Plurality of elders: Scriptural to have one elder?
On a group discussion list, a good brother asked in his sincere study of the Word,
If we say that “children” (in the qualification for elders) can mean one or multiple children, then would the same rule apply to the word “elders”? Would it be Scriptural to have just one elder if he truly met the qualifications laid out in Scriptures?
Ron T. replied,
I would suggest not on the basis of Philippians 1:1, Titus 1:5, Acts 14:23. The plurality in these verses will not allow for a singularity of application.
I liked Ron’s expression here, besides agreeing with him. I might add Acts 15:2, 4 to the list.
I’m beginning a study of the eldership in preparation for a study in another state, at the request of a congregation now in the process of selecting supervisors and servants, so this exchange got my attention.
Stephen R. Bradd 11:08 am on January 27, 2012 Permalink |
I, too, agree that Ron’s answer is correct. However, for the sake of discussion, is it not the case that there are small congregations (perhaps many) that are “shepherded” by one man primarily (often the preacher but not always)? It is true that we do not call the leader an “elder” in that case, though he may very well be functioning as one (merely without the formal “title”).
We had 3 elders in Clinton 20+ years ago. 2 died within 6 months. The 3rd man formally resigned and the eldership dissolved. However, for the next 12 years or so, this man still behaved as a shepherd in most ways until he passed away. He let go of the title but still, in a practical sense, was a shepherd. I think such is good and proper.
The work of a shepherd is necessary in every congregation–and it needs to get done. This is true no matter how many or how few men there are that could formally qualify to serve as “elders.”
John Henson 12:14 pm on January 27, 2012 Permalink |
I love ya, Stephen, but I disagree. As Ron said, a plurality of elders is biblical. They call a single leader a “Pope.” Do we wish to do what the Bible says, or do we allow for the situation to dictate what we’ll do?
Stephen R. Bradd 2:15 pm on January 27, 2012 Permalink |
Hi John. I don’t think I advocated anything above that is outside the parameters of NT authority. Perhaps I have been unclear.
There is no doubt that a plurality of elders is biblical. But, what about when there isn’t an eldership in place (which is sadly the case in many congregations)? What then? Should no one do any “shepherding” because no one has been formally appointed to the office? I would answer that question in the negative. Does Gal. 6:1 only apply where there are elders? Of course not.
What is “shepherding”? It is many things, but it includes feeding, protecting, & caring for the flock. These are things that I do currently, and I have not been appointed to the office of bishop. Should I not feed the flock since I am not an elder? Should I not go after the brother who is drifting since I am not an elder? Should I not provide some spiritual leadership since there are no elders here currently? I believe I should (because of what the Bible says)–and I do so (without being a “Pope”).
You stated that “they call a single leader a ‘Pope.’” My question to you is: Was Titus a “Pope” since he behaved as a leader and did some spiritual shepherding in a congregation where there were no elders yet appointed? If you say “no,” then you must acknowledge that someone today could follow Titus’ example and not be a “Pope”–which is precisely what I am arguing for.
John Henson 3:16 pm on January 27, 2012 Permalink
TItus was acting under the authority of Paul, an apostle, one who was sent with authority, brother. I’ve helped established congregations and worked with them in all circumstances and I realize there are times as you described, but I do not support the idea of one person in charge. I have never found authority for that. Have you?
Ron Thomas 3:22 pm on January 27, 2012 Permalink
In my view, if there are no elders because men are not qualified, then spiritual leadership will reside in the men who are spiritually in tune with the Lord’s will. That said, I think there is a “default” position of leadership in the congregation, and that will be the preacher. This may not be ideal, but it may be necessary until men are trained to serve in the capacity of elders. Simply because the preacher is a leader in this capacity does not mean that bad things happen. I am not of the opinion that just because men are present in the local coingregation they are spiritually interested in the well-being of the local church. They could be, but this will be demonstrated by their actions. If so, then there will be a collection of men, but if not, where will spiritual leadership reside?
Stephen R. Bradd 5:20 pm on January 27, 2012 Permalink
Hi John. I am not in favor of one person being “in charge,” and it has not been my intent to argue for such. I am in favor of the flock being fed, tended to, and cared for–even if there are no appointed elders to do such. If that means a preacher and/or any other spiritually-minded men take the initiative to do so, they I believe such is good. Serving the church in that capacity doesn’t make one “in charge,” though some will look to such a one for leadership.