;)
Biblical Eldership
Posted by Roger Ferrell in Church & Missions
Our church is in the process of researching and readying to teach on eldership. Since we started 3 years ago, our leadership structures have included a Leadership Team (representative), a Leadership Community (inclusive), and Deacons. We presently have a LC and the Deacons. We said from the very beginning that we would begin the process of choosing non-vocational elders after 3 years. We did this because we felt it best to know our men before electing some of them to such a high and permanent position. And so, with that 3 year mark in sight next week, we are beginning to teach the church about leading with multiple elders with an eye to elder elections in the spring.
Though this has been more common in Reformed-doctrine churches, many of our SBC churches are moving toward having multiple elders. And with good reason.
John MacArthur writes: “When Paul and Barnabas founded churches in Asia Minor, Luke said they ‘appointed elders in every city as I commanded you’ (Titus 1:5). At the end of Paul’s third missionary journey, ‘he sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the church’ (Acts 20:17). In Jerusalem, Paul met with ‘James, and all the elders’ (Acts 21:18). Virtually every time elders are spoken of in scripture in connection with a church, the noun is plural, clearly indicating the standard practice in the New Testament was for multiple elders to oversee each church.” John MacArthur, The Book on Leadership, p. 167.
As we begin this process, there are many details and variables to discuss. How will we choose these men? Who is qualified? [fortunately 1 Timothy and Titus give us good counsel here] What will my role as pastor look like in this group? How will the role of deacons change?
But despite the work involved in making this change, I am very excited about it. To share the burden of leadership equally with others will be refreshing. Sure, we have had leaders here since the beginning, but I was always where the buck stopped. And so I imagine having elders will strengthen me a great deal.
But it will do more than that. It will strengthen the church a great deal as well, and help the men we choose grow in ways they could not grow otherwise. And agreeing with David Rogers’ excellent post above on home-grown leadership, we need to be in the process of not just finding leaders, but molding and making them in the local church.
So how does your church govern? What leadership structures do you use? And what has been your experience with multiple elders?
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
I wonder what the Church, as viewed by Paul and Timothy, looked like. Was it the big red brick building on the highway? Was it small gatherings, meeting in homes?
If it were the latter, wouldn’t each “house church” have to have a leader? And elder?
If we consider the “ekklesia” today, that overall Body of Christ, doesn’t every city have multiple elders now?
I don’t recall, but are there biblical instances of the members “electing” elders, or didn’t Paul mention Timothy appointing them?
Don’t get me wrong … I’m all for eldership in the modern-day church, but I think these things need to be addressed. At least I’d push for that if the church of which I’m a member ever decided to go the multiple-elder route. Despite the fact that I are one…
But hey, I’m not all that sure congregational rule is biblical, either.
Bob,
God is definitely raising up some similar questions in my heart lately. At the same time we are preparing to examine eldership, I am also reading much on house churches, and consuming books about family-integrated church (a topic for another upcoming post). This whole idea of separating man’s tradition from God’s biblical model is where I am at. Not that tradition is bad (we must have some) but I just want to know where the lines are that separate the two.
What kind of church leadership does your church currently have?
I am an elder in a small SBC church in New York. Our constitution calls for plural eldership of at least 3 elders. One elder may be called from outside the congregation and is designated as the pastor. (we hold that all pastors are elders but not all elders are pastors) The other elders must come from within the congregation, qualify biblically and have been a member for at least 5 years and have been trusted with some previous form of service. Their term is 3 years. The eldership is limited to men.
Our deacons serve a purely servant role and the office is open to men and women.
One of my colleagues at the Institute is an elder in his church. He complains that elders, once in office, are there for life. He speaks with admiration the way we elect deacons to staggered terms. I don’t have any opinions but am interested in yours: has your church given any thought to terms of appointment or a some kind of periodic review? My partner’s issue is with men who have no apparent or glaring sin in their lives but who appear to grow to love the position and power while their hearts grow slowly harder.
Bill,
This sounds similar to the approach we are using, although we are not planning to have the discussion on women deacons at this time. We don’t need many deacons since we are small, so this is not as great an issue here. Also, we utilize deacons in four primary ways:
1. to get people into small groups
2. to take care of those not yet in small groups
3. to help show our small groups how to nurture and care for one another
4. to oversee the physical needs of the church (benevolence, property,etc.)
Since we are organized as a church of small groups, this deacon role may look a little different than in some other churches. But they are still very valuable here and precious to me!
Bowden,
Elders in my experience are usually appointed for life, unless they are removed for some serious reason. But at Bethlehem Baptist, where John Piper is pastor, they affirm elders annually, which I suppose means they can NOT affirm an elder at that time as well.
I don’t yet have much experience with this, but it is the reason why we waited so long to have elders here. I want to make sure we appoint or elect the right folks. Also, it will be important to be aware of our own refreshment in the spirit and to be vigilent about any hardening of our hearts. I think this needs to be in our elder documentation, that we pray regularly about this, and perhaps take steps to help if any of us show signs of burnout or depression or cynicism.
I’m interested in hearing what biblical reason Bill (and apparently Roger) have for thinking that there are elders who are not also pastors and overseers (or, to use Roger’s terminology, are “non-vocational”.
Bart,
Like I said, I’m new at this and it is more appropriate at this point for me to seek information on this subject rather than dispense it! But my understanding of those terms is this: elders are pastors/overseers. And pastors/overseers are elders. Same terms in my book (and God’s book, for that matter). But here is the difference and what I mean by non-vocational: some are paid and therefore more available, and some are not. I’m not sure what term we will use in the future to signify that, but many churches do use the term “pastor” to signify a paid, vocational elder.
Hope that helps.
Roger,
Thanks for the reply. I would encourage you, brother, to give strong consideration to whether that concept is biblical, or simply Presbyterian.
For example, it seems that Paul was not remunerated at Corinth, yet would you consider him to be less accessible. Would you have termed him “non-vocational”? I can see “bi-vocational”, but non “non-vocational.” Even if I stipulated to the concept (which I don’t), I think that I would choose different terminology, since “non-vocational” literally means “not called”. I think that the last thing any of our churches need is the addition of elders without a calling!
Wouldn’t 1 Timothy 5:17 give strong reason to suggest that not every elder is deserving of equal pay, but that all are deserving of some? What about 1 Corinthian 9:1-18? I realize that these are just two passages from the New Testament, but I know of zero such passages that suggest a class of non-vocational, not-entitled-to-compensation elders in the church.
I’m going to give myself a ‘D’ on that last comment for typing, spelling, punctuation and grammar. I even misspelled my own name!
Baptists have traditionally been congregationally led. Presbyterians have traditionally been elder led.
Do you think that this view about Elder ruled is coming from the rise of Calvinism, ie, Piper, Sproul, etc.? Could it be that this view is coming from people who are Presbyterians, that Baptists are reading? being influenced by? That that is the influence of the Elder ruled model taking place in some SB churches today?
Also, I agree with Bart. Elders are the Pastors, or the Bishops, of the Church. I do agree with plurality. And, many Churches do have several Elders…they have a Sr. Pastor, Assoc. Pastor, Youth Pastor, etc.
So, is this board of Elders ruled thinking coming from the influence of Calvinism, or Presbyterianism? And, I find it funny that some of the people who complain about the Deacons running the Church are so enthused about a board of Elders running the church?????? And, the Elders will have a lot more authority than the Deacons ever had!!!!
David
I don’t remember anyone talking about elders running the church. Our elders lead. This has nothing to do with Calvinism or Presbyterianism and everything to do with scripture. Our church is congregationally governed as are most Baptist churches.
There is a big difference between being led and being governed. David: Are you saying pastors should not lead?
This is just a hunch but I’m willing to bet that far more single pastor churches are being “ruled” than elder led churches.
Bart: I believe there is a wide overlap, but I don’t see pastors and elders as completely synonymous. We believe that elder is a biblical role and pastor is a spiritual gift and calling. My own case is an example. I am an elder but I don’t believe I have the calling to pastor (although I obviously can perform some of the duties of the pastor, and do). This is also why we are still willing to call someone from outside the congregation to be “pastor.” I’m not willing to die on this hill but that’s where we are coming from.
Brothers Bart & David (volfan),
I know, I know, butting in again, but…
In your view(s) is it acceptable for someone qualified and called by God to lead a local community as an elder/pastor/bishop to forgo the wages he deserves and choose to support himself and family by another means?
Peace to you,
From the Middle East
Vol Fan,
While it is possible that the recent surge of Calvinism within the SBC has led to more interest in the theme of elders and their role in the local congregation, I think that, in many (if not most) cases, it roots to a desire on the part of a younger generation who are strongly committed to the authority of Scripture, and are willing to compare and contrast time-honored denominational traditions with what Scripture actually teaches. A return to “semper reformanda,” if you will.
I take Bart’s point about non-called elders. Obviously I believe in the calling to which I am serving, but still believe that pastoring is a separate calling.
For that matter, shouldn’t every person serving the local body be called to that work?
Bill,
I would encourage you to consider Acts 20:17, 28 and 1 Peter 5:1-4. While reading please remember that “shepherd” is the same word as “pastor” and that the verbal phrase “exercising oversight” is merely the verb form of the word for “overseer.” In the Bible the terms “pastor” and “elder” and “overseer” seem to be used to refer to the same people. Also, if there is such a thing as a “pastor” as differentiated beyond a mere “elder” in the New Testament, then we seem to have no qualifications, no duties, and no examples for such a person in the Bible.
FTME,
Yes, I think that it is acceptable (even laudatory?) for someone to pursue that path. I should think that it would be difficult for anyone to read the writings of Paul as authoritative and yet object to the propriety of such an approach.
Nevertheless, even Paul, who declined to take support from the Corinthians, strongly asserted his right to the support. I think it clear that Paul did not consent to the creation of a class of elders who were, by design, not entitled to monetary support.
Brother Bart,
Good to see you chiming in hear.
I agree with you that the “vocational” language is somewhat confusing and certainly if a man is not called to the Pastorate, he should not Pastor.
It is clear that God has provided for a plurality of Leaders in His church, for obvious discipleship, teaching sound doctrine, leadership and mission purposes. So, churches that pursue a plurality will only benefit when those men are qualified and called as you have suggested.
I agree with David, in that Elders have been associated with Presbyterian ecclesiology, yet they were originally associated and prescribed within apostolic ecclesiology in the early churches….which is where we should be looking. Certainly Calvin and Luther were theologically solid on matters of soteriology, but seriously lacking in ecclesiological understanding because political tradition and Augustinian influence was incorrectly assumed and the price to high for them to pay. Even the Presbyterian has augmented Calvin’s style, where Calvin’s elders were selected by the city council. I don’t think you want your city counsel selecting your elders and neither do the Presbyterians!
Elders/Bishops/Pastors are the same critter and teaching the congregation to understand and overcome years of tradition will take some time. We intentionally covenanted together as a congregation with two elders using the letters to Timothy and Titus as the qualifications and hope to have two more men, if they aspire, join us in leading the congregation. Aspiration is critical. For instance, I have one man that qualifies to serve as Elder in our congregation that I have ask him to pray and seek God’s call on his life for our congregation. He may not aspire. That’s ok, because he already serves, teaches, etc. A Pastor/Elder must realize and step toward the responsibility. It is a life endeavor simply because it is determined by qualification, not policy. So the Elder remains qualified for life, or he is not qualified as some point because of sin or not capable of continuing to shepherd the flock.
I know many of the Elder/Pastors where John MacArthur, Dever, and Piper serve their congregations, ….and the affirmation process allows the congregation to fully engage the Elder/Pastors on an annual basis. The affirmation is a teaching process for the congregation to give them a better understanding of the role of the Elder/Pastor and to some extent does help demonstrate to the Elder the responsibility before him.
Blessings,
Chris
Baptists have traditionally viewed “pastor, elder, and bishop” as synonymous terms for the same office. This has been their traditional view, and the biblical view.
The Baptist Faith & Message even says of the church, “Its scriptural officers are pastors and deacons.”
1 Peter 5:1-3 even mentions all three terms in the same passage, but not as different offices. When I was a kid, I used to wonder why Baptists did not have bishops since the Bible spoke of them. Then I realized we do, we just usually use the term pastor. 100 or more years ago it was very common among Baptists to refer to their pastor as “Elder Smith.”
The Believer’s Study Bible (aka Criswell Study Bible; Baptist Study Edition) says, “The terms [elder, pastor/shepherd, bishop/overseer] are all synonymous in that they refer to the same office. They differ only in emphasis. These responsibilities are to be discharged willingly as an example to the flock, and they are not to be rendered due to constraint, due to the desire for inordinate gain, or due to the ambition to be lords over God’s people. The term “bishop” indicates strong leadership but not dictatorship.”
Many other Baptist writings indicate the above, and they have clear biblical basis to do so.
Elder David R. Brumbelow
Brother Chris,
A holiday week brings a bit more spare time!
Brother Bart,
It sounds like we agree. I, along with Brother Chris and others, see no difference between those elders/bishops/shepherds who are paid to lead and those are not. I would not place them in a different class than you or any other elder/bishop/shepherd and disagree with some above who do.
Peace to you my brother,
From the Middle East
FTME,
My sentiments entirely. On an unrelated note, I don’t think that your photograph captured your best side.
Brother Bart,
If I ever have the pleasure of meeting you face to face, you will, most likely, retract that statement.
FTME,
What Bart said.
David Rogers,
As we look into the Scriptures, I dont think that we see Presbyterianism. Elders, yes…but, not the Elders with the spin of Presbyterianism on it.
David
I don’t mind conceding the point for the purposes of this discussion. The bigger issue for me is not about the pastor /elder distinction but about the issue of plurality.
I wonder however, if the word “shepherd” means “pastor”, does the word “servant” mean “deacon”? Can’t have it both ways.
Although I think the assoc pastor, youth pastor, etc. can satisfy some of the requirements of plurality, those offices are typically paid positions in bigger churches and hierarchical in nature, and I wouldn’t consider it quite the same model as a board of elders.
Wow, many good comments since I’ve been away the last couple of hours pastoring, ah, eldering, um, overseeing, uh, whatever.
All I would add at this point is that I agree the term “non-vocational” can be confusing. By that I just meant “non-paid.” I also agree with those who assert that while elders and pastors are the same thing scripturally, there are different gifts within those roles. For example, we do not require all the elders to lead in music, especially if they cannot sing on pitch! There is a gift for worship leadership and appropriate skills as well. It is the same with the role of pastor within the church. God has not called all elders to quit their jobs and serve the church 50-60 hours a week counseling, teaching, leading, comforting, etc. For those He calls in that way, we make provision financially to allow them to do that. So I agree with those above who expressed that.
Also I want to address the thought above that the doctrine of multiple elders is not baptistic. W.B. Johnson, the first president of the Southern Baptist Convention, wrote a book on church life in which he strongly advocated the idea of a plurality of elders in the local church. As late as the twentieth century, Baptist publications were referring to leaders by the title of elder, though that idea and practice has now largely fallen out of use. And the Abstract of Principles (1858), the confession still used at Southern and Southeaster Baptist seminaries, and a foundational baptist document stated, “the regular officers of a Church are Bishops or Elders, and Deacons.” In fact, the 1925 Baptist Faith and Message identifies the office of elders as well, though the 1963 and 2000 versions left it out in favor of just “pastors and deacons.”
There are many more examples, but my point is that Baptists have a long history of recognizing the office of elders and of practicing leadership with multiple elders in a local church. This practice does not just belong to Calvin or the Presbyterians, but is Baptist as well.
Most importantly, it is scriptural. Acts 14:23, 16:4, 20:17, 21:28, and Titus 1:5 and James 5:14 all refer to elders in the plural.
Bill,
Please don’t misunderstand. I’m not saying that the word “shepherd” on each and every occurrence throughout the Bible always means “pastor.” The folks who showed up at the cradle in Bethlehem arrived fresh from the fields, not from the study at the local church! Shepherd usually just means shepherd.
However, in the context of Acts 20 and 1 Peter 5 it is not reasonable to presume that all of those addressed were men engaged in the secular labor of tending sheep. Rather, we correctly understand the metaphorical, ministerial use of the term.
I do encourage you to employ precisely the same rationale regarding diakonos. Let’s be consistent, by all means.
Finally, associate pastors may not satisfy all of your requirements for plurality, but they certainly fulfill all of the biblical requirements for plurality. What has been demonstrated from the scriptures is simply that a great many New Testament congregations had more than one elder. The New Testament explicitly acknowledges differences among those elders with regard to remuneration, effectiveness, and aptitude. It is the very fact that they are entitled to pay that makes them biblical elders, not the opposite as you have suggested.
I do concur that this biblical model is not the same as some models of elder “boards” that have been propounded among some believers.
Bill,
Pastor/Shepherd. Deacon/Servant.
You can have it both ways. The question, is the word used of the official office of pastor or deacon, or just as a verb of what the person is doing in ministry.
I’ve seen Sunday School Teachers who were good “shepherds,” but did not have the office of pastor.
I’ve seen men and women who were great “servants” in the work of the Lord, but did not hold the official office of deacon.
Of course, this is where we begin to argue about women deacons, Phoebe in Romans 16:1, Galatians 3:28, 1 Timothy 3:12, etc.
Bishop David R. Brumbelow
Roger,
I don’t find anyone in this comment stream arguing that the presence of multiple elders in a church is contrary to Baptist history or doctrine. I do, however, note my suggestion above that the division of elders into multiple KINDS of elders is a non-biblical concept best attributed to Presbyterianism. In doing so, I am not asserting that no church referring to itself as a Baptist church has ever in history succumbed to this conceit—indeed, there are many around today and have been some throughout our history. Yet the Presbyterians have been the ones to carry this ecclesiological banner, and since nobody has sought to advance a biblical argument for the subordination of some elders to non-pastoral, non-teaching, or not-entitled-to-compensation strata, the attribution of this concept to a theological tradition (Presbyterianism) as its source and mainstay is not an unreasonable idea to consider.
A plurality of elders is to assist the Senior Elder in the spiritual affairs of the church.
Deacons are to take care of the physical affairs of the church, and are to see to the Pastor’s [Senior elder] table.
Dr. Paul W. Foltz
I have some book recommendations on this subject if anyone is interested, and would love to hear yours. These have been helpful to me:
Elders in Congregational Life by Phil A. Newton (Kregel Press). Newton is a Southern Baptist pastor.
9 Marks of Healthy Church by Mark Dever (Crossway). Dever is also a Southern Baptist pastor.
The Book on Leadership by John MacArthur (Nelson). John MacArthur is, well, John MacArthur.
Elders and Leaders – God’s Plan For Leading The Church by Gene A. Getz (Moody). I have not started this yet, but it looks great.
Family-Driven Faith by Voddie Baucham. Family-Integrated Church by J. Mark Fox. Neither of these books is about church leadership, specifically but both talk about the role of elders. Baucham is a Southern Baptist and a great communicator. Fox’s book is delightful and is essentially the story of a small church and relates a good example of how elders work in practice in that setting.
Bart,
Actually I was responding to David’s comment in #11. I think he was actually saying that elder-led churches were not really a historical Baptist practice, but I’ll let him field that. I was just responding to what he seemed to be asserting there.
On the issue of different kinds of elders, I don’t think the bible gives guidance on that, but I don’t think it limits it necessarily either. Stephen was not an elder, he was a deacon. The only difference in requirements for elders and deacons in scripture is that elders must be able to teach. Yet Stephen was preaching and teaching when he was martyred. So it seems deacons could teach, though they were not required to do so. Paul was, of course, an elder, but also was a missionary. But most elders did not travel from town to town as Paul did but led churches in local communities. Paul had a calling to missions and church planting, not because he was an elder but because he was Paul. So obviously there is some freedom there on the application of gifts and even callings within the church leadership. Scripture spells out what elders are and what they are not, but beyond that I believe there is a uniqueness in each individual in terms of calling, gifting and practice.
Hammett, John. Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary Ecclesiology. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2005.
Norman, R. Stanton. The Baptist Way: Distinctives of a Baptist Church. Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman, 2005.
White, Thomas, Jason Duesing, and Malcolm B. Yarnell, editors. Restoring Integrity in Baptist Churches. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2008.
Roger,
Well, at least we aren’t borrowing from Presbyterianism that bothersome regulative principle!
The topic of the post is “Biblical Eldership.” Thus my presumption that we were seeking to return to a biblical idea of eldership. If Presbyterian innovations beyond the biblical teaching are warranted (the division of the presbytery into multiple kinds of elders), then why are the innovations of some Baptists beyond the biblical teaching relegated to the status of error that must be corrected (i.e., the existence of churches with only one elder in number)? Can you show me how the biblical argument for a plurality of elders (the absence of an example of a single-elder church in the New Testament) is so much more compelling than the biblical argument for a single category of elders (the absence of any hint of different kinds of elders in the New Testament)?
My mother-in-law has a piece of apple pie for me. I dare not disappoint her!
I’ll try to remember to return later.
So clarify for me, folks. If local church elders are all supposed to be either non-paid, or all paid, what would that look like in our Southern Baptist life?
We use the word Pastor to designate a paid elder, for lack of a better word. Perhaps we need a better word to avoid further confusion. In any case, having one or two of us around all the time (paid) means that invariably we will know more of what is happening here and be more available to folks, just because we have that extra time during the week to give to this calling. Also, in churches that have staff, most pastors hire the staff, administrate the staff, and lead the staff. In most cases, this is not seen as a function of the elders. So in these things, there are differences.
But I do not advocate the concept of a “ruling elder.” When we all sit at the table together, we are all equal in our authority.
Is that what you all are saying?
I don’t think some elders should get apple pie and others shouldn’t. That’s where I draw the line.
Oh, wait. My wife is bringing me a plate of sausage balls, the first of the season. Gotta go…
Roger: I’m sure Bart will answer for himself after stuffing himself shamelessly with pie, but what I think he is saying is that there is nothing wrong with single eldership within a church body.
Think about it. If plural eldership is indeed not only the New Testament norm, but in fact prescriptive, then Baptist churches have been doing it wrong for a long long time and are mostly doing it wrong now. Most people aren’t comfortable with that idea. (the preceding paragraph is my own, and not me channeling Bart)
I personally believe the example of plural eldership is prescriptive and don’t have a problem with saying we were wrong.
Brother Ferrell,
Something that has been danced around so far is the Baptist model of Pastor and Staff. This seems to be the most basic model for Baptist life these days. You many have one Pastor, then a group of men and possibly women fulfilling various ministry roles. The reason I bring this up, is that for instance if a man has all the credentials expected of by the congregation for “Worship Pastor”…. talent, charisma, etc, but the Worship Pastor cannot teach or has a poor reputation among the members,…then by biblical definition he is not an Elder/Pastor, and the church should be aware that he is not a biblically qualified leader. That’s not to say that he cannot lead music, etc., but in many instances churches have come to see the staff as Elders/Pastors with our without biblical qualification. This then over time becomes the traditional norm for that congregation for generations.
The doctrine of Biblical Leadership could be a wonderful discovery for a great number of churches in the near future. We try to make it a habit to cover these basics (a six to eight week teaching) sometime during each year which helps our congregation focus on what the qualifications of leadership really are versus the traditions that they may hear from their friends or in line at the grocery store.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother Paul and others,
Since we are examining “biblical eldership,” where do we find the concept of a senior/lead/head pastor/elder/bishop in the New Testament?
Peace to you in Jesus’ name,
From the Middle East
Brother Ferrell,
There are no “ruling” (dictator) elders, but there are elders that rule well worthy of double honor. That does not mean that they are required to be paid, only that they are worthy because they rule well. In other words, the service that the elder is providing is valuable and commendable, yet without a requirement to be remunerated. Yet the congregation should understand their aim is to support the elder because the church is the pillar and support of the truth that is being rightly divided by the elder consistently.
Having and maintaining a plurality of leaders within the church is hard, hard work! …..which is probably the reason that it is not often followed. Most folks and single Pastor types like it easy and want to arrive and enjoy the teaching, programs and music without any conflict. Cultivating multiple leaders within a group of believers for the advancement of the gospel is hard work! Paul knew it was a worthy and difficult pursuit.. …
1 Timothy 3:15 but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.
Blessings,
Chris
The pie was wonderful, coupled as it was with a dollop of vanilla Blue Bell. I’ve time for one more comment, then other things. I’ve enjoyed the conversation. I’ll try to tie up every loose end of mine.
First, Roger’s stuff.
1. Roger asked: “If local church elders are all supposed to be either non-paid, or all paid…” All elders being unpaid would be explicitly non-biblical. I point you again to 1 Timothy 5 and 1 Corinthians 9. Although an elder may decide to refuse compensation, it is not biblical for a church not to offer compensation to any elder. As Paul said, “The workman is worthy of his wages.”
2. Roger further asked: “…what would that look like in our Southern Baptist life?” Well, it could look like lots of things. In our church, we have three pastor/elder/overseers. In line with what Bill has noted, each of us has different strengths and weaknesses. But we are all acknowledged as pastors. We also pay nursery workers, teachers at our weekday preschool, custodial staff, secretarial staff, etc. But none of these claim to be nor are acknowledged as serving in a biblical office.
3. Roger said: “We use the word Pastor to designate a paid elder, for lack of a better word.” Actually, I think there’s no wanting a better word here: Pastor is a great word to use there. It’s just that all elders are “paid elders” from the church’s standpoint, just as all elders are pastors (with the caveat that any of these paid elders could choose to decline the pay).
4. Roger said: “In any case, having one or two of us around all the time (paid) means that invariably we will know more of what is happening here and be more available to folks, just because we have that extra time during the week to give to this calling. Also, in churches that have staff, most pastors hire the staff, administrate the staff, and lead the staff. In most cases, this is not seen as a function of the elders.” Not seen as a function of the elders by whom? It is this differentiation in function between “elders” and “pastors” that I find to be without biblical foundation. All of our elders have supervision responsibilities with regard to non-pastoral staff.
5. Roger said: “But I do not advocate the concept of a “ruling elder.” When we all sit at the table together, we are all equal in our authority.” I agree that the office of elder is equal in its authority in any of its manifestations. Yet different people have differing levels of authority and influence by virtue not of office but of person. Thus, in 1 Peter 5 where Peter is instructing elders, he explicitly does so as “your fellow elder” (not invoking his apostolic office, although “witness of the sufferings of Christ” is all but using the word “apostle”). He addressed them as a peer, yet clearly as (not to give unwarranted encouragment to specious Roman Catholic claims) primus inter pares (“first among equals”). Elders may have different pay, different gifts, different assignments, and different levels of influence, but they all occupy the same office. That’s what I believe the Bible to teach.
…………..
Now, for Bill’s stuff
…………..
6. Bill said: “I’m sure Bart will answer for himself after stuffing himself shamelessly with pie…” Indeed, I feel no shame at all for my pie consumption. It was the woman that God gave me: Her mother gave me the apple (encased in a pie), and I ate it.
7. Bill said: “…but what I think he is saying is that there is nothing wrong with single eldership within a church body.” I’m saying that I find it strange to condemn single-eldership while cozying up to multiple KINDS of elderships. And I find that my request to show a biblical justification for this strange dichotomy has not been answered.
For the record, I believe that a church is not in sin to have a single elder, any more than a church is in sin to have no elder at all. It is an undesirable state, but one that is sometimes beyond the congregation’s control. They want a pastor. They look for a pastor. They remedy the situation when they can. But they are not in sin ipso facto for being without a pastor/elder/overseer.
But it is better and biblical to have multiple elders (all of whom the church should support financially to various degrees). Just as it is better and biblical for the members of the church to give generously for the support of the ministry. And when the latter is corrected, churches will find that they have little trouble with the former.
8. Bill said: “Think about it. If plural eldership is indeed not only the New Testament norm, but in fact prescriptive, then Baptist churches have been doing it wrong for a long long time and are mostly doing it wrong now. Most people aren’t comfortable with that idea. (the preceding paragraph is my own, and not me channeling Bart).”
I think that there are people around who aren’t comfortable with the idea of Baptists having been wrong about things, and then I think that there are people around who take great delight in making Baptists out to have been mostly wrong. I’ll endeavor not to categorize you in that schema as you have had the courtesy not to categorize me therein.
As the sponsor of our recently-passed resolution on Regenerate Church Membership, with regard to being willing to find fault with SBC practice and call us to repentance where we really have been wrong, I’ll let my actions speak for myself.
……………….
And finally, for Chris Johnson
……………….
9. Chris, you have an excellent point, and one that we all ought to consider carefully. I think it unnecessary that we purge ourselves of all employees who do not fill biblical offices (i.e., custodians, secretaries, etc.), but I do think it necessary and imperative that we make clear differentiation between biblical offices and other positions of man’s creation in the church.
May God give you all a wonderful week.
I find all of this very interesting since our church will one day transition from a church plant with one elder (me) and a leadership community to an elder-led model. I too am in the process of researching and praying through this important issue.
I certainly think that the way most SBC churches are governed is un-Biblical. First of all they are “governed” by pastors and not led. One church I was at as the children’s pastor was ruled by a Senior Pastor who would only come to the church so long as they signed over him as the “sole administrator” of the church’s business and financial affairs. That to me is very scary! I have also always found it amusing the way we use words and titles to bend or avoid Biblically sticky issues. For example, the church I served at most recently before planting had all sorts of titles. Only men were deacons, no one was called elder, paid staff were called pastors, except for the men who led ministries and had divorces in their past, they were only called “ministers.” Women who led ministries and taught were surely not called pastors or ministers but simply “ministry directors.”
I personally believe that Scripture clearly calls for a plurality of elders (pastors/bishops), and that deacons can be both male and female. I believer that there is no distinction in the eldership of higher or lower elders but that it is a group of equals who should have differing roles. Certainly some elders, especially those called to teach and preach, will naturally take on more of a leadership role, but the key word is “leadership” and not “rule.”
I think the Acts 15 “Jerusalem Council” passage is helpful here. The Bible says that the apostles and elders gathered to consider the matter at hand. After discussion and input from Peter (apostle), Paul and Barnabas (outsiders) it says in vs. 19 that James gives the group HIS judgment. That seems to then settle the matter. It seems therefore to me that James seems to appear to be somewhat of a lead elder. Not a senior pastor type, but an equal amongst elders who is gifted with leadership. It is also interesting to note that after the decision was made by the apostles and elders that in vs. 22 the matter is taken before the whole church in regards to choosing who to send from the Jerusalem church with Paul and Barnabas to take the message to the Gentile believers.
Bart: I agree that single eldership is not necessarily sinful, but not the ideal. I don’t disagree with much of what you said, although I’m not a huge fan of apple pie. (as a side note, you use interesting wording regarding the pie: “the woman Thou gave to me gave me the pie, and I did eat”
)
I’m not sure I would go so far to say that all elders should be paid, since I’m not convinced that all, or even most elders were paid in the NT.
Bill,
I don’t have any hard data on the pay rates of New Testament elders, but I’m not sure that the data, if available, would be the conclusive matter. The fact that churches are commanded to pay their elders in the New Testament is controlling here, whether the churches obeyed or not.
By analogy, I’m not convinced that all, or even most, Christians int he New Testament were holy. Nevertheless, I am willing to say that all Christians should be holy. Because people’s imperfect practice of it notwithstanding, it is God’s design and commandment that tells us what we should do.
Bart: I also have no data, but I’m guessing that many elder led churches only pay the one they designate as “pastor”. In small churches that is all they are likely to be able to do. In your opinion, should such churches go back to a single elder model? Our elders are given a small compensation when we preach (we are without a paid pastor right now) but besides that, I’m not sure what they would be paying me for? Praying? Teaching? Visiting the sick?
Bill,
Biblically, they would be paying you for 1)ruling well, 2)working hard at preaching or teaching, or 3)sowing spiritual things into their lives.
Bill,
I think the compensation when you preach fulfills the guideline in 1 Timothy. Your elders all have full-time compensation elsewhere, right? None of them is in need financially? If so, then I believe the church is fulfilling the requirement if they 1)show you honor and respect, 2)value your extra service (preaching) and compensate you financially for that, and 3)do not expect you to do all the work that a paid pastor would do, and 4)plan to be diligent about determining who that pastor will be, and then compensating him appropriately.
If the plan is for you elders to indefinitely do all the work of leadership, then someone should be compensated to do that work. Or if the church cannot afford to compensate a pastor, then cut the workload so there is less work to do [i.e. a house church model] and still compensate to some extent, or cut expenses in other places so they can adequately pay a pastor.
On this issue, I think there are many pastors who are being paid, but not in the spirit of 1 Timothy 5. They may receive a salary but are hindered in their ministry by a lack of income. For example, many cannot afford housing in the area they serve or cannot afford for their wives to fulfill their calling to stay home and teach and raise their children and be a help to their husband. And so it is not enough simply to give a salary. Churches should give (as they can afford to) a salary that does not “muzzle the ox” [1 Tim.6:18] as it were.
Bart,
A couple of caveats on #46:
You said, “The fact that churches are commanded to pay their elders in the New Testament is controlling here, whether the churches obeyed or not.”
But 1 Timothy 5 says that the elders who rule well [the Holman says "who are good leaders"] are considered worthy of double honor. So where does that leave us on those who are not ruling well, or are not good leaders? It seems like it gives an out, doesn’t it?
Also, the line “considered worthy” is very interesting. It does not say they should be compensated but considered worthy of such compensation. Why do you think that is?
I’m not fishing an angle here, just curious!
By the way, I love the comprehensive approach Paul gives in Galatians 6:6 – “One who is taught the word must share all good things with the one who teaches.” I think “all good things” is an “all good” approach.
So it is not enough for a church to pay a guy well and not give him love and accountability and kindness to his family, and encouragement, and forgiveness, and gentleness. For those who teach the word, we should share all good things with them.
And verse 10 widens it even more – “So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.”
That’ll preach.
Brother Ferrell,
Pastors should be prepared to share the gospel in season and out of season, whether paid or not paid, whether loved or not loved. The responsibility afforded a Pastor is not tied to compensation. This is made clear not only by Paul in his instruction, but by Paul in his actions.
If you, as a Pastor, think that you may not be able to minister because you can’t buy a house, or can’t provide for you family as well as you would like,… then you may not be qualified to Pastor any longer. There is no room for resentment or sulking in the ministry as a leader of the congregation.
If you don’t have enough money, find a way to make money, but don’t put that on the backs of the congregation. Paul had congregations that couldn’t give a plug nickel, and others that he knew he could expect to get money from for the work of the ministry. Oh how spoiled we are and mislead we are in America.
We can all get some wisdom from Pepsi “Wake Up People”. Pastors must be expected to count to cost more than any others in the church.
Blessings,
Chris
Vol Fan,
RE: comment #25
I am not, by the way, advocating for Presbyterian ecclesiology. I consider my understanding of biblical ecclesiology, on most issues, to be closer to traditional Baptist understanding than to traditional Presbyterian understanding.
Roger,
RE: comment #33
I don’t mean to get nit-picky here, but I am not so sure that Paul was technically an elder. It is possible that he was an elder while he was at Antioch, before being sent out with Barnabas. But, even there, the Bible just says he and the others mentioned in Acts 13:1 were “prophets and teachers.” After leaving Antioch, though, I think it is important to distinguish between Paul’s role as an apostle and the role of local church elders. This is related to the point I have been discussing on my last post in regard to Timothy and Titus. Just because they taught doctrine, and exercised spiritual authority, doesn’t mean they were necessarily elders. I see the office of elder as confined to a specific congregation, and not itinerate in nature.
Chris,
You’re coming on a little strong there, brother. I appreciate your passion but fear it is misplaced in my case. I agree with you completely and have been there as a bivocational pastor and missionary, taking massive pay cuts to go where I was called to go. I’ve lived in other people’s basements and had them live in mine when that was what the calling required. And am glad to do it again.
But I’m not talking about a pastor’s responsibility to fulfill his calling whatever the cost. I’m talking and this passage is speaking about a congregation’s responsibility toward their pastor or pastors.
When both the pastor and the congregation do what scripture requires of them, then the church and the kingdom is blessed.
Chris,
I also should say I am talking about matters of the heart, not the pocketbook. Many churches cannot afford to pay a pastor much, but some can, and choose not to take care of their pastoral staff because they are hard-hearted or not paying attention. That’s really what I am talking about here. Hope that helps.
David Rogers,
Good point. I think my point could have been made without making the elder assertion about Paul, because we don’t really know, do we? Let me rephrase:
- Paul was, of course, a leader in the early church, but also was a missionary. But not all church leaders traveled from town to town as Paul did. Paul had a calling to missions and church planting, not because he was an leader but because he was Paul, and was uniquely called of God to be a light to the Gentiles. So obviously there is some freedom there on the application of gifts and even callings within the church leadership. -
Brings up an interesting point, though, especially for missionaries like yourself. Do we assume a man is an elder because he is a missionary? And how do those qualifications for elders and deacons apply to those with missionary callings?
Brother Roger,
I should have written the statement in a more general fashion. I was not marking you out specifically. After reading the post again,…I see where it could have come through that way. It was simply a general statement.
Sometimes, more often than not, the congregation needs the leader to lead, and not sulk. The leader should count is all joy!
My apologies! Again, the comment was not really directed at you…sorry.
Blessings,
Chris
Roger,
I see “elder” and “missionary” as two different roles or ministry activities within the church at large. They are tied in to, but not necessarily equivalent with, spiritual gifting. As you mention, the qualifications of elders and deacons are spelled out in 1 Timothy and Titus (with bits and pieces from other passages as well). The qualifications for missionaries are not spelled out quite so overtly, but almost certainly include divine calling, and spiritual giftedness for the task. We also have the example of local church commendation in the case of Paul and Barnabas and Antioch. But, then, there are other situations in which local church commendation is not so clear. In general, it would seem to me that it is a good idea, though.
Levels of spiritual maturity, and influence within the church, are perhaps related, but different matters. I think the “fathers,” “young men,” and “children” of 1 John ch. 2 probably refer more to this. I suppose there are probably some spiritual “fathers” who are not technically “elders” in a local congregation, and some spiritual “young men” who legitimately engage in missionary activities. However, I would think that an “elder” ought also to be considered a spiritual “father” in this sense. A “church planting missionary” or mission team-leader should probably be a spiritual “father” as well.
Chris,
No harm done, my friend! I’m glad to know you did not mean it for me specifically. I did read the second paragraph that way at first. But perhaps I took it that way because I was convicted by my own materialism? So thanks for being an instrument of God!
By the way, though I agree that pastors should go and serve where they are called regardless of financial renumeration, if anyone knows of pastors that are struggling this season, especially up north where the heating bills are high and the winters long, and most SBC guys (and their wives) are far from home, please let me know. I would love to encourage them any way I can.
David,
Thanks for your thoughts.
You said, “I suppose there are probably some spiritual “fathers” who are not technically “elders” in a local congregation, and some spiritual “young men” who legitimately engage in missionary activities.”
This is really what I meant when I referred to Paul being an elder. He was in a position of authority over the churches, though maybe not in the church. In that sense, he was certainly a “bishop” or an “overseer.” And I like the term “spiritual father.” Nevertheless, I think today it is sort of dangerous to have exceptions to the biblical rule who still wield influence and authority in the churches. From our denominational leaders to authors to guest speakers or musicians who come to visit and have a great deal of influence over our congregations, should not the same qualifications apply to them?
DEAR ROGER,
I have one question in regards to the term ”spiritual father. Doesn’t Matthew say, ”Call no man father on the earth, for one is your father, which is in heaven”/
Please elucidate.
Paul Foltz
Paul,
I was the one who brought up the matter of “spiritual fathers.” I did so basing off of 1 John 2:12-14. I suppose some might say this is referring to physical fathers. But, given the context, I find this unlikely. Like many apparent contradictions in Scripture (Galatians 6:2 & 5, as well as Paul and James on faith and works, come to mind here), we must get to the root of what is really being communicated, and look for the reconciliation between the two sides.
I believe that Jesus was warning about people unilaterally assuming roles of spiritual authority, and of people following men instead of God. However, this does not take away the “fatherly” ministry and example that certain individuals provide in certain spiritual family contexts. There are indeed certain individuals to whom, as a result of their years of experience in the Lord, and the depth of their walk, we should look up to as “fathers” in the faith. Paul, for example, encouraged Timothy to look up to him in this way.
Roger,
Peter, who we know was an apostle, also refers to himself, in 1 Peter 5:1, as an “elder.” As I see it, it is difficult to know whether, at the time of this writing this, he had taken on the responsibility of elder in a particular congregation, or he was using the term “elder” in a more generic sense. We know also that, in Acts 15, the apostles and the elders discussed matters together, and took on spiritual leadership roles in the church of Jerusalem. And yet, there still seems to be a distinction between the apostles and the elders there.
As I mentioned earlier, it seems like the best resolution of this is to see apostles as exercising a primarily itinerate ministry (as “sent out” ones), and elders as a locally-based leadership role. The 12 in Jerusalem, however, seem to be exceptional in some senses, as they were based out of Jerusalem for some time, and appear to have shared local leadership with the “elders.”
In any case, to get back to your question, I believe each ministry role or activity in the Body comes along (or ought to come along) with corresponding levels of maturity and responsibility. Spiritual “children” should be involved in ministry, just like spiritual “young men” and spiritual “fathers.” But we don’t entrust them with the same level of responsibility.
Roger,
Thank you for the clarification. John said ”I speak to you as fathers”.
Have a Happy Thanksgiving.
Paul,
Glad to clarify, especially since it was David who did the clarifying! I do think that titling someone a “spiritual father” is more than a bit awkward and probably too grandiose for a humble servant of God. In church planting, we use terms like “mentor” or “coach” to signify those who are intentionally investing in others to bring them along to maturity. Perhaps those terms are good ones in the church as well. But whatever the title we use, all leaders should ultimately be followers, as Paul said, “be imitators of me as I am of Christ.”
David,
Great thoughts. Thanks. I agree with you. I wish, though, we had a more formal understanding in Southern Baptist life for how it all fits together outside of the local body of Christ. For example, how does the role of a Director of Missions or state convention staff relate to biblical leadership roles?
Brother Roger,
Thank you for the post… I think the info from everyone has been very informative and helpful as we consider being members one of another in the church and seeing God utilize all the spiritual gifts that He has made known to His church.
Have a great Thanksgiving!
Blessings,
Chris
Roger,
Those questions get us into the whole issue of denominations. That is a topic I would love to discuss, and have discussed quite a bit, both here, and even moreso, on my own blog, in the past several years. However, that would probably involve opening a “whole new can of worms” on this post, though.
In the meantime, I will use the opportunity to throw in a plug for the 3-part article by John Woodhouse on Christian Unity, Ecclesiology, and Denominations, that I referenced back on my controversial “The One True Church” post (http://www.sbcimpact.net/2008/05/07/the-one-true-church/). The 3rd article, especially when read in the context of the other two, is the best primer I know of for a good discussion on the topic of denominations.
The link to the articles may be found here:
http://loveeachstone.blogspot.com/2008/01/john-woodhouse-on-christian-unity.html
Roger,
Those questions get us into the whole issue of denominations. That is a topic I would love to discuss, and have discussed quite a bit, both here, and even moreso, on my own blog, in the past several years. However, that would probably involve opening a “whole new can of worms” on this post, though.
In the meantime, I will use the opportunity to throw in a plug for the 3-article series by John Woodhouse on Christian Unity, Ecclesiology, and Denominations, that I referenced back on my controversial “The One True Church” post. The 3rd article, especially when read in the context of the other two, is the best primer I know of for a good discussion on the topic of denominations.
The link to the articles may be found here:
http://loveeachstone.blogspot.com/2008/01/john-woodhouse-on-christian-unity.html
Honest accessment of church government at the close of the NT canon leads to one conclusion: church government had not been clearly sorted out. A truly charasmatic nature existed with the Holy Spirit guiding the church in the absence of the New Testament revelation; apostles still exerted authority that no longer exists;and, Councils existed that could exert authoritative pronouncements that guided problematic issues. The best we can do today in terms of church government is utilize the principles that existed without demanding that a particular view is the Biblical view. Whatever system that is developed must blend two considerations. We are not a two level organization with clergy at the top and congregation below. To the contrary we are a nation of priets. Every person who believes is baptized into the Body and indwelled by the Spirit. Any governmental system that closes the possibility of Christ’s revelation by the least of these saints is suspect.
We are also not an organization of mass confustion, relying on democratic vote for direction. The same Spirit that indwells also gifts. In that gifting, He gives leadership. How this leadership is put together is where each local body finds its challenge because the challenge is to please the Head.
Honest accessment of church government at the close of the NT canon leads to one conclusion: church government had not been clearly sorted out. A truly charasmatic nature existed with the Holy Spirit guiding the church without using the New Testament revelation; apostles still exerted authority that no longer exists;and, Councils existed that could exert authoritative pronouncements that guided problematic issues. The best we can do today in terms of church government is utilize the principles that existed without demanding that a particular view is the Biblical view. Whatever system that is developed must blend two considerations. We are not a two level organization with clergy at the top and congregation below. To the contrary we are a nation of priets. Every person who believes is baptized into the Body and indwelled by the Spirit. Any governmental system that closes the possibility of Christ’s revelation by the least of these saints is suspect.
We are also not an organization of mass confustion, relying on democratic vote for direction. The same Spirit that indwells also gifts. In that gifting, He gives leadership. How this leadership is put together is where each local body finds its challenge because the challenge is to please the Head.
Fellow epikoposes….
Just got back in country, and was reading through this discussion. Good stuff, and very helpful insights. Only thing I could recommend would be a book by Alexander Strauch, called “Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call To Restore Biblical Church Leadership”. Its an excellent resource, and he has even published some study guides and mentor guides to help train prospective elders. Its the best and most Biblically faithful resource I could find. We are elder led, and are “eldership” is going through this book.
Thanks again!
Ken