and/or responsibility than any man today, which authority Paul seems to delegate temporarily to Timothy (and Titus) in two rare instances. So it is a complete red herring, isn't it, to compare Timothy to any local church elder either then or now? Put another way, the responsibility is on you to explain how Timothy's work in Ephesus is in any way comparable to the "solo pastor" or "senior pastor" we have today.
You continue, "I am persuaded that the biblical model at the very least allows for a hierarchical model in the local church (senior pastor, possibly with other elders)...."
And what persuades you of this, other than your own presuppositions? Can you show me one local church in the NT where one man is singled out as the "senior elder" or elevated in any way above other elders in the church? That would be helpful evidence for your "hierarchical model."
And, doesn't your "hierarchical model," essentially violate the "two office" Baptist distinctive? For if there is one senior pastor and some other measly elders, the senior pastor is in a class by himself, is he not? The very term you use "hierarchical" gives one man more authority and responsibility than anyone else who bears the term "elder." He is, therefore, greater than (or "unequal to" take your pick) any other officer in the church.
And, by the way, what function in the NT does the "Senior Elder" have that the other elders do not perform? I want chapter and verse here.
Now let me return to the section I originally quoted from you: "If the NT really envisions a true plurality of elders, all equal in authority, then why does not Paul address them?" Let me turn the question on you: If the NT really envisions a true Senior Elder, with greater authority than anyone else in the church (other elders not withstanding), then why does Paul send Timothy instead of just addressing the Senior Pastor (by name, if necessary) who can just take care of business for Paul? You seem to assume that is what he was doing by writing to Timothy, but Timothy was not an elder in the Ephesian church, as we've seen.
Also, I think you've overlooked a few things. First, you referenced Acts 20 where Paul called for the "elders of the church" (v. 17, NIV). These guys were from Ephesus (v. 17 again), as you know. Where was Timothy sent again in 1 Timothy? Oh, yeah, Ephesus (1 Tim. 1:3). So, what do you mean about the plurality of elders being "notable by their absence" in 1 Timothy? They are not absent at all; you are assuming an absence that is not in evidence. Again, the responsibility is on you: how were plural elders present in Ephesus in Acts 20 but somehow gone from Ephesus in 1 Timothy, as you seem to assume?
Also, what do you make of 1 Timothy 4:14 which talks about the "BODY OF ELDERS" laying hands on Timothy? Of course, these are not the Ephesian elders, but instead the elders of Lystra, Timothy's hometown (Acts 16:1ff). But the point is that here Paul CLEARLY references a plurality of elders, with no one person singled out, even though some person(s) uttered a "prophetic message" (again 1 Tim 4:14) about Timothy. How does this work in your "hierarchical structure?" Would not the "Senior Elder" be the guy to make such a prophetic statement, given his greater (unequal) status to the other elders? Yet he is notable by his absence.
No?
Thanks Brian. I was hoping you would weigh in, given our differences.
First, I am not convinced that Timothy wasn’t an elder, or at least acting in position as an elder. To declare that he was not by appealing to 1:3 and 4:14-15, to me, is not that same as proving it. As I say, I am not sure an “apostolic representative” (that we don’t have today) has any function or authority that an elder doesn’t have. I think apostles did, but not apostolic representatives necessarily. It seems to me that Timothy was to do what the other elders should have been doing, e.g., protecting against false doctrine, promoting biblical worship and gender roles, etc. If we say that Timothy was an apostolic representative, not an elder, then we lose the impact of the most complete teachings on the work of ane elder in the Bible. (That’s a result argument, to be sure, so it is not a definitive one.) The “apostolic representative” position may carry more weight than I am giving it. But I am not yet convinced of it.
When we look at the biblical commands for an elder/pastor/overseer, are they not exactly what Timothy was instructed to do? I think they are. And that leads me to bleieve that Timothy was an elder in the church at Ephesus to “clean up the mess” left by other elders who weren’t doing their job.
With respect to the heirarchical nature, my view stems from the nature of leadership and the model of the church. Christ is the head of the church and there is only one. Why would we vest final authority in more than one undershepherd in the local church? Secondly, the nature of leadership is such that eventually someone is “in charge.” Even at these “plurality of equal elders” churches, isn’t there someone who gets the ball rolling? Do we really think that John MacArthur is on a equal level with the rest of the elders? I would be willing to be that his voice carries a little louder than anyone else’s. So I think it is practically unworkable. Of course, I have some very good friends who disagree with me on this issue and whose friendship is a great blessing to me and their comments on my blog are always welcome and challenging. I just struggle to see that concept in leadership in Scripture. In addition, several points in Scripture seem to point to a single elder model (Rev 2-3, if you think “messenger” is the pastor; singular overseer vs. plural deacons in 1 Tim 3:1-13).
The heirarchical model I suggest is modeled in Timothy at Ephesus and Jerusalem, where James seems unquestionably to be “the man.” It is true that there are other elders around him, but James seems preeminent, does he not? In addition, I don’t think we can use Scripture to declare dogmatically that there were no senior pastor models in the early church. The evidence is scant, and the existence of “house churches” in cities where each individual assembly probably had an elder, but the text does not demand multiple elders in each assembly, so far as I can tell. In other words, Ephesus has “elders,” let’s say 20 for the sake of discussion. But perhaps they also had 20 house churches. So they had one elder is each church. They collectively were the elders of the church at Ephesus.
Does senior pastor violate two offices? No. First I wouldn’t call other elders “measly.” Second, they are still elders, extensions of the pastoral office. Yes, I do think he is “great than” or “unequal to” any other officer in the church, due to the biblical description of “having charge over” or “ruling” or “overseeing.” And due to the practical nature of leadership. And his function is precisely that: to rule over; to lead.
You ask If the NT really envisions a true Senior Elder, with greater authority than anyone else in the church (other elders not withstanding), then why does Paul send Timothy instead of just addressing the Senior Pastor (by name, if necessary) who can just take care of business for Paul? Because that elder had dropped the ball. That is why Paul was sending Timothy.
You ask how were plural elders present in Ephesus in Acts 20 but somehow gone from Ephesus in 1 Timothy, as you seem to assume? In Acts 20, they were obedient and faithful. By 1 Timothy, they were not. They had become the problem, apparently.
As for the “body of elders” I have no problems with that. I think a body of elders is perfectly acceptable and perhaps even desirable. But in that “body” someone is the lead elder, it seems to me. He may have been the one to make the pronouncement, or they may have made it in concert.
So in a nutshell, I am unconvinced that Timothy was not an elder, or at least functioning as one, which seems to be the heart of your case.
Feel free to bat back at me.
BTW, I am not denying the usefulness or existence of plurality of elders. I am questioning the setup of it, or the way that it works.
It is interesting to note that in the qualifications list of I Tim.3 Paul uses the term deacons (plural). But he gives the qualifications for a bishop (singular)
Ok. I'll bite. A quickie response and I'll debate the wisdom of engaging further after some pizza.
First. Perhaps the reason Paul does not refer to the other elders that he istructs Timothy to address is the fact that he wrote the letter to . . . er . . Timothy. Hence the singular advice for a glass of Merlot for his stomach ailment in verse 23.
Second. The polity of the PCA, which I assume you're aware of, is a good model to study. It recognizes Teaching Elders (TE) as those whose primary labor are that of Word and prayer much as you describe in your post. It also recognizes Ruling Elders (RE) as men who are able to teach, and most do, but who share the work of Spiritual shepherding so that the TE can give himself moreso to his primary calling of Word and prayer.
In this arrangement, which I believe to be Biblical according to I Tim 5:17, the TE serves as the leader of the leaders (Moderator of the Session or Elder board) while keeping him from the pitfalls of autocracy, foolhearty belligerence, and personality cult temptation of being "the man" that many men of the solo presbyter with deacons fall into. It is the shared leadership aspect that is a protection to him as he has the greater judgement (Jas 3) to look forward to as a teacher of the Word.
3rd and last. Timothy is now being addressed by his mentor to lead his fellow elders in the way of Biblical truth as he is the one who has the priveledge of giving himself wholly to the work of ministry while his ruling elders work for their living just like churches today where the TE is full time in the ministry and RE's are in the work world but have the Spiritual gifting and calling to serve the Church as undershepherds of the flock. Hence the admonition to pay the TE what he is worth (I Tim 5:17, 18) to do exactly what He does as the lead elder. According to Paul's words, he is to lead by example as the TE, these men, his plurality of ruling elders, some of whom presumably laid hands on him at his ordination so that they will rule well as elders in the Church.
1 Tim. 4:14 (KJV)
Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.
(BTW, how do KJV'ers dance around the use of presbytery?)
Anyway those are some initial thoughts. Volumes have been written on this as I'm sure you're aware.
Pass the pepperoni!
Dave, I assume your citation of James from Acts 21:18 is in response to my challenge, "And, by the way, what function in the NT does the 'Senior Elder' have that the other elders do not perform? I want chapter and verse here."
So, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're citing these texts as evidence that the "Senior Pastor" model has scriptural support, based on these texts referencing James. I'll try to respond: the fact that James is singled out by name and that he seems to speak with unique authority for the Jerusalem church is, I admit, the best scriptural support for the "Senior Pastor" model. Really, it is the only scriptural support for that view.
But I don't think it is an airtight case at all. Consider these facts: First, James is nowhere given any title of any kind, which really becomes a problem. Is he an elder? Or is he mentioned by name because he is DIFFERENT from and, therefore, not one of the elders? It is true that he is grouped with the elders in the Acts passages you cite. But this is not the greatest thing for the "Senior Pastor" model after all because, historically, this separate mention of James from the elders was cited as support for the separation of the office of "bishop" from the office of "elder;" thus, the very evidence you use to support a "Senior Pastor" has been used to violate the clear "two office" teaching of scripture (which Baptists claim as a denominational distinctive). A bit of a problem there, yes?
Second, your brief comment suggests cross-referencing Acts 15:13, 19, 22. Let's do that. Acts 15:13 says, "James spoke up...." It shows that, whatever his office, he speaks with authority and initiative. That doesn't indicate that his OFFICE gave him any more authority than any of the other elders who were also free to speak up (more on this later). In verse 19 (your next citation), James says, "It is my judgment...." Sounds like he is giving the verdict here, yeah? No. Because then, curiously, you point us to verse 22. James is not mentioned in verse 22; instead the apostles, the elders, and the whole church "decided to choose...." Now, if James has rendered the verdict in verse 19, then as Senior Pastor, everyone else has to get in line behind him, right? So what are they doing "deciding to choose?" The wording demonstrates that it was a group verdict. The evidence in this text points to this interpretation: James is giving an authoritative announcement in verse 19, not because he was the "decider" as Senior Pastor, but because, as a godly elder and outspoken leader, he wanted to point out what, in his view (or "judgment") was the right decision. Because he was right, everyone in the church (leaders and non-leaders alike) could and did agree with his declaration. In other words, he gave voice to the decision that the plurality made. We see this clearly in the ensuing verses where James recedes to the background. The letter in v. 23 was from "the apostles and elders" (James NOT specified by name), and it is written in the plural because, as a plurality of leaders, they were handing down a decision they made together. So this passage does not necessarily undermine plural elder government at all; in fact, it shows elders functioning exactly as they should function. All elder-led churches that I know of will admit that some elders are stronger leaders than others; some are more persuasive, more thorough and wise in their handling and application of Scripture, and therefore more outspoken and prominent when decisions are made. That does not mean that they have more authority in some sort of hierarchy; it just means that God has given them extraordinarily strong leadership gifts which they exercise, to His glory, in conjunction with the other elders. Although James gave voice to the elders decision, it was THEIR decision, not his alone, which is reflected by the plural pronouns in the letter.
Finally, notice how Paul refers to James in the Epistles: In Galatians 1:18, Paul talks about staying with Peter, then says in v. 19 "I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother...." A few verses later in Gal. 2:9 Paul lumps James in with Peter and John (two who were clearly apostles) and says that the three of them are "reputed to be pillars." What do we make of this? Well, some people point us to 1 Cor. 15:17 and say that these texts taken together seem to put James in the category of an Apostle; maybe not one of the 12, but a close and trusted associate of the Apostles. I'm not so sure, but the point is that the Scriptures are not clear about what James' role/title really was in the early church. The passages you cite (along with Acts 12:17 and Gal 2:12, I might add) do show James with a uniquely prominent place in the Jerusalem church. But they are not clear or definitive about James occupying a uniquely powerful office; nor are they prescriptive of any one man holding a uniquely powerful office in the church today.
Therefore, the example of James really proves nothing. I grant that this is the strongest evidence in Scripture for a Senior Pastor ecclesiology, but it does not stand up well under close scrutiny. I, for one, would not build my ecclesiology here.
Larry, you wrote, "I am not convinced that Timothy wasn’t an elder, or at least acting in position as an elder."
So, given the rest of what I know you believe about church government, Timothy must have been voted in as elder by the congregation in Ephesus.
Right?
Why are we so sure that there were a plurality of elders in the NT local church
Here are a couple of the proof texts I've followed by my take on an alternative view of these versesTitus 1:5, “For this reason I left you in Crete, that you might set in order what remains, and appoint elders in every city as I directed you”(NAS)
This does not necessarily mean multiple elders in every city. If we say the day after election governors were elected in many states, we understand that to mean one governor in each state
In Acts we learn that as Paul sails from Macedonia for Palestine, he by-passes Ephesus, but calls in at Miletus. From there he summons the elders of Ephesus.
This is often claimed as an indication that there was a plurality of elders. However, it is just as likely that these elders were the pastor/leaders of the variuos house churches that would have existed in Ephesus at the time. Where was the large 1st Baptist Church of Ephesus located?
Anonymous: "If we say the day after election governors were elected in many states, we understand that to mean one governor in each state."
But Paul does not say that elders "were elected in many" cities. He tells Titus to “appoint elders [plural] in every town [kata polin, that’s distributive, in each town] as I directed you.”
You might want to look at:
http://www.9marks.org/CC/article/0,,PTID314526|CHID598016|CIID1744980,00.html
Sorry to be not posting in response here for a bit. I have a few things piled high on my plate.
Brian, I have no issue with Timothy being voted in as an elder. I don't think that contradicts anything we actually know. To mandate against it seems to me to start with the assumption that he wasn't. Since it doesn't say either way, I have no problem saying he was.
Dr. Combs,
Is your position then that plural elders is mandated? Do you believe in a lead elder, or senior pastor model with other elders as assistants? Or are you arguing for a plurality of equal elders?
Larry, you have a big issue with Timothy not being elected, for there's no evidence at all that the congregation or anyone in Ephesus had anything to do with Timothy's presence or role in Ephesus. In fact, the evidence is against it. 1:3 says, "As I URGED you... STAY THERE in Ephesus." Now, if the congregation had chosen Timothy to be their elder, why would Paul have to urge him to stay?
Brian,
I don't know how "big" that issue is. I think the text is relatively (i.e., completely) silent on the mechanics of how Timothy got there. He was travelling with Paul. There is no evidence that Paul demanded the church accept Timothy's leadership. Why would a picture like this work:
Paul see the problems but must move on. He urges (parakaleo, I believe) Timothy to stay there. Timothy may have been reticent because of his timidity, but he is encouraged to stay by Paul. Paul instructs the church to call Timothy as their pastor in order to clean up the mess. Which is how I think congregational government works: The pastor says "This is what we need to do" and the church ratifies it.
I don't think you can textually argue against it. It is admittedly something that is not explicitly said. But neither is your position that Paul just apostolically demanded that Timothy be given the role.
We are operating on the lack of information for the mechanics of it.
Larry,
I don't have any strong views on the subject. I was just responding to Anonymous's analogy, which I don't think works. I think that the most probable understanding of Titus 1:5 is that we are talking about multiple elders in a single church. How that works out, I am not sure at this point. It does appear to me that Dever makes a strong case for multiple elders in a single church in his article.
Larry, your posts indicated that you think that Timothy was written to show us how church ecclesiology works--that supreme authority is to be vested in one man, just as it was with Timothy. I have tried to show you from the text that this is unclear (at best) and, more likely completely erroneous. Timothy is not called an elder/bishop/pastor. The text does not tell us that he was chosen by ANYONE--Paul, the elders of Ephesus, or the congregation--to hold ANY official church office in Ephesus. These are startling omissions if this is the passage we should go to learn what authority THE PASTOR has today.
I've given you my take and the textual indications that Timothy was left there as an apostolic envoy to do work that Paul could not do (1:3) and that Paul intended to resume and take over where Timothy left off (3:14) at some point in the future. You keep waving away these important texts then pleading that the text is silent when I try to point out that the text doesn't support your theory. Yes, the text is silent; that is precisely the problem. If Paul gave us this book to teach us about the pastors role, authority, and work, then I want to know why he didn't at least once ascribe the title of pastor/elder/bishop and tell us something about how Timothy came to hold this position, either by congregation election or whatever.
Contrary to what you said, my position is decidedly NOT "Paul just apostolically demanded that Timothy be given the role." I deny that Timothy had ANY church role or office that we have today in the church in Ephesus. He was NOT a pastor/bishop/elder and none of those titles are given to him. I also deny that he was a deacon, but I guess you'd agree with me on that.
So, to be clear: Timothy does exercise authority over the church and its elders. He does not do so, as you suggest, becasue he was the ELDER-SUPERIOR (ie Senior Pastor); rather, my positon is that he was left there by Paul's encouragement (yes) but with a strong charge (1:3 "command") to do a task that only an apostle (or one bearing apostolic authority) could do--re-organize a church that was rife with heresy. More support for this, IMO, comes from the fact that Titus clearly does what I think Timothy is doing here. Both were left there by Paul (1 Tim. 1:3; Titus 1:5). Both seemed to have temporary assigments--in Timothy's case, Paul indicated that he wanted to return (3:14); for Titus, Paul wanted him to quickly organize the church in Crete then return to be with Paul (3:12). They both seemed to have similar tasks: Titus is explicitly charged with appointing elders (1:5b); Timothy seems to have the same task, though it is admittedly implicit. It is implied by the list of qualifications for bishop (1 Tim 3:1ff, which we also see in Titus 1:6ff) and deacon (1 Tim 3:8ff).
The parallels between these are so strong that they cannot be ignored, to me. Thus, Timothy is not a good example of the pastor-supreme. The differences between Timothy and Titus seem to be that Timothy is straightening out a church that has already been organized by Paul while Titus is there organizing a new group of believers into a church.
So, we disagree; lets move on to some other questions I have. Maybe these will be more productive for debate:
If Timothy is the Elder-Superior (or "Senior Pastor") at Ephesus, then why does Paul list the qualifications for Bishop/Elder/Pastor in chapter 3? They have their Pastor-Superior so why does the church need to be instructed about who is qualified to fill the office?
Also, you have referred more than once to something called "extensions of the pastoral office?" What is this, exactly? Keep in mind that the dominant term in the NT is elder. The term "pastor" is only used one time in the NT in a local church context (in the plural, I might add) as a noun indicating office (Eph. 4:11). The passage that teaches us most about church leadership is 1 Peter 5:1-4 and it does not square well with the Alpha-Elder ecclesiology. It states clearly that elders (plural) are given the responsibility to be shepherds (the verb form of "pastors") and take oversight (the participle form of "bishop"). Although there is a Senior Pastor (Chief Shepherd) in this passage, it is Christ the true singular head of the church (v. 4). Nothing in the passage elevates one elder over any other; in fact, Peter's appeal emphasizes the equality of elders. In verse 1 he encourages the elders as a co-elder or "fellow elder" (sumpresbuteros) which indicates a collegiality that using his title as Apostle would not suggest. Thus, this text and every other in the NT where elders are specifically mentioned, no one person who is specifically called an elder shows any extra authority over the other elders. They function as a unit which demonstrates an equality of authority.
Brian,
Thanks again. I am not ‘waving away’ your texts. I am unconvinced they carry as much weight as you suggest. I certainly could be wrong.
Now, if I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that 1 Timothy does not give instructions to a pastor about how to pastor a church. That seems strange to me. If Timothy had “no church role” as you claim, then how could he do anything? It seems he had to have at least some church role. All the teaching given to Timothy seems to be extremely apropos to pastor.
On to your two questions, first about qualifications, he gives them to teach the church what to look for in elders. Your question seems similar to asking if Paul wrote Romans to the church (already saved people) why does he talk about justification? I know it is not exactly the same, but similar.
As to your second questions about extensions of the pastoral office, all I mean is that the work can get too big for one guy and he needs some extensions to reach areas he cannot reach in the ministry.
As for equality, it seems to me that the buck stops somewhere. Someone is the head, no matter how “equal” they claim to be. I think it is practically unworkable. Using 1 Peter 5 as an example, isn’t Peter writing to more than one church? Again, perhaps Dr. Combs can help with the grammar here (if he is not totally bored by this conversation), but I think Peter is writing to plural churches and therefore plural elders. I am not sure this passage proves as much as you seem to think.
Perhaps lunch would make it easier to discuss this.
I understand 1 Timothy to have two purposes. First, it was written to Timothy (of course) but to be read in front of the entire congregation. The reason is to authenticate Timothy as Paul's apostolic representative. That's why Paul writes out the tasks that Timothy should do which required almost unilateral authority. He was not trying to tell us how the pastor-superior has omnipotent power in the church; rather, Paul wanted the church to know that Timothy was Paul's (and God's) chosen man to restore order to this church. So the letter puts Timothy in charge and shields him against accusations that he has overstepped his authority. Second, the book does teach us how to organize and practice Christianity in the church--that false doctrine should be confronted (1:3ff), how the church should pray for others (2:1-7), how godly women should dress and act (2:8ff), what to look for in elders (3:1ff) and deacons (3:8ff), and so on. Even the more personal passages (1:18ff, 4:6ff) are applicable to church leaders and non-leaders alike, so pastors/elders can learn much about how to do ministry from this book.
You did not address the parallels between 1 Timothy and Titus that I think are striking. What do you think of them? Was Titus also an elder in Crete?
Your last comment is most disturbing: "As for equality, it seems to me that the buck stops somewhere. Someone is the head, no matter how “equal” they claim to be. I think it is practically unworkable." So because you don't think it will work, you cannot have an open mind toward another position? That's what bothers me, Larry. I think you came to this with your mind made up, so no matter how much discussion of passages and verb tenses and so on, you just cannot accept that the way we were brought up and taught, and the way your church practices, might be wrong. You haven't been in a church that practices true elder government, so how do you know it doesn't/can't work? You've decided something in ignorance.
I've been an elder in precisely this kind of arrangement. Yes, we divvied up some of the responsibilities but that did not give the elder who was our staff leader (for example) more authority than I had as an elder, even though I was also on staff. Our staff leader usually initiated projects, such as when we sold our pews and bought chairs. As our staff leader, he delegated to me the responsibility to get samples and prices on chairs. He delegated to himself the responsibility to sell the pews. But without the approval of me and the other elders, he could not have gone forward with the plan. He could not have put the pews up for sale, he could not have agreed to a price. He could not have bought and paid for chairs. Nor could I. Yes, we each had tasks that we were responsible for, but the decisions that created those tasks and that those tasks required to move forward had to be made by all the elders together. And that is what we did. But as an elder, I could and did initiate projects too--such as when I proposed a change to our bylaws. I didn't have to get the staff leader's approval as my boss before bringing the issue to the elders. I just proposed it in an elder's meeting, because I had the authority as an elder to do so. Of course, since the staff leader was also an elder, I had to get his consent along with the other elders before the change was made. But in the "Senior Pastor" model, I wouldn't even have been able to propose such a thing without the "Senior Pastor's" consent.
Also, as I have said, some men in a plurality of equal elders government have more wisdom, more ability in handling scripture, more persuasiveness, etc. than others. This does give them greater INFLUENCE, but that does not give them greater authority. If one of these men tries to overstep his authority, the others have the power to check him.
And we do need to get together for lunch soon, but I'm all talked out on this topic. I understand your disagreement and I'm resigned to it. So, at lunch, let's just talk about the Lions. By the way, did you hear that Joey is having a hard time keeping up with Cleo Lemon for the backup quarterback job in Miami? That's what I hear....
This has been a great conversation to say the least. I greatly appreciate Brian and Larry for their graciousness in carrying on this 'debate'. I'm kinda new to the 'elder-led' church concept, but I'm now a member of such a church for two years, and my pastor (senior pastor) had invited me to consider being an elder in my church. I agreed to his appointment, but had to turn it down at the last moment because of me taking on another part-time job to support my family (my wife was pregnant at the time-- now we have a baby boy, Simon!). My pastor used the term 'first among equals' as being his position regarding the plurality of elders in a church, and that the 'chief' elder is one who takes charge of assisting the other, but equal, elders in ruling/leading the church in spiritual matters. It seems that my pastor would lean toward Larry's view, which I am somewhat convinced is right, but I'm still on the fence. Considering that this discussion ended about a couple of weeks ago, I hope to hear more about this. I appreciate the level of candor, scholarship, and Christian character that has been exhibited by all who have posted here!
Post a Comment