Church "style"

[dwight92070]

I definitely respect your opinions. It's interesting that you mentioned "a plurality of elders with a first among equals" situation. I believe you mentioned in your previous post that that was the way your church is set up. Well, I've heard it said that whenever you put a group of people together (Christian or non-Christian), a leader emerges. This is human nature and I don't believe it's a bad thing. In fact, I believe God designed us that way. A true pastor considers himself equal to all other believers but he has a different role. A true father considers himself equal to his wife and kids, but he has a different role.
Our church is led by a single pastor, who does not lord it over anyone. He and I were discussing this the other day. He has a wife and 3 daughters, with the youngest still at home. Sometimes he would make a decision in his family and his wife or one of his daughters disagreed. He would often listen to them and change his decision. If he were to announce some off-the-wall decision regarding our church, he knows that, especially the other men in the church, would quickly voice their objection, and he would know that he would need to submit to us.
Remember when the church in Acts asked Paul and Barnabas to travel to Jerusalem to get their decision about circumcision? Paul could have said, "That's a waste of my time. I need to continue starting churches and visiting them. I'm an apostle and I don't need to submit to these people." But he and Barnabas did submit and they went to Jerusalem. What a great example they were.
Good talking with you. Merry Christmas.

[morbo3000]

Good stuff. Merry Christmas to you as well.

[Paidion]

The first apostles appointed elders (also called "overseers" — Acts 20:28, also called "shepherds" or "pastors") in every assembly. There was always a plurality of overseers, and they were equal in authority. Until the fourth century, there was no such thing as a "chief overseer". Like any good leaders, they served those whom they led (not submit to them). Of course they did welcome input from those who were in their charge. But the overseers made the final decisions through seeking the will of God and through mutual discussion.

I have seen this at work in a body of elders. A decision had to be reached concerning a matter one way or another. Each elder earnestly prayed. Then they talked. In a few minutes all agreed that God wished them to take a particular course of action. There was no dissention. There was no vote. The Assembly of God is not a democracy. It is a theocracy.

[dwight92070]

Acts 14:23 - "When they had appointed elders for them in every church ..." In context, Paul and Barnabas had just come from Derbe and Lystra, and Iconium and Antioch. So this phrase could mean one of two things: 1. They appointed multiple elders in each church (or assembly) or 2. They appointed one elder in all the churches (or assemblies) of Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch. "Every church" could mean each assembly or it could mean the church in each city. I understand that you favor the "multiple elders" interpretation. I favor the "single elder" interpretation.
Again, in Acts 20:17, Paul called for the "elders of the church of Ephesus". This too can be looked at in two different ways. Obviously, Ephesus was large enough to have more than one church or assembly in it. So Paul could have been calling the single elder from each of the assemblies.
The same could be said for Titus 1:5.
So I don't understand how you can state quite authoritatively that "There was always a plurality of overseers (in every assembly)". What is your source for this? What is your source for saying that "chief overseers" didn't appear until the 4th century?
Finally, Ephesians was written to "all the saints in Ephesus" Ephesians 1:1 So we know that this included the overseers. So the instruction by Paul in Ephesians 5:21, "and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ" was for the overseers as well as the rest of the body. That means that overseers, also, are to be subject to their own flock, in the fear of Christ. That does not mean that they give up their leadership. But it means that they recognize that we are each important and loved by God, and that the flock could actually be a "check and balance", as it were, to the leadership. Yes, elders are to serve, and they also are to be an example in being subject to one another.
Your statement that the church is a theocracy, not a democracy really got my brain whirling. I will have to ponder that one.

[dwight92070]

I don't know if the church is a theocracy or not. But the Bible tells us of the nation of Israel under a theocracy and they were led by one "chief overseer" or "chief shepherd", Moses. (Psalms 77:20) So even in a theocracy, God appointed a single man to lead His people.

[Singalphile]

Part I

It seems to me that in any community of Christians, one godly, elderly overseer is a good thing, two is even better, three is better still, and so on. Why limit the number?

Part II

Re. the larger "church style": Christians need to assemble in order to do things that cannot be done alone. In the 21st century, those things do not include listening to music for 20 minutes and then a person talk for 40 minutes.

I'm afraid that I can't think of a greater waste of space than the dozens of apparently completely empty church buildings that I drive by during the week. Even when they do fill, I'm guessing that most of those hundreds or thousands of man-hours could be better spent.

There's a Preston Sprinkle podcast series here (Oct 2015) about why Christians (millenials in particular) leave "the church" (not Christianity). According to him ...

• 70% of youth who are active in a youth group leave the organized church by the time they're 22.
• As things are, it's estimated that 80% of those raised in church will be disengaged by the time they're 29.
• The trend is not limited to younger people.

[Paidion]

Acts 14:23 - "When they had appointed elders for them in every church ..." In context, Paul and Barnabas had just come from Derbe and Lystra, and Iconium and Antioch. So this phrase could mean one of two things: 1. They appointed multiple elders in each church (or assembly) or 2. They appointed one elder in all the churches (or assemblies) of Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch. "Every church" could mean each assembly or it could mean the church in each city. I understand that you favor the "multiple elders" interpretation. I favor the "single elder" interpretation.
Again, in Acts 20:17, Paul called for the "elders of the church of Ephesus". This too can be looked at in two different ways. Obviously, Ephesus was large enough to have more than one church or assembly in it. So Paul could have been calling the single elder from each of the assemblies.
The same could be said for Titus 1:5.
So I don't understand how you can state quite authoritatively that "There was always a plurality of overseers (in every assembly)". What is your source for this?

This may surprise you, Dwight, but I actually agree with you. The "Church" or Assembly at Ephesus may well have consisted of several congregations, and there may have been but one overseer in each congregation (but not necessarily). The Assembly at Ephesus was in full unity, and thus all the overseers made decisions for the whole Assembly. The congregations were NOT independent and self-governing. So it was in all local Assemblies, each of which was an expression of the whole Assembly of God (or of Christ).

So I stand by my statement that there was a plurality of overseers or elders in every Assembly. I should have made clear that a local Assembly is not necessarily a single congregation.

Having said this, I would add that an Assembly that consists of but a single congregation, ought to have a plurality of overseers. If there is but one in such a case there is a danger in his becoming an autocrat. For there may be no checks and balances in his eldership.