Why plurality of elders

In Acts , Paul and Barnabas are sent to the elders of the church in Jerusalem. Acts shows Paul and Barnabas appointing elders in every church by prayer and fasting.

The first glimpse of the authority of elders is seen in Acts 15, where we find the elders of Jerusalem gathering with the apostles to decide whether Gentiles must be circumcised. In Acts , Paul meets with the elders of the church in Ephesus one last time.

Paul addresses the letter of Philippians to all the believers of the church with special emphasis to the overseers and deacons of the church Phil. In returning to our present text, Paul exhorts Titus to appoint elders in every town Titus Each city, therefore, possessed multiple elders.

Allow me to briefly raise a possible question: since each city had a plurality of elders, could they not be the collective pastors of different churches within the city? Throughout the New Testament, the only identification used for local churches is their city of location because there was only one church per city.

Jerusalem, Rome, Ephesus, Philippi, and all others each had elders for the church that existed in those cities. With multiple congregations coexisting within cities, the logical adaptation of this principle to modern church life is for each church to have its own body of elders. In summary, biblically each church was led, taught, and guided by a group of elders also called pastors or overseers.

There was no one man who led the church with greater authority than the others. I hope, then, that I have outlined enough of the Scriptures to display what I believe is the most biblical answer to how a church should be governed: a plurality of elders.

If the Scriptures do not persuade us, nothing will. Nevertheless, I will present an historical case for elder plurality, and let us center our historical discussion around answering this question: if having a plurality of elders lead the church is biblical, why do most modern churches not follow this model?

The New Testament gives clear indication that local churches were originally led by multiple elders together. In fact, the first notion of a single pastor system does not arrive until later with the writings of Ignatius, who separated the titles of overseers and elders from one another. Thus, Ignatius developed the idea of one ruling overseer with a council of elders and a body of deacons. It is possible that this concept derived from a misunderstanding of the usage of elders and overseer in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1.

As both texts are similar in their usage, let us observe Titus for them both. Paul commands Titus to appoint elders plural in every town, but in verse 7, Paul lists the qualifications of an overseer singular.

Ignatius and others may have read these verses as suggesting that each church should be governed by one overseer and multiple elders.

Even though some people still appeal to this argument today, it seems highly speculative. Given the interchangeableness of the titles in Acts 20, there is no reason to assume that Paul is meaning different things when speaking of elders and overseers.

In fact, the clearest reading of the text is to understand that Paul speaks of overseers in the singular because he is describing the position generally. For example, saying that plumbers should be able to fix a pipe gives no indication as to a number of plumbers; it is simply a general statement meant to apply to all plumbers.

He speaks of overseers singularly as a generality that pertains to all overseers. Regardless of the reasoning behind a single-pastor system, it quickly became commonplace among churches. The Catholic establishment of monarchial bishops who rule over churches became the predominate practice, which has led to a plethora of extra-biblical terms and hierarchies such as archbishops, auxiliary bishops, coadjutor bishops, and cardinals.

Quite simply, this shift did not arise from nor was it submissive to the Scriptures, and the trend continued until the Reformation. As Baptists, we will now approach the history of elder plurality within our denomination. The first chapter, written by Newton, presents the historical nature of elders and the Baptist denomination.

I whole-heartedly suggest reading the book, which for Baptists the first chapter alone is worth its price. Newton explains that while a plurality of elders was never universal among Baptists it was not uncommon. He cites a few influential Baptist speakers in the s that reshaped the system. Isaac Backus and John Leland led the way. The influence of the newly formed United States three-branch government is impossible to miss as, over time, the Baptists created a three-branch system within churches with authority dispersed to a single pastor, a board of deacons, and the congregation.

The past two hundred years have witnessed the demise in elder plurality among Baptists. Their staffs are hired for their business skills. And their churches are run like big businesses, requiring the corporate structures of a successful company.

A candid look at polity in churches at large today raises questions regarding our diligence to conform to Scripture. Specifically, how well are Christians in the West doing in being different than the world around them? Are we acting as salt and light in our communities? Connected to theses questions regarding the holiness of the church are the polity questions: Are our congregations nurtured and disciplined like their New Testament counterparts? Are our membership rolls inflated, and could this be contributing to our worldliness?

Are pastors and staff members held accountable to anyone besides themselves? Might the alarming rate of immoral behavior among ministers be connected to the disconnect between church staff and a plurality of godly elders, both lay and staff? If I tell you that in my street there are telephones in every home, cars in every driveway, and garden gnomes on every lawn, I am not saying that every home has more than one phone, every drive has more than one car, every lawn has more than one gnome.

I am using accommodative language which does not exclude the possibility that here or there a drive might have only one car, a house only one phone, or a lawn only one gnome.

If someone asked me, "Are there children in every household? Likewise, in the term "elders in every church" there is nothing just in the term itself to exclude the possibility of a church with only one elder. The plural accommodates includes the singular. Now if Paul had said, "Appoint elders in the church at Phoenix," or if Luke had said, "They appointed elders in the church at Iconium," we would be justified in saying that means "a plurality of elders" were appointed in those particular churches.

But Paul refers at once to several churches. So the argument runs. We have no right, continues the argument, to change the inspired term "elders in every church" by adding words of our own, thus making it read "a plurality of elders in every church. We have no right to make it exclude the singular by adding qualifying words. We must acknowledge that this argument would have merit, indeed would be conclusive, were there no other scripture but the statements of Paul and Luke referred to.

If all we had to go on were the statements in Titus and Acts , we could not insist on a plurality of elders in every church. However, we find other scriptures that show that churches had a plurality of elders, and we have no scripture to demonstrate that any church ever had but one elder. So, to answer the argument above, we will look now at the extra information that shows that there should be a plurality of elders in each congregation of Christ, and, in the case of "elders in every church" the plural does not accommodate or include the singular.

When we look at passages that reveal the pattern of eldership, what shape is it? No elders, one elder, or a plurality of elders? The last in that list is the observed New Testament pattern of authorized church government insofar as it concerns elders.

Wherever we find examples and references, we find a plurality of elders in a congregation. It was their shared calling, duty, and privilege to oversee the local church. Titus is a great text. But it is crystal clear that God intends several elders to lead a local church. Not one. More than one. So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock.

In a biblical form of local church governance, a body of qualified elders shepherd the flock of God together. Each of them bears a responsibility to shepherd. The same is true of their oversight. They lead together. It is unbiblical, unhealthy, and unsafe to have one supreme leader calling the shots unless his name is Jesus. All the elders must govern, lead, and shepherd willingly with joy. They are not to be motivated by money or possessions.

They are not to be domineering over those they lead. This got Mark and some of the leaders of Mars Hill Church in big trouble. His recorded comments confirm it. Instead, this body of Spirit-filled, godly, qualified, humble, penitent, and united men are to be examples of godliness for their people. But this gift and this authority are given them [by Christ] in order that they employ them for the benefit of the church and work with them to the end of the perfecting of the saints Eph.

The office was instituted in order that thus the church should persevere in the teaching of apostles and in fellowship, in the breaking of bread and in prayers Acts In 1 Peter 5, Peter made it clear that domineering leadership is ungodly.