A Position Paper on Elders

Friends,

In a previous article of the Confessing Baptist Blog, I raised the possibility to Pastor Ben Hottel about doing a point/counterpoint debate on the issue of eldership in the church. We never actually got around to handling this issue in such a way, but I thought since this blog is about to
close up shop I would go ahead a post what I had prepared.

A Biblical Position for Single Pastor Models of Church Leadership

Introduction
God’s ordained means of leading His people is a matter our Lord does not take lightly. He has given us copious amounts of Scripture in both the Old and New Testaments that intricately detail the required character and purposes of those who would lead the people of God. Being a matter of such great importance to our Lord, it should certainly become a matter of great importance to us. And truly, the leadership of the local church is of vast importance to every faithful member in the local church. From the various debates of female pastorates, to the issue of divorced pastors, right into the issue for our current debate, church leadership matters to the people of God.

It is at this point, however, that born-again, Bible believing people sometimes have a difference in idea on what the Bible teaches about local church leadership. This presents us with a critical junction of consideration, for fewer things impact the people of God in the local church more than the view and practice of church leadership, structure and authority. In light of such mammoth responsibility, one must be assured their position on the matter is biblical.

I have decided that this will be the direct approach I will use to present my position on single pastor leadership in the local church. I have determined not to use any resource for this position save the Bible and a Greek grammar and lexicon. I make as my thesis the following:

The vision of the New Testament is for mature churches to have one elder in one church. While the New Testament does allow for multiple elders in single churches, the texts in which we find such leadership in the local church always pertains to a church in its infancy. Ultimately, the more mature the church grows the fewer elders it needs until it needs but one. This is the progressive revelation for the nature of local church leadership in the New Testament.

I believe it can be universally accepted that when the New Testament refers to bishops, elders, pastors, shepherds and so forth they are referring to the same office in different titles. I also believe it can be universally accepted that virtually all texts in the Old Testament have little bearing upon the issue at hand. Therefore, I will confine this paper to texts in the New Testament which speak directly about elders, as well as a few associated texts. I will begin with a brief overview of elders in the New Testament; then I will make a critical investigation of crucial texts. This will be followed by an attempt to synthesize the interpretation of the New Testament’s overview regarding elders as well as the crucial texts pertaining to them. Finally, I will make some concluding comments on various issues that result from the debate and my personal thesis.

I. A Brief Overview of Elders in the New Testament
In the Gospels
As one would expect, the gospels are silent on the issue of eldership be it plural or single. The reason for this is obvious as the intent of the gospels is to reveal the life of Jesus up to the formation of His church. All cases of the term "elder" being used in the gospels are in relation to the governance of the Jewish councils.

In the Historic Writing
The book of Acts is pregnant with passages pertaining to elders in the local church (Acts 14:23; 15:2-6, 22-23; 16:4; 20:17; 21:18; 22:5). The presence of multiple elders is most visible in Acts at the churches of Jerusalem, Ephesus and Antioch. It is safe to assume, in my opinion, that when elders are mentioned in Acts in connection to the church, they can be mentioned in the context of single churches. In other words, Acts presents itself with single churches have a multiplicity of elders.

In the Epistles
The mention of elders in the epistles is somewhat sparse, but this should not surprise us. The governance of the church was not a primary issue in many of the epistles where greater issues, such as the nature and work of Christ, was of preeminent concern. The few places that elders are mentioned will be reviewed in the next section that will handle critical texts pertaining to the issue.

In the Apocalypse
Elders are mentioned quite regularly in the book of Revelation, especially as the word refers to visions and images that John saw in Heaven. As such, most of the references to elders in the book of Revelation shed little light upon our discourse here. What does shed from the book of Revelation upon our discourse are the words of Christ to the churches of Asia Minor in chapters 1 through 3. I will consider these texts shortly.

II. A Critical Investigation of Elders in the New Testament

There are four primary texts in the New Testament that speak to the issue of eldership. The four texts come to us via four Apostles- Paul, James, Peter and John.

The Particular Vision of Paul in the Pastoral Epistles
I believe it can be said that Paul had a definite specific vision for church leadership that consisted of a single elder and multiple deacons in the church from his writings in the pastoral epistles. This vision is particularly transmitted in the texts of 1 Timothy 3:1-12 and Titus 1:5. I will examine these below in some depth.

Titus 1:5
The text of Titus 1:5 is one of the most highly contested passages regarding the plural-eldership viewpoint as well as the single elder viewpoint. Those promoting plural-eldeship seize upon the plural term elders while those promoting the single elder viewpoint reference the idea that every town had several churches and therefore Paul was directing Titus to appoint each church an elder. I will admit that both readings from both viewpoints are possible in this Scripture, but I believe only the single elder viewpoint is probable. I will diagram the text in its relevant portions to make my case. Examine:
The reason I left you in Crete was to set right what was left undone and, as I directed you, to appoint elders (masculine plural) in every town: someone (with emphasis on ti masculine singular meaning "who" with the context of "a man" or "a elder") who is blameless, the husband (masculine singular) of one wife, having faithful children not accused or wildness or rebellion. For an overseer (masculine singular) as God’s manager (masculine singular) must be blameless, not arrogant, not quick tempered, not addicted to wine, not a bully, not greedy for money, but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, righteous, holy, self-controlled, holding the faithful message as taught so that he (passive deponent accusative masculine singular) will be able both to encourage with sound teaching and refute those who contradict it.

It is revealing that of the six times Paul references the person/people he desires Titus to appoint in Crete all but one of those references is masculine singular. This does give some credence to the idea that Crete held many churches and Paul wanted Titus to appoint an elder to each church. I believe it can be reasoned that if Paul’s intent was to establish a plural-elder ministry in all the churches of Crete that he could just have easily said the following. The reason I left you in Crete was to set right what was left undone and, as I directed you, to appoint elders in every town: men who are blameless, the husbands of one wife, having faithful children not accused or wildness or rebellion. For overseers, as God’s managers must be blameless, not arrogant, not quick tempered, not addicted to wine, not a bully, not greedy for money, but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, righteous, holy, self-controlled, holding the faithful message as taught so that they will be able both to encourage with sound teaching and refute those who contradict it.

1 Timothy 3
The passage of 1 Timothy 3 is particularly interesting to our discussion. In this chapter, Paul is informing Timothy of the primary character traits required of those who hold the offices of elders (overseers) and deacons. I will not list those qualifications or enter into an explanation of them as they are most readily apparent from a reading of the text. I do want to draw attention to one subtle, but very revealing aspect of Paul’s writing in this chapter.

Paul begins by telling Timothy this saying is trustworthy: "If anyone aspires to be an overseer (singular), he desires a noble work." An overseer, therefore, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife….

Then verses 8-13 about deacons. Deacons (masculine plural), likewise, should be worthy of respect, not hypocritical, not drinking a lot of wine, not greedy for money, holding the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And they (masculine plural, to have to hold, i.e. "they should/must") must also be tested first; if they (masculine plural) prove blameless, then they can serve as deacons (masculine plural, "serve" as in let the men serve or in context, let them serve).

The critical implication of Paul’s message in chapter three can be found in the undeniable truth that Paul envisioned a singular "elder" with multiple "deacons." If his vision were for multiple elders he could have easily identified them as such in verses 1-7 just as he did with deacons in verses 8-13.

I turn my attention now to the writings of the Apostles James.
James 5:14
The book of James is essentially a commentary on our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount. The book can prudently be classified in the "wisdom" genre of the Bible and is, in fact, the only source of that genre in the New Testament. James is writing to the twelve tribes in the Dispersion (James 1:1), which is likely a reference to many Jewish believers amongst the old Roman world.
In chapter 5 and verse 14, while teaching on the ways in which Christians should handle both joy and trial, he says Is anyone among you sick? He should call for the elders of the church, and they should pray over him after anointing him with olive oil in the name of the Lord. We are faced once again here with difference of plural and singular terms. The singular can be found in the person needing the ministry of the elder/s. The plural can be found in James’ reference to the elders. The question is, "was James speaking to this event occurring in one church or amongst the many churches?" If he is speaking to single churches then he is supporting plural elders in that church. If he is speaking to many churches, then he is speaking to single elders in single churches.

Other considerations are required before coming to a definite position on this verse as it relates to eldership in the church. First, one must remember that the foci of James, especially in this chapter, is to meld wisdom to the pursuit of righteousness. Thus, above all, this is not a theological treatise- James desires his people to understand the power of God in effective prayer. Secondly, we have to consider the broad scope of the writing to many churches. And thirdly, we need to consider how such actions would practically work themselves out in the local church. Thus, when considering all the facets together, there is no reason to believe that James suddenly shifts his early emphasis of writing broadly to many believers in many places. He made no effort to so localize this Scripture that we would understand it apart from the entire epistle’s context, which is a writing given to many churches, not one. Nevertheless, by the fact that he made no effort one way or another, the possibility exists that he was speaking either to local churches with one elder or many churches who each had many elders. Ultimately, this Scripture sheds no light upon the issue at hand- which is nothing against the text itself as it makes no claim to do so.

I will now turn to elders as found in the Apostle Peter’s writing.
1 Peter 5:1-5
Peter utilizes the fifth chapter of his first epistle to speak directly to the elders of the church. He does so both to encourage and spur them on the manner in which they should lead their churches as well as to their proper motive and intent. He then encourages the people of the flock, particularly younger men, on how they should submit to their elders. The text reads as follows: Therefore, as a fellow elder and witness to the sufferings of the Messiah, and also a participant in the glory about to be revealed, I exhort the elders among you: shepherd God’s flock among you, not overseeing out of compulsion but freely, according to God’s will; not for the money but eagerly; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. Likewise, you younger men, be subject to the elders. And all of you clothe yourselves with humility, because God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble.

Peter identified in 1:1 that he, like James, is writing to the Jewish Christians in the Dispersion. Therefore, we know he is writing this to many congregations over a broad area. This impacts our view of his words, I exhort the elders among you, the you, in this case being the many churches. The ultimate question pertains to the elders among you (5:5). We are presented once again with the case of whether or not Peter had in view the younger men submitting to the many elders in one place, or if he was referring to the younger men in all the congregations submitting to their own elders. Keeping ourselves to the context and confines of Peter’s audience, the most reasonable interpretation is that Peter is still speaking to all the churches and all the elders and is offering a command for all the people to submit to their elders in each local church.

A Brief Analysis of Eldership in Other New Testament Texts
In the Apostle John
John mentions elders in several places of his writings. He has it in his 2 John 1, 3 John 1 and Revelation 4:4, 10; 5:5, 6, 8, 11, 14; 7:11, 13; 11:16; 14:3 and 19:4. All of the references to elders in Revelation point to visions John received of Heaven and do not pertain to the local church on earth. 2 John 1:1 and 3 John 1:1 do have reference to the church on Earth however. In these cases John identifies himself as the Elder (singular). This self-identifying term could have a couple of possible inferences. First, it could be that he is identifying himself as the sole elder of the church universal (unlikely). Secondly, it could be a reference by which all the churches in John’s sphere of influence and ministry identified him as being. This is more likely as it is possible that John was, in a sense "the Elder," from the point that he was the last elder living of the 12 Apostles. It also may play a part in his literal age, which was advanced at this time. In other words, I believe John’s designation in these passages are terms of affection as well as authority and have little bearing to our issue at hand. It does however, nullify the rampant belief by those who hold to plural eldership in the local church that the New Testament nowhere holds the term "elder" in the singular. This is strictly speaking, of course.

And while it is true that the book of Revelation does not link the word "elder" to the local church on Earth, the word "angel" (avgge,lw noun singular) is used of a person in each of the seven local churches addressed by Christ in verses 2:1, 2:8, 2:12, 2:18, 3:1, 3:7, 3:14. It seems most likely that this "angel" was indeed the elder in these local churches. For our purposes in the issue at hand, it is important to note that the Word of Christ was not to go to the "angels" of the local church, but the "angel." At this point it is probably wise to dismiss the notion that there were elders in the local church who didn’t teach and address the congregation. In no place of the New Testament is the office of elder addressed apart from the direct role of teaching the flock. Therefore, if the angels of the churches in Revelation were elders, there was only one of them who would receive and distribute this teaching.

The Author of Hebrews
The author of Hebrews says in 13:17, obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account, so that they can do this with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you. The issue confronts us yet again as to whether this is directed to the local church and its elders or all the churches and their respective elder. Since the real emphasis is upon the obedience/reward scenario of submitting to one’s pastor or pastors, the text offers little in the way to aid us in the issue at hand, except to say that one must take the hermeneutic leap of localizing this teaching to make it read in favor of multiple elders. The author himself leads not this way or another, yet it seems safer to assume he did not redirect his entire context in the epistle for this verse alone.

III. Arriving at a Synposis and Theology of Elders in the New Testament
It seems clear that a dichotomy exists in the New Testament from the place in which we first found elders to the development of elders in the churches at later periods. Primarily, we seem to find several elders in local churches in the book of Acts, but then we are given the distinct vision of Paul in which single churches have one elder and many deacons. In between there is some ambiguity in the rest of the epistles as to how the Apostles viewed elders in the church. The question we are ultimately confronted with is, "how are we to make sense of the New Testament in regard to eldership in the local church?"

A Possible and Probable Explanation
There are two presuppositions we must consider. The first is, "is the model of the church as given in Acts completely normative for every church in every age?" The second is, "does the New Testament progressively lay itself out in a way that directs us to the more full and mature model of eldership in the church?"

If the answer to the Acts model is "yes," then we must agree that multiple elders in single churches is the normative model. However, in order for us to accept the answer of "yes" we must discard the vision of eldership in the church from the Apostle Paul in his pastoral epistles. I am not willing to make such a leap, so this brings us to the second presupposition of the New Testament progressively expanding God’s revelation as to the vision of eldership in the church.
This, in my opinion, is not only a possible scenario- it is a probable one. The nature of biblical revelation itself is progressive; therefore we should be willing to accept that the nature of the church as viewed in the Bible can be the same. Thus, what we have in the New Testament is elder-filled local churches when the church is in its earliest infancy. Then, as time marches on we begin to see how a more mature church model exists wherein single elders are brought to single churches. Ultimately, the time will come upon the glorification of Christ’s church when the church will need no pastors.

This thesis brings in the full scope of the New Testament. It helps us to see why there were multiple elders in the churches of Acts and why the epistles speak vaguely in terms of possible single elders in single churches as well as multiple elders. And it helps to finalize our understanding of single elders in single churches according to the instruction of Paul in the pastoral epistles. In other words, the vision of New Testament is for mature churches to have one elder in one church. While it is true that some churches in the New Testament had multiple elders in single churches, again, these churches were in their infancy. As the Kingdom of God expanded and churches began to reach their full maturity, the need for multiple elders diminished on the basis of 1) the local church no longer needed them and 2) new churches did.

IV. Concluding Comments
If it is true that the New Testament vision for the local church is single pastor leadership, why do so many churches have multiple elders?

The history of the church, and even of Baptists, have contained many theologically solid churches practicing a plural form of eldership ministry. Some Baptist confessions even speak to the plurality of elders. Focusing on Baptist churches particularly, I would venture to say that those in our history who held to plural elder leadership were undoubtedly churches that had Calvinist or reformed theological leanings. In our modern day, Calvinism coupled with pragmatism seems to be the driving motives. This is not to say such churches are not Bible believing churches or that all Calvinistic churches are multiple elder churches. It is to say that oftentimes pastors and churches have trouble separating themselves from reformed salvation theology as well as reformed church theology.

Aren’t most Baptist churches pragmatically driven in their leadership structures? If so, why could a church not have multiple elders on the basis of pragmatism alone?

I will accept it that there are many roles in ministry that are not directed by the New Testament such as "Youth Minister," "Children’s Minister," "W.M.U. Director," etc. We all readily accept these positions as valid when the New Testament doesn’t authorize them, so why can we not have the same with elders?

There is a fundamental reason as to why. When Baptists utilize such positions as Youth Ministers, Children’s Ministers, etc., we are simply living the reality of the priesthood of the believer among us. These positions are simply figureheads for the gifting of Christ in His Church. We can pay them if we wish or we cannot pay them. We can elevate their authority in the church or give them no authority at all. You can strip the titles from those positions and yet the people can function in them just the same. The church can exist and is not defined by Youth Pastors, Children Ministers or W.M.U. directors. It cannot exist and is defined by its adherence to the two biblically ordained offices of pastors and deacons. These titles bear with them the authority of Christ to govern His own church. The New Testament gives very specific direction for who these people should be, how the church should follow them, how they should be remunerated for their work, etc.

This presents us with a dilemma that churches utilizing multiple elders must consider. Are all the elders called, viewed, minister and paid the same way? If not, these people should not be called elders, according to the New Testament. There is absolutely no such position in the New Testament for a "lay elder" or an "executive elder" or the "elder in charge of this, that and the other thing." It is a gross misrepresentation of the biblical office to handle multiple elders any other way. And this misrepresentation presents the opportunity for violating many of the things pertaining to the nature of the church.

Some Real Dangers Regarding Local Church Leadership
The are two twin dangers of multiple elders in the local church.
The first is that those proposing the plural eldership model can begin to believe that multiple elders are normative for the church, i.e. a church is not a church without them. This cannot be supported from Scripture.

The second danger is that since there is such a pragmatic drive for the reasoning of having multiple elders, it seems logical to assume that such pragmatism can bleed into the church. In the worst of cases, the members of the local church may not be able to guide the church, much less "rule" the church (and for the sake of clarity, Baptists do not believe in any form of "elder rule." We believe in congregational rule). Ultimately, problems can exist in church leadership regardless of the leadership style used. It is just as possible for a single elder to dictate and minister pragmatically as it is for multiple elders. However, particularly as it pertains to Baptist churches, this seems an especial temptation and practice in multiple elder ministries.

Blessings,

TJ