Church Authority

[steve]

Obviously you have an aversion to one man being recognized as a leader in a local church. But if several men are recognized as (equal) leaders in a local church, now, all of a sudden, it's okay. How do you explain this contradiction?

To what contradiction are you referring?

Suppose a man says, "You cannot purchase that merchandise for one dollar. It costs three dollars."

Would you then say, "Why are you contradicting yourself?"

Dwight speaking: I asked you how many elders are in your church. I think you knew what I was asking (I may be wrong), i.e. how many elders are there in your group that you regularly attend, but that's not how you answered me. Your answer was that you don't know how many elders there are in the whole city of Temecula?

I certainly did not in any way dodge your question. I answered your question more completely than you intended, according to my understanding of the nature of the local church. You wondered how many of the recognized elders of the local church happen to attend the assembly that I attend, and I answered "none." But the absence of recognized leaders does not mean that there are no actual leaders. Perhaps several in our fellowship would be regarded as being among the elders of the local church in Temecula—if the church in Temecula happened to recognize the biblical local church paradigm. Therefore, we may actually have several actual elders, though none has assumed such a title. The assumption of such a title would add nothing to their function or to the respect they receive among us.

Dwight speaking: Excuse me, but why do you do that? Do you only think in terms of a church being all the believers in any given city? Biblically, a regular gathering of believers meeting in a home can be called a church. Romans 16:5, 1 Cor. 16:19, Col.4:15, Phm.1:2

I speak as I do because it reflects my understanding of the church. Every meeting of Christians, including the one I attend, is part of the local church (in my case, of Temecula). There are elders in the local church, and in most assemblies. There are even elders in our home group, if you are not too picky about formal recognition. I have said that recognized elders are normative for assemblies, biblically. Unfortunately, normative biblical church is hard to find in the modern world, which means we do what we can to observe normative biblical principles in a sub-normal situation.

On the other hand, it could also simply be a Bible study. In my mind, the difference between the two is exactly what we are discussing: A church has a recognized shepherd. A Bible study does not. The Bible study may or may not have a leader, but if there is a leader, he does not necessarily have to have the qualifications of a shepherd or an elder. I do understand that a Bible study is comprised of Christians who are part of the church (i.e. the church universal), but a Bible study, Biblically, is not a church.

Where are you finding the distinction between a church and a Bible study in scripture. I am not suggesting that every Bible study identifies itself as a "church"—nor that Bible study is all that a church does. However, most Bible studies also include prayer, fellowship, and (often) food. In other words, they include all the activities that the early Christians did in the Jerusalem church (Acts 2:42, 46). Why would not such groups qualify as "churches" if they chose to self-identify?

You say the difference is in the presence or absence of a "shepherd." Where do you find this, in scripture. Isn't Jesus an adequate shepherd to those who follow Him, even if they be only two or three gathered in His name?

If you say, "No, but there must be a visible shepherd there!" on what authority would you suggest this? Where does the presence of a human shepherd define what is or is not a church. Were Paul's assemblies not churches before he returned to them to appoint elders in each one? The Bible seems to speak of these groups as being churches prior to such leaders being appointed (Acts 14:23). In any case, you find no definition of "church" in scripture that includes the presence of official leaders as part of the definition.

Dwight speaking: It's also quite telling that during all these blogs, you have been defending what you claim is the Biblical practice of a plurality of elders in a church, and yet in the home group that you regularly attend, you not only do NOT practice a plurality of elders, but you have NO appointed elders. I understand that one or more of the men in your group may meet the Biblical qualifications of an elder, but apparently because you folks do not accept the practice of appointing a shepherd, none has been appointed.

It's not that we do not accept the practice of appointing elders. As I said, when necessary, I think formal recognition of those who are elders is desirable. However, that moment of recognition does not turn a non-elder into an elder. You recognize a man as an elder if he is one. If he is not one, he should not be recognized as one. If he is one, then he is one both before and after he is formally recognized. The fact that certain qualified men have not been formally recognized doesn't mean that the church does not recognize them for what they are. There are men who are "recognized" as elders in their churches who are not qualified, and are not, therefore, really church elders. I think a church is to be preferred that has real elders, who have not been formally identified, over one that has no real elders, but has men recognized as such. Best of all, perhaps, is to have real elders who are recognized as such.

Dwight speaking: Your statement "I follow the lead of spiritual men, not people who hold church offices." is very troubling to me. It seems like the idea of someone holding a church office is almost offensive to you. It must be offensive in your home group also, or else one or more elders would have been appointed. Paul held a church office, so did Peter, and John. They were all apostles, which is a church office. Don't you follow them? Paul was unashamed of the office God put him in. He referred to himself as an apostle. Ephesians 4:11 tells us of 5 church offices that Jesus created. They are not man-made positions.

I believe that Apostles were, in a sense, an "office." However, they were more like a ministry. Same with prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. What we think of as an "officer" belongs to a corporation model, which most of us are familiar with from our modern church experiences. I think the family model of the church is more scriptural. The family does not have "officers." It has members who provide various services, according to their abilities, in the service of the whole.

Dwight speaking: It appears to me that the practice of a plurality of elders, in reality, is NO elders at all. It basically throws Ephesians 4:11 out the window.

I am not sure what there is about the plurality of elders that looks that way to you. It does not look that way to me. If you have multi[le elders, you do not have "no elders." You have multiple elders. Seems pretty obvious.

[dwight92070]

To insert another spiritual overseer here (or 2 or 3 or 4) with the same function, calling and gifts would only render the household dysfunctional.

I don't think so. Each one of them likely is differently gifted, and thus the whole group of overseers would have a more comprehensive ministry. Also there is the matter of checks and balances, where a group of overseers collectively would prevent just one of them from becoming a little dictator. Is it not more likely that a single overseer would deviate from apostolic teaching and practice than would a group of several overseers?

Dwight speaking: Certainly that is always possible and may even be more likely, but there can always be checks and balances. If a shepherd gets too heavy-handed or deviates from scripture, anyone in the church itself can talk with him. If he listens to them, great. Some people might be intimidated by a heavy-handed leader, which is an unhealthy sign too. But they could have someone else speak with him or go with someone to speak with him. If he doesn't listen, they can vote with their feet and find another church with a good shepherd.

[backwoodsman]

I'm not going to play your game of "I'll answer you, only if you first answer me, after much careful consideration, and only then will I be happy to answer you." We're both mature adults. Lets stop the game playing.

Is that a deliberate misrepresentation of my words, or an honest misunderstanding? If the latter, please point out exactly what I said that you understood in that way, and I'll try to rephrase it more clearly (unless, of course, the following adequately clarifies it for you).

Let me briefly summarize what seems to be our roadblock: You want me to answer a question. I can't provide a meaningful answer without more information, for which I've asked. You won't provide that information, bringing us to a standstill. Again, if you wouldn't mind responding to the last paragraph of this post, then I expect I'll be able to answer your question, and we can proceed from there if you like:
http://theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=75817#p75817

And if you'll indulge me just a bit further: My participation in this thread is an attempt, crude and blundering as it may be, to bring to your attention an apparent blind spot in a way that's not already being covered by others. If you're not interested in that sort of interaction with fellow believers, then I'll bow out and leave you to it, and there's no need to respond further to me.

[dwight92070]

Steve,

The contradiction is (I'll try again): You disapprove of one man being in charge of a church and your disapproval seems to center around the fact that one man is elevated (in authority) above the rest of the church. But if several men (a plurality) are elevated (in authority) above the rest of the church, you don't have a problem with that. So there is the contradiction (or maybe inconsistency is a better word).

[dwight92070]

backwoodsman,

I have no objection to someone pointing out a blind spot that I may have. But I will not proceed with you if you cannot answer a simple straightforward question. Will you admit that you may have some presuppositions on the topic of one elder vs. a plurality of elders? If you cannot do that without requiring me to "jump through some hoops" first, then, as I said, I will not play the game.

[dwight92070]

I speak as I do because it reflects my understanding of the church. Every meeting of Christians, including the one I attend, is part of the local church (in my case, of Temecula). There are elders in the local church, and in most assemblies. There are even elders in our home group, if you are not too picky about formal recognition. I have said that recognized elders are normative for assemblies, biblically. Unfortunately, normative biblical church is hard to find in the modern world, which means we do what we can to observe normative biblical principles in a sub-normal situation.

Dwight speaking: Apparently Paul was very "picky" about formal recognition. Yes, he didn't appoint elders originally in the new churches of Asia, but as I have previously said, he doesn't seem to waste much time in appointing them later. He told Titus to appoint elders in Crete. He doesn't seem to have the same attitude that you have, i.e. there are elders in most assemblies, but we're not going to be picky about actually appointing any of them.

On the other hand, it could also simply be a Bible study. In my mind, the difference between the two is exactly what we are discussing: A church has a recognized shepherd. A Bible study does not. The Bible study may or may not have a leader, but if there is a leader, he does not necessarily have to have the qualifications of a shepherd or an elder. I do understand that a Bible study is comprised of Christians who are part of the church (i.e. the church universal), but a Bible study, Biblically, is not a church.

Where are you finding the distinction between a church and a Bible study in scripture. I am not suggesting that every Bible study identifies itself as a "church"—nor that Bible study is all that a church does. However, most Bible studies also include prayer, fellowship, and (often) food. In other words, they include all the activities that the early Christians did in the Jerusalem church (Acts 2:42, 46). Why would not such groups qualify as "churches" if they chose to self-identify?

Dwight speaking:As I already said, Christians can have a Bible study without much attention to Ephesians 4:11. Yes, they may recognize or even appoint a teacher, but basically totally ignore the other 4 offices Jesus gave to equip the church. Therefore, without them, you don't have a church, at least not according to this verse, unless you think you can have a church without being equipped.

You say the difference is in the presence or absence of a "shepherd." Where do you find this, in scripture. Isn't Jesus an adequate shepherd to those who follow Him, even if they be only two or three gathered in His name?

Dwight speaking: Apparently Jesus Himself didn't think that His position as our Chief Shepherd was sufficient, in and of itself, or else He would never have given shepherds to the church to follow and He would never have directed Paul to appoint elders.

[dwight92070]

Steve speaking:

It's not that we do not accept the practice of appointing elders. As I said, when necessary, I think formal recognition of those who are elders is desirable. However, that moment of recognition does not turn a non-elder into an elder. You recognize a man as an elder if he is one. If he is not one, he should not be recognized as one. If he is one, then he is one both before and after he is formally recognized. The fact that certain qualified men have not been formally recognized doesn't mean that the church does not recognize them for what they are. There are men who are "recognized" as elders in their churches who are not qualified, and are not, therefore, really church elders. I think a church is to be preferred that has real elders, who have not been formally identified, over one that has no real elders, but has men recognized as such. Best of all, perhaps, is to have real elders who are recognized as such.

Dwight speaking: I agree with you here on everything except one sentence: "As I said, when necessary, I think formal recognition of those who are elders is desirable." Where does the Bible tell us that sometimes appointing elders is not necessary? Again, Paul's new churches didn't have elders right away, but that was not a permanent situation. As we follow the story of all the churches formed in the New Testament, it appears that appointing elders was not just desirable, it was necessary.

Dwight speaking: It appears to me that the practice of a plurality of elders, in reality, is NO elders at all. It basically throws Ephesians 4:11 out the window.

I am not sure what there is about the plurality of elders that looks that way to you. It does not look that way to me. If you have multi[le elders, you do not have "no elders." You have multiple elders. Seems pretty obvious.[/quote]

Dwight speaking: Well, let's look at your situation. As I said before, you have been advocating multiple elders throughout these posts, so I automatically assumed that whatever church you attend has multiple elders. Come to find out, you have no elders. But yet you say that your group probably does have several elders, just not formally recognized ones. It's all very vague, almost like it doesn't matter whether your group or any group has multiple elders or no elders. Who cares, we don't want to be picky. The only thing that you believe is taboo is if you have only one recognized elder - that's a no-no.

[steve]

The contradiction is (I'll try again): You disapprove of one man being in charge of a church and your disapproval seems to center around the fact that one man is elevated (in authority) above the rest of the church. But if several men (a plurality) are elevated (in authority) above the rest of the church, you don't have a problem with that. So there is the contradiction (or maybe inconsistency is a better word).

You indicate that I have no objection to multiple men being elevated above the flock. I would object to this as much as to one man being elevated above the flock. Jesus said the leaders must position themselves at the bottom rung of privilege, below the flock. I believe Jesus. So did Paul (2 Cor.1:24), Peter (1 Pet.5:3), and (apparently) John (3 John 9-10).

If one man, or many men, place themselves below all others in service to the flock, I can think of no reason to object to this. If anyone places himself above others, I see a violation of biblical church order. One can provide leadership without being in an office of authority over anyone, and Jesus said it must be so (Matt.20:25-27).

 I agree with you here on everything except one sentence: "As I said, when necessary, I think formal recognition of those who are elders is desirable." Where does the Bible tell us that sometimes appointing elders is not necessary? Again, Paul's new churches didn't have elders right away, but that was not a permanent situation. As we follow the story of all the churches formed in the New Testament, it appears that appointing elders was not just desirable, it was necessary.

It was certainly necessary in the cases where Paul and the apostles deemed it necessary. We don’t know how many cases may have existed in which they found it neither necessary, nor possible, to appoint elders in a church. It was clearly deemed necessary in the churches of the first missionary journey (Acts 14:23), and also in Crete (Tit.1:5)—and perhaps in most other locations too. There seem to have been no elders in the Corinthian church, where things one might expect elders to do (like church discipline and mediation between brethren in a conflict) are left either to the whole assembly, or to "a wise man among you" to handle (1 Cor.5, 6). When Paul tells the Corinthians are told to submit to others, they were not directed to any official leadership, but to a certain kind of persons (1 Cor.16:15).

In my saying, “when necessary,” I made no speculation as to how often this would be necessary. For all I know, in Paul’s day, it may have seemed necessary 99% of the time. Of course, no one had any Bibles of their own to read back then, so the function of teaching and shepherding would have been considerably more indispensable to the average disciple. I don’t know what percentage of the time it may be indispensable in today’s churches. Where few believers read the Bible for themselves, I suppose, the teaching of the elders is as necessary as in days when people had no Bibles. The duty of the church is to follow the Head (Christ), and churches where Christians read and follow the scriptures for themselves, they can follow Christ knowledgeably, and there is less for an earthly leader to do. I favor appointing elders, when it is necessary. I am not in favor of mandating any institutional norms which are superfluous or unnecessary. What would be the point—just to fit an institutional pattern?

Well, let's look at your situation. As I said before, you have been advocating multiple elders throughout these posts, so I automatically assumed that whatever church you attend has multiple elders. Come to find out, you have no elders. But yet you say that your group probably does have several elders, just not formally recognized ones. It's all very vague, almost like it doesn't matter whether your group or any group has multiple elders or no elders. Who cares, we don't want to be picky. The only thing that you believe is taboo is if you have only one recognized elder - that's a no-no.

As I said, a group that has not recognized official leaders is not ipso facto lacking in them. If you read my earlier posts, you would know that I think there is a gift of leadership which is exercised in the body life of the church, before, after, or without making any formal pronouncements to recognize them. In a church that is of a small enough size to actually be functional, most or all the members will recognize—even unofficially—which members provide a reliable lead to imitate and trust.

You misread my mood. I have no emotional investment, nor preference, about these matters. Every one of my posts on this thread is simply presenting what the scriptures say, and giving my best exegesis of them. I did not come here objecting to anything. I don’t believe the Bible teaches, nor gives any positive example of, one-man leadership in a congregation. Therefore, I have said all along that the Bible teaches a plurality of elders. I see no contradiction or inconsistency here.

[Homer]

It appears to me that the optimal situation in the New Testament church is to have qualified men officially appointed as elders in each congregation. In their wisdom, led by the Spirit of Christ, this was the practice of the apostles.

Paul and Barnabas appointed elders in every church (note, in verse 23 ekklesia is singular and presbuterous is plural; this alone should resolve any controversy about one elder per church):

Acts 14:21-23 (NASB)

21. After they had preached the gospel to that city and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch, 22. strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying, “Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God.” 23. When they had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.

And Paul directed Titus to do the same and left him in Crete for that purpose:

Titus 1:4-10 (NASB)

4. To Titus, my true child in a common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.
5. For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you...

James' letter is addressed to all Jewish Christians everywhere and he assumes elders in all the churches:

James 1:1 (NASB)

1.James, a bond-servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,
To the twelve tribes who are dispersed abroad: Greetings.

James 5:14 (NASB)

14. Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord;

And Peter, in an epistle to many churches, also assumes elders in the churches.

1 Peter 1:1-2 (NASB)

1. Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen 2. according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.

1 Peter 5:1 (NASB)

5. Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed,

There is weighty Apostolic precedent for the office of elder in the churches and the scriptural proof of the office as being plural is no stronger that that for the formal office being the desired norm.

[dwight92070]

It appears to me that the optimal situation in the New Testament church is to have qualified men officially appointed as elders in each congregation. In their wisdom, led by the Spirit of Christ, this was the practice of the apostles.

Paul and Barnabas appointed elders in every church (note, in verse 23 ekklesia is singular and presbuterous is plural; this alone should resolve any controversy about one elder per church):

Dwight speaking: No, not at all. I have already addressed this, but will try again. Yes, I agree, "church" here is singular and "elders" is plural. In context, we see in verse 21 that they returned to the church in Lystra, the church in Iconium, and the church in Antioch and appointed elders in each church. But there is a strong possibility that the church in each city was comprised of several home gatherings, each one a church in itself, having it's own elder. So to say that they appointed elders in every church could easily mean that they appointed elders in every city, where there were several home churches. I believe this was the case, but obviously I can't prove this. But this passage also is not a proof of your viewpoint.

Acts 14:21-23 (NASB)

21. After they had preached the gospel to that city and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch, 22. strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying, “Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God.” 23. When they had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.

And Paul directed Titus to do the same and left him in Crete for that purpose:

Titus 1:4-10 (NASB)

4. To Titus, my true child in a common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.
5. For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you...

Dwight speaking: The same reasoning can be used here, also reaching a different conclusion than yours. "Appoint elders in every city" can easily be understood to mean that there were several home churches in each city, each one needing an elder.

James' letter is addressed to all Jewish Christians everywhere and he assumes elders in all the churches:

James 1:1 (NASB)

1.James, a bond-servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,
To the twelve tribes who are dispersed abroad: Greetings.

James 5:14 (NASB)

14. Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord;

Dwight speaking: The phrase "elders of the church" used here is also used in Acts 20:17 where Paul "sent to Ephesus and called to him the ELDERS OF THE CHURCH." (i.e. the church in Ephesus) Again these elders could each be the shepherd of one house church in Ephesus and apparently they knew each other because they all came together. So in James 5:14, James could be referring to the church in the city where the sick person lives. Several of the elders, each one of which was a shepherd in a home church, could be called to pray for him.



And Peter, in an epistle to many churches, also assumes elders in the churches.

1 Peter 1:1-2 (NASB)

1. Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen 2. according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.

1 Peter 5:1 (NASB)

5. Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed,

Dwight speaking: There's absolutely no indication here that Peter is speaking of a plurality of elders in each home gathering. Once again, he is writing to a large area comprised of many churches, probably most of which met in homes. Each one could have one elder and this interpretation does no injustice to the text.

There is weighty Apostolic precedent for the office of elder in the churches and the scriptural proof of the office as being plural is no stronger that that for the formal office being the desired norm.

Dwight speaking: I don't see any definitive proof for your position in any of these passages.