Plural Elders: An Apologetic

By Vance Salisbury 
Statement on offsite articles

 

Introduction

This apologetic will consist mainly of a number of statements, with references, which I believe to be the simple teaching of God's Word on the subject of local church leadership. These statements will be followed by common objections with a response to each one. It is my feeling that by producing a lengthy and detailed apologetic, I would simply be "re-inventing the wheel," since there are a number of works available, which provide an in-depth treatment of the subject. One example is Biblical Eldership by Alexander Strauch. Bible quotations are from The New International Version, unless otherwise noted.

Definition of Oversight by A Plurality of Elders

Each local church is to exist under the leadership of a plurality of elders, in which each elder shares in the oversight and shepherding of God's flock (Acts 14:23). There is no division between lay elders and an ordained minister, but each elder is in fact a shepherd (pastor) and overseer (Acts 20:28 & 1 Peter 5:1 & 2). This concept is embedded in Paul's address to the assembly of the elders of the church at Ephesus:

From Miletus, Paul sent to Ephesus for the elders of the church. Acts 20:17

Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers [bishops]. Be shepherds [pastors] of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. Acts 20:28

Although each elder is a pastor and overseer, the Holy Spirit distributes different gifts to each elder and different levels of diligence, due to such circumstances as age, vocation, physical stamina and family. Therefore, it is to be expected that some elders will spend more time and exert more effort in their oversight of the congregation. So, one or more may stand out or even receive material assistance from the church (1 Timothy 5:17,18). But, the paid elder or the leader who is more visible to the congregation remains a member of the college of elders. There is no hierarchy. The opportunity to serve as an elder is open to any male member of the local church who has the desire to humbly serve the body and who meets the Scriptural qualifications (1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9). The body of elders oversees and shepherds the local body and has no jurisdiction over any other fellowship. The congregation is to submit to the guidance and care of the elders, who serve as the undershepherds and household stewards of Jesus (Hebrews 13:17). Yet, there is to be no clergy/laity division, so there must be close cooperation among the elders, deacons, and the congregation. The ideal is to serve as leaders among the brethren. The foundational truth, which upholds this form of church government is that Jesus Christ, is the Chief Shepherd (Senior Pastor) and Overseer of His church (1 Peter 2:25 & 5:4).

Biblical Apologetic

Objections

Objection 1: A pastor (overseer) is an elder, but an elder is not always a pastor.

Response 1: This concept is never stated in the New Testament. There are no examples of this being the case anywhere in the New Testament. On the contrary, the Bible clearly states that elders are to pastor the flock of God (Acts 20:28 & 1 Peter 5:2) and there are numerous examples of a plurality of elders overseeing a body.

Response 2: A common explanation for the spread of the monarchical episcopacy in the second century is that the bishop was eventually elevated from among the elders. Lightfoot saw this as a means to combat gnosticism, vesting the authority to administer the eucharist in one person. This is a later development, which can only be "read back into" the New Testament.

Objection 2: When reference is made to elders (plural) in the New Testament, it is referring to single pastors or overseers of house churches in a city or region. Each church had three orders of church officers; a pastor/overseer, a group of elders who acted as his advisers, and deacons.

Response 1: This notion is purely speculative since there are absolutely no explicit statements in the New Testament that such was the case. Based on the evidence available in the Scriptures, one could just as easily conclude that each house church had five pastors, or ten. The New Testament never states that this form of church polity was in existence and all but a very few scholars agree that this form of government, known as the monarchical epicopacy, did not exist during New Testament times. The vast majority of scholars agree that the first indisputable example of a monarchical bishop was Ignatius, based upon a letter, which he wrote about 115 a.d.. It is clear from the tone of this letter, as well as other evidence, that his view of the monarchical bishop had not been widely accepted. A few other scholars, while denying that there was a monarchical form of church government during the lifetime of the apostles, feel that the church was definitely moving in that direction by the close of the first century. This group, along with those who thought that a monarchical form was instituted by the apostles, both share a view of Scripture which greatly influences their ideas on the subject. They believe that the Pastoral Epistles were not written by the apostle Paul, but were pieced together by his followers either very late in his life or after his death. They also believe that Luke erred in his chronology when dealing with the life of Paul, because the doctrines attributed to Paul are too developed. When the Pastorals and the Acts are thrown out, Paul never shows a connection between elders and overseers, so they conclude that these must have been separate offices.

Response 2: It is interesting to note that when the New Testament writers address believers in cities, they refer to them as "the church," but when addressing saints in a region they refer to "the churches." In both cases, the elders are addressed in the plural. It is natural to assume that if an apostle recognized each house church as a distinct body with it's own leaders, he would address them as "the churches," at Rome for example. But, it would appear that the apostles regarded each city, no matter how large or small, as one church. A good example of this is seen in Acts 14:23 where Luke uses kata distributively with ekklesian, stating that in each church, Paul and Barnabas appointed a number of elders. No mention is ever made of apostles appointing a pastor or bishop, in the singular.

Response 3: The language doesn't allow us to make the assumption that Paul is addressing a number of house-churches. Any conclusion that he is addressing more than one body of believers would be purely speculative. When Paul wrote to the church at Philippi, he only recognized two orders; deacons and overseers. If there was a third order, elders who acted as advisers to the pastors, we should expect Paul to greet them as well. But, there were clearly only two offices. This is substantiated by the fact that, after the turn of the first century, Polycarp wrote to the church (singular again) at Philippi and made no mention at all of an overseer. He only knows of deacons and elders. So, Polycarp appears to have the understanding, like Paul, that the term "overseer" and "elder" denote the same leader. It is also interesting to note that Polycarp, the disciple of the apostle John, did not consider himself a monarchical bishop, but a member of the presbytery. There is one very unlikely explanation for elders in Polycarp's letter. The church of Philippi could have devolved into a church, which was led by a monarchical bishop in the first century to rule by a plurality of elders in the second. But, since there is no trace of the monarchical episcopacy in the New Testament and the general trend was in the opposite direction, this is very unlikely.

Response 4: There are no New Testament records of a monarchical bishop or pastor being appointed to a church. There are no letters or instructions to a monarchical bishop or pastor. There are no qualifications given for a pastor. There are qualifications given for an overseer and for elders, but in Titus and Acts the word translated "overseer" is used interchangeably with the word for "elder". On the other hand, there are numerous references to a plurality of elders in a single church in the New Testament.

Objection 3: Titus and Timothy are examples of a pastor overseeing a congregation.

Response 1: We are never told in scripture that either Timothy or Titus were pastors or overseers. The descriptions we have of their travels with Paul and his special assignments for each of them suggest a much different office than what we have come to know as a pastor. Many commentators feel that they fit into the category of evangelist or apostle (not in the same sense as "the twelve"). Indeed, Paul exhorts Timothy to "do the work of an evangelist", but probably the most accurate description is that of "Paul's legate" or "Paul's representative," since they received the authority to perform certain duties for the apostle in different cities and regions. They were certainly itinerant ministers and not settled ministers, such as elders or deacons.

Response 2: Titus was left in Crete to set in order the churches in every city there. He was not sent to a single church, but to many. If Titus was occupying the office of overseer or pastor, he more closely resembled the Roman Catholic bishop or archbishop than an evangelical Christian pastor. The same is true of Timothy in Ephesus. If Ephesus was made up of a number of house churches, which were governed by a single pastor or overseer, then Timothy was clearly not anything like the twentieth century pastor, but the top of a hierarchical pyramid in Ephesus.

Response 3: Paul told Timothy that elders who rule well are to be given material assistance from the congregation. If Timothy was the pastor of a single church, then this passage raises some real problems. First, if elders are simply advisers to the pastor who governs the congregation, then why were elders ruling, preaching, and teaching? Secondly, the idea of an elder receiving wages when there is a "full-time" pastor in the congregation is completely foreign to our modern concept of the pastor. The ruling elder in question is not identified as an assistant or associate pastor. In fact, there is no such designation in the New Testament. The concept of a single overseer or pastor who has the authority to appoint assistants is not seen in the church until long after the close of the first century.

Response 4: If Titus and Timothy were pastors or overseers of a local congregation, then it would seem very curious for Paul to be concerned about appointing qualified men who desired the office of overseer. If there was only one pastor or overseer of a congregation, then the position had already been filled by Titus in his fellowship and Timothy in his.

Objection 4: James at Jerusalem is an example of a church under the leadership of a single pastor or overseer. At the council of Jerusalem, he gave his judgement, proving that he had the authority to do so.

Response 1: James is never identified as the monarchical overseer or pastor of the church in Jerusalem, so any such designation would be purely speculative. It is interesting to note that almost every mention of James in the book of Acts mentions him in the company of the elders, which is consistent with the concept of oversight by a group of elders.

Response 2: If the Jerusalem church was made up of house churches, each having it's own pastors and elders, then James would more closely resemble a Roman Catholic bishop than a modern evangelical pastor.

Response 3: Many scholars feel that James was one of the leading men at Jerusalem because of his wisdom and piety. But, he was still a member of the presbytery, with no special title or office. The apostle Peter provides a parallel to this situation. He was the leading apostle, but he never received an honorific title or exercised any hierarchical authority over the twelve. The twelve provided oversight of the universal church within a plurality. In fact, Peter was on such equal footing with the rest of the apostles that Paul withstood him to his face when he was in error. Many churches, which are governed by a plurality of elders have one elder who, for the sake of order, is the president or spokesman for the group. This is another possible explanation for the position of James.

Response 4: James was presiding over the council at Jerusalem and he summed up the arguments and proposed the solution, which was thought to be wise by all in attendance. If his pronouncement was based on the authority of his office at Jerusalem, then he was truly out of order because there were apostles (the twelve) present. The context makes it clear that James' judgement was not based on his authority, but was a summation of what had been said during the council. The entire proceedings in Acts 15 point to a radically different concept of power and authority than we see in the church today. James only emerges as the "one in authority" because of our projecting these modern notions upon the council in Jerusalem. All Christian leaders in the New Testament work as members of a team or body of leaders.

Objection 5: Ephesians 4:11 states that there is an office of pastor-teacher.

Response 1: Nowhere in the New Testament is there an account of the apostles appointing a pastor-teacher. There are no epistles or instructions addressed to anyone holding the office of pastor-teacher and there are never any qualifications given for the office of pastor-teacher. This could very well be, as a number of commentators and scholars agree, a reference to the gifts which Christ has given the church through the elders, who pastor and teach the flock. This list follows closely with the list of gifts, which Paul gives to the church at Corinth. This is a very reasonable explanation since elders are admonished in a number of passages to pastor, to be able to teach, and to protect the church from false teachers.

Objection 6: The New Testament never states that every church is to be pastored by a plurality of elders.

Response 1: A possible explanation is that, although each church is to be ruled by a plurality of elders, it was not stated explicitly because some churches did not have men who met the Scriptural qualifications for leadership. It would be theologically erroneous to declare that a group of Christians are not really a part of the Body of Christ, because they don't have qualified leaders. And, such was the case in new churches in New Testament times and it is still the case today, as small groups of people are evangelized and come together as a church. But, as churches grow and men mature, God provides the church with qualified leaders from within. In fact, a church may function for years with only one elder or none at all, but the ideal is that as more men desire the work of shepherding the flock of God and meet the qualifications, they can join those who are already engaged in the work. In the second century, Ignatius introduced the notion that a group of Christians did not constitute a true church if there was not a bishop present to administer sacraments. However, this idea is nowhere to be found in the New Testament.

Response 2: It is recognized by the vast majority of New Testament scholars that church organization evolved as time passed. There are a number of examples of churches, which existed with little or no leadership for a period of time. But, it is evident from Titus 1 that Paul did not consider a church to be set in order until elders were appointed. In the New Testament, the highest form of church order, which was achieved during the lifetime of the apostles, was that composed of two orders; elders/overseers and deacons. New Testament scholars and historians are in agreement that the form of church government known as the monarchical episcopacy, with it's three orders of a bishop/overseer presiding over a council of advisors/elders and deacons, did not begin to be practiced until after New Testament times and was not the dominant form until late in the second century. So, in summation, although it is not explicitly stated, rule by a plurality of elders was the highest organization of church polity established and practiced under the authority and direction of the apostles.

Response 3: If absence of an explicit statement is thought to diminish from the case for rule by a plurality of elders, then the case for a single pastor or overseer is non existent. Not only are there no explicit statements that each congregation is to be ruled by a single pastor or overseer, but there are no examples of such a form of government in existence during the lifetime of the apostles. There are no greetings or instructions directed to a monarchical pastor or overseer and no apostle ever appointed one man to lead a body of believers.

Response 4: It should be remembered that some of the central doctrines of our faith such as the Trinity are not supported by an explicit statement, but are the result of painstaking, inductive study of the Scriptures. Although rule by a plurality of elders is not explicitly commanded, the New Testament is very explicit in presenting its practice.

Objection 7: Elders are always spoken of in the plural and overseers in the singular, so they denote separate offices.

Response 1: The vast majority of New Testament scholars and historians hold the view that Paul used the two words interchangeably to denote the same office in Acts 20 and Titus 1. The use of the singular form of the word translated as "overseer" is thought to be generic when listing the qualifications for anyone desiring the office and not referring to one overseer ruling a church. Paul uses the generic singular in the same letter to describe a woman who is "a widow indeed", but we would not conclude that there can only be one widow per congregation, simply because Paul goes from the plural to the singular. The fact that the monarchical episcopacy did not come into existence until long after Paul's death, also makes it improbable that Paul is referring to a single bishop/overseer ruling a congregation.

Response 2: In his epistle to the Philippians, Paul greets the overseers (plural). These are the same officers who Polycarp addresses as elders in his epistle to the church at Philippi.

Objection 8: Rule by a plurality of elders doesn't work. It is not practical.

Response 1: The same can be said of any form of church government, including oversight by a single pastor. There are many churches and denominations, which hold a variety of forms of government and they have experienced liberal tendencies, schisms, and all manner of problems. The fact is, there have been quite a large number of churches throughout history, which have been governed by a plurality of elders and have been quite successful. Before we can judge the effectiveness of any form of leadership, we must question how we define a successful church. Is it the number of people, the doctrine, the spiritual maturity of the members, their belief in the gift of tongues, Biblical innerrancy, the wealth and social standing of their members, their servant spirit, and so on?

Response 2: Marriage doesn't work. About half of the marriages performed in the United States this year will end in divorce. It's obvious; marriage does not work. But, those of us who believe that marriage was instituted by God enter into a marriage covenant and we resolve to make it work, by the Grace of God. The same is true of team leadership. We believe that, apart from God, it doesn't work. But, we believe that God has given us an ideal of church government and we hope to achieve that ideal by submitting to one another and by submitting to God.

Do you have an objection to the doctrine of plural leadership in the local church? If so, submit it here and I will address it in future revisions of this page.