A question that has confounded the church for centuries is whether or not the Bible presents evidence for a plurality of elders or for single elder rule. Although there are no explicit commands in scripture regarding this matter, there are biblical implications, historical evidence, and practical advantages to support a plurality of elders in each local church.
The Scripture presents a consistent pattern of plurality. The church in Jerusalem is spoken of eight times in the book of Acts as having elders (Acts 20:17); the churches to which James wrote had elders (James 5:14), as did the churches to which Peter wrote (I Peter 5:1), and perhaps the strongest evidence is found in Acts 14:23 where Paul and Barnabas appoint elders in each church.[1] These passages represent instances where the plural form of elder, overseer, or pastor is used in connection with a local church. There are many other passages that imply plurality.
Historically, conservative churches have interpreted the Scriptures as teaching the plurality of elders although there have been differing opinions on how these elders function in practice. The Presbyterian form differs from other congregational forms in that it allows for a hierarchy of church government. Elders, in this system, are chosen by the congregation and form a session. Members of the sessions form the presbytery and members of the presbytery form a general assembly.[2] Although this system does have some benefits and has been successfully practiced, I believe that there is sufficient evidence to support a congregational form of church government with a plurality of elders without the hierarchy of leadership. In a plural local elder government model, the congregation chooses elders who share authority over their local church under the watchful eye of the congregation. Elders are chosen who have differing yet complimentary gifts to join together in the responsibility of shepherding the flock. All must meet biblical qualifications and share authority but each has specific areas of giftedness. I believe this model is the most faithful to Scripture and subsequently bring the most benefits to the elders and the congregation.
There are numerous practical advantages to the biblical practice of a plurality of elders. “Because it works” would be shaky ground to build an argument so that’s why I put this point last after biblical evidence and historical precedent. A book could be written on the practical benefits but just to name a few:
First, the authority to rule and judge does not fall on one person; Second, the elders have complimentary gifts, which work harmoniously to shepherd the flock; Thirdly, the elder’s personal strengths and weakness are rounded out; Fourthly, the elders are built up spiritually, emotionally, and mentally through common study, prayer, encouragement, and fellowship.
Many evangelical churches have for one reason or another strayed away from plural local elder government but there does seem to be a resurgence of this practice in our day. Although there is no direct command in Scripture, the evidence is in favor in the diversity of implied texts. The additional support of church history and the practical benefits make the plurality of elders in each local church the preferred model of congregational church government.
Thanks again for sharing your paper. I agree totally with the plurality of elders in the local church. It is to me impossible to come to a different conclusion if one believes the inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture. However, as a total view of Church (note the capital C)government, I see, with the Reformers, a clear biblical warrant in Acts 15: 1-35 ("The Council of Jerusalem")for a "Presbyterian-Synodical System". There is much misunderstanding and many see this as a hierarchic model, but Van Genderen says: "As the name implies, this form of church governance has two focal points: the office of presbyter or elder and the ecclesiastical assembly, which one should not think of only as a general synod. For the reformed vision, which is hereby indicated, it is characteristic that it is focused on the local church, in which beats the heart of the church-but a church that together with other churches forms a federation. In this we can point to the New Testament, which refers to both the local congregation and the church of Christ in its totality as ekklesia.....The broader assemblies have authority without limiting that of the local consistories. The first article of the Synod of Emden (1571) says that no church may lord it over another church and no office bearer may lord it over other office bearers. The Church Order of Dort (1619) says the same thing in a different place (art.85), but it says so for a reason: No hierarchy! However, independentism is also rejected. Above the local church with its members and office bearers and above the church with its assemblies stands the Word of God with which Christ rules his church."("Concise Reformed Dogmatics",page 743-744).
ReplyDeleteI would recommend every "congregationalist" to study Acts 15 and see if Van Genderen, following the Reformers, is right or wrong at this point.