Church Authority

[dwight92070]

Steve,

Again I must return to 1 Timothy 3:1-5. You stated that "there is no reference that speaks of an individual elder alone overseeing any congregation." But verse 4 says "He must be one manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?)

The obvious point here is that if a man DOES know how to manage his own household, he (singular) WILL be able to take care of the church of God. Now, is that fancy exegetical footwork? I don't think so, it's the plain meaning of the passage.

Mark 6:34 "... He felt compassion for them because they were like sheep without a shepherd ..." Not shepherds, but one shepherd. Yes, there are many sheep, so many shepherds will be needed, each one an overseer of his little flock that the Lord has given him.

[Homer]

Dwight,

Yes, there are many sheep, so many shepherds will be needed,

each one an overseer of his little flock that the Lord has given him.

I think your conclusion is a non sequitur.

[jasonmodar]

Again I must return to 1 Timothy 3:1-5. You stated that "there is no reference that speaks of an individual elder alone overseeing any congregation." But verse 4 says "He must be one manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?)

The obvious point here is that if a man DOES know how to manage his own household, he (singular) WILL be able to take care of the church of God. Now, is that fancy exegetical footwork? I don't think so, it's the plain meaning of the passage.

This doesn't strike me as a reference to an individual elder alone overseeing a congregation. This does strike me as a characteristic among a list of characteristics that Timothy should be looking for in an overseer for the assembly at Ephesus. Namely, that if a man desires to be an overseer then he should demonstrate his leadership qualities by how he leads his home.

Mark 6:34 "... He felt compassion for them because they were like sheep without a shepherd ..." Not shepherds, but one shepherd. Yes, there are many sheep, so many shepherds will be needed, each one an overseer of his little flock that the Lord has given him.

Unless I came to this passage with the preconceived notion that the Church was meant to have one overseer per local church, I don't see how I, or anyone else, could come to the conclusion that this passage was about church polity. I seriously doubt that topic ever crossed Mark's mind when he wrote this passage. The context just doesn't appear to allow for it.

[dwight92070]

Okay, I'm done, we're just going in circles. You guys have your interpretation. I have mine.

[jasonmodar]

There's likely more common ground than we realize but it may take discussing it over coffee face to face to get there. Blessings to you, Dwight.

[Singalphile]

In response to this, which dwight92070 concluded by asking this: "So, am I ignorantly part of a cult? Have my family and I been spiritually harmed or harmed in any other way because we have attended a church for 15 years that does not believe in or practice a plurality of elders?"

A plurality of elders (or leaders) seems to me to have been the expected, ideal model among the early Christians, based on the biblical examples and instruction, such as it is, but that certainly wouldn't always be necessary (in a very small group or when everyone is equally mature) or even possible (when no one is available or eligible).

I don't see anything seriously wrong about Pastor Dan or the manner in which you meet with Christians in your area. But I don't understand why you would want to limit yourself to one such man (or one such group, for that matter). If one eligible, mature, humble, gracious, generous, servant-leader is good, then two is even better, and so on, as long as there's need.

In competitive sports, business, and wars, I suppose that one supreme leader might ultimately be necessary, but of course we do have a Supreme Leader. We also have more knowledge and advantage over most of the Christians who ever lived. Still, to the extent that we have or need any leaders, Hebrews 13:17 tells us to listen to and submit to them (plural).

[Candlepower]

If there is more than one man who meets the requirements for an Elder, wouldn't it be a reasonable for the congregation to recognized him for what he is...an Elder?

I've learned that the reason we view church leadership as residing in one man is because that's what we've been taught by the systems we've been raised in. It is our cultural paradigm. It's hard to wrestle against cultural paradigms. And, sadly, we too often let paradigms rule.

If one eligible, mature, humble, gracious, generous, servant-leader is good, then two is even better...

That's right.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if all were Elders!

But Moses said to him, “Are you jealous for my sake? Would that all the Lord's people were prophets, that the Lord would put his Spirit on them!” (Numbers 11:29)

[steve]

I have been in more than one church that had no elders or pastor—or any other appointed leaders—because these groups were comprised entirely of mature Christian men and their families. When it comes to godly living, every household had its own qualified "elder"—though there was no need to speak in such terms. It would have been strange (and arbitrary) to have selected one, or any number, of these men, and called them "elders" in contrast to the rest of the congregation.

The ultimate goal is that every member of the church, and the church collectively, should be following Christ as Head. The only reason for there to be recognized leaders is when Christ's instructions are unclear due to false and misleading teachers or trouble-makers. As churches grow, they ought to have new converts added to their number, at which points, it may be necessary to identify (for their sake) whose example and teaching is generally trustworthy for them to follow.

In times of general confusion over strange doctrines, and the presence of wolves among the flock, it seemed necessary (it did for Paul, at least) to formally recognize, and place his endorsement on, those men in the church whose lives and teachings could and should be trusted by the younger, or more vulnerable, members. There are some situations in which no such danger exists, because of the general maturity and biblical literacy of the whole congregation. In such cases, people can learn equally from anybody there.

[dwight92070]

jasonmodar,

I would love to do the face-to-face coffee thing, but that could only happen if you live near Denver. What does your church look like? Do you have multiple elders? Are you one of them? How long have you been attending?

Dwight

[dwight92070]

I don't see anything seriously wrong about Pastor Dan or the manner in which you meet with Christians in your area. But I don't understand why you would want to limit yourself to one such man (or one such group, for that matter). If one eligible, mature, humble, gracious, generous, servant-leader is good, then two is even better, and so on, as long as there's need.

Dwight speaking: How many shepherds do you have in your church? Are you one of them? How long have you been part of your church?

Dwight speaking: Okay, let's assume that you have 6 shepherds in your church. So the first one is a strong Calvinist. The second one is a strong Arminian. The third one is part of the word of faith movement. The fourth one believes that the 10 commandments are still what we are to live by, and therefore wants to switch the day of the meeting to Saturday. The fifth one is a strong dispensationalist and believes we need to give much more attention to Israel and the end times. The sixth one is a Messianic Jew and believes that we should call Jesus "Yeshuah" and that we should all celebrate the Jewish feasts. None of the 6 "elders" is a new convert. But all of them are eligible, mature, humble, gracious, generous servant-leaders.

Dwight speaking: May I say that that is a recipe for total chaos and confusion. I know, my fictional scenario is extreme, but it does point out something that can, and probably does happen to one degree or another with multiple elders. So what do I do with only one overseer? Well, I look for a church where the single overseer most nearly agrees with my understanding of what the Bible says. But I also want that man to be willing to hear other viewpoints and to show me Biblically why he believes they are wrong.

Singalphile speaking: In competitive sports, business, and wars, I suppose that one supreme leader might ultimately be necessary, but of course we do have a Supreme Leader. We also have more knowledge and advantage over most of the Christians who ever lived. Still, to the extent that we have or need any leaders, Hebrews tells us to listen to and submit to them (plural).

Dwight speaking:

Here is one example of how you guys insert your presuppositions into the text. The last phrase is a reference to Hebrews 13:17: "Obey your leaders and submit to (them), ... (Apparently "them" is not in the Greek, because it is italicized, but I agree that it is rightfully inserted because it does refer back to the leaders (plural)) You point out, Singalphile, that "them" is plural. But Hebrews was written to a large number of apparently Jewish believers, living in many different countries and cities. If my belief in one overseer per individual church is correct, the author could have said: "Obey the (single) leader that is in your individual church." or he could have said the same thing much more simply by saying: "Obey your leaders and submit to them ...", which is exactly what he did say. However, you took it to mean that it is an endorsement for mulitiple leaders in each church, and I can see where it could be taken that way, too.

The point is that you see it one way and I see it another way.