posted
Watchman Nee pointed out that the New Testament epistles written to the Romans, Corinthians, Ephesians, Galatians, etc. were written to the "Church" (all the believers) in that particular city. Today there are many denominations, therefore in any given locality one may find many assemblies or fellowships meeting. They have difficulty uniting with others due to a doctrinal emphasis. Do we consider these groups in need of a plurality of elders or is there a plurality of elders in the locality? Some of the assemblies which meet may have less than 30 members. Some may be meeting in a house with only four or five families represented. Would there be a need for a "plurality" of elders in such small groups?
When the concept of "elders" was first presented to me the leaders who instucted me recognized the "eldership" of other leaders in their community and sought to develop relationships with them and walk in love and unity with them. They met for pray and fellowship on a regular basis. They did not conduct "business" unless there was some project the Lord had led them to consider. They met for mutual edification and prayer for the Church. There was no "formal" structure.
Those men were for the most part recognized as "Pastors" in their particular assemblies or fellowships. They came from many different denominations. There were formal church structures of all types, home cell leaders (home meetings), leaders of "street people" with little formal structure, traveling ministries, and some "para-church" organizations but they were recongized leaders and qualified as "elders." There was a genuine plurality represented by this group for the region. They worked together for the growth of all the Church in their locality. They did many things together and had a powerful effect on the churches in the area and the whole Church in the locality. They even influenced other leaders in other cities by their example.
I functioned as an elder in an assembly in the region mentioned above that had a formal eldership structure for many years. There was a "plurality" of elders and the membership was large. But the full time elders (pastoral staff) were part of the "regional eldership" and played an active part in it. I have also sought to promote plurality of elders in my current locality. There is little need for some of the local fellowships to have a "plurality" due to their size and the maturity of the membership. Granted, elders are "grown not born" and in every assembly the elder or elders need to be developing potential elders. This is merely "discipleship" and should be what we are about.
There does not seem to be much activity on this site yet. Hope to have some dialog with others in the future.
------------------ In His Abundant Grace, Weldon Pior
david anderson
posted
What thoughtful words you have given to us today, my precious brother. You truly have much to offer this forum.
As posts go up over time, others will follow, I suppose. It's a relatively new project but I am committed to its future as God enables me.
Unlike email lists, these messages will be indexed and saved for all to experience in later days and years.
There is a section on "unforgettable elders", you see. Tell us sometime, Weldon, who was an unforgettable elder in your journey and give us some details if you would.
God bless you and thanks so much for this excellent participation.
David Anderson Bristol, TN serving as moderator
MikeAlmada
posted
This could be a very interesting discussion! As far as I can tell "elder" is a specific name given to the mature older men in an assembly who are able to teach, correct(discipline), have been a good parent with obedient children(if applicable), married to one wife(if applicable), who are humble and even of good repute among unbelievers. I'm writing this from memory so forgive me if I left out any requirements. I think these men must also have the desire to act as an elder. There is no mention of professional elders that I know of. The only "payment" given to an elder is honor from the assembly. Isn't the concept of plural elders meant for any given assembly? As opposed to modern tradition where we have plural professional pastors each over a particular section of ministry in a large commercially organized church, I believe scripture shows us that we should have plural elders when possible as part of a meeting that takes place in our homes. (It must be noted that elders, professional or otherwise, aren't necessary for us to meet and function as the ekklesia(sp?).) Small groups(churches) are normative New Testamant practice. There are churches in my area that have memberships in the thousands. How can they follow scripture and celebrate the Lord's Supper(a full meal) as often as they meet? Can you imagine how large their loaf and cup would be? Along with sharing a meal, mutual participation by the full assembly is also normative New Testament practice. It is the assmebly who is to encourage each other, sing to and for each other, reason through the scriptures together, conduct any business pertaining to the Kingdom, pray for each other, share joy and grief, judge whether prophecies are valid or not, sharing the life and love of Christ it is THEY who are being built up into His living temple. Of course elders, deacons and such are included in this, yet they are not the focus. They are servants of the assembly to which they also belong. The local church represented in scripture is often so very different than the one practiced by a vast majority of believers.
posted
The Bible is clear: "appoint elders, elect elders, call on the elders" etc. etc.
Whenever elders are mentioned, the indication is always plural.
That aside, I will share what I and my family have experienced. In EVERY case where there was only one Ruling/Teaching Elder, the lone elder and his wife began lording over the assembly, the assembly began delving into strange doctrine and self-destructed. This occurs especially in small assemblies (ie home churches) where one of the men is particularly strong-willed and pushy.
In EVERY case where there was only one Ruling/Teaching Elder (ie Pastor), and he hand-picked compliant yes-men as his 'board of elders', the church was unfruitful, the Pastor developed a huge ego and demand for micro-control and was blind to his sin, and people fell away. An IC we left several years ago has 200 new people join each year, and 195 people leave after one year.
We are commanded in the Bible to be submitted "one to another", not just the "lay" people (where is that term in the Bible?) to the elders. Jesus, not elders, is the head of His Church. Each man is called to be the spiritual head of his respective family.
To have an effective system of checks and balances to hold each other accountable, your assembly needs to have a plurality of Elders, the more the better, and the more representative of the entire body the better. I believe the command from Paul was to appoint ALL men in the local church that met the requirements set forth in the Bible, and desired the office.
Your local assembly also would benefit, in my opinion, to join in covenant with other Bible-believing assemblies so that in the event issues cannot be resolved within your own assembly they can submitted to other elders for advice, counsel and/or resolution.
A good book on the subject of elders is "Biblical Eldership".
"Dear saints, For many years, I agonised over the topic of leadership in the Church. Was it the 'one pastor' system, or an eclesiastical heirarchy (deacons, elders, bishops in ascending order) or some (apparently) unworkable 'plurality' of local elders, who had input from time to time from travelling apostles, prophets and evangelists (many of whom are thought to be no longer with us, simply because of the myriad fakes and phonies that inhabit the church scene).
I am not endorsing the antics of false ministries and fortune tellers, as the men of the early church were never that. The greatest miracle is that of a changed (born again) life, where the new convert proceeds onto maturity under the watchful eye of those called and gifted to SERVE that person, not fleece, dominate, deceive or indoctrinate them. If a ministry doesn't lead a person into deeper relationship with Christ, then stay away from them...
What I mean here, is simply that for the local church to exist, it needs input from others outside, who have been in contact with other churches, have been called by the Lord to travel as part of their calling, and who have a degree of spirituality that will allow them to minister in each of those local settings, without feeling the need to 'take them over' introduce false doctrines, or work false miracles in order to sway the crowd.
Unspiritual people usually end up linking independent groups with some dominating headquarters somewhere else, and if they succeed the church is then subjected to unfamiliar doctrines, creeds and practices, and the congregation are often flogged for money - beware!!!!!!!
After much study, discussion and prayer, I can only conclude that the NT pattern seems to me to be that God starts a fellowship with one man leading. This person is often called the 'pastor' (even if they don't want the title, they usually get it) and if that person is spiritual, they will, over time, establish others in leadership positions within that local body, as the need arises, and as the Lord leads, to the point of making themselves redundant. That is the sign of a true church planting ministry - not false miracles and ridiculous prophecies...
What often goes wrong, is that the leader gets into an area of doubt and fear, and fails to let go of that fellowship when God is clearly telling him to do so. He then stops serving and starts barking orders, for fear that Satan will deceive the flock. Paul faced a similar situation in Ephesus (Acts 20) but nevertheless he entrusted the church and its now established eldership to the Holy Spirit 'who had made them overseers' [an interchangable word for 'elders']and while he gave them fair warning about infiltrators and deceivers, refused to disobey God and mollycoddle the believers, as if they were still babes in the woods.
Paul also left behind men he had trained and could trust (Titus and Timothy) in places where there was still work to do, and even though these men proved themselves faithful in that to which they were called, their descendants did not. The people of succeeding generations stopped travelling. Letters (not scripture, but subsequent communications) ceased to flow regularly, and the infant Church suffered during the various persecutions that followed, due to isolation.
Those people who had stopped the travelling ministry became comfortable (as much as they could be with the Romans breathing down their necks) and developed a heirarchy (deacons>elders>bishops) and then eventually, a very select group headed up by the bishop of Rome became the controlling factor in the western church, allowing backsliders into leadership positions, as well as condoning the introduction of false heresies and rampant paganism in the form of christianised idolatry.
I am much encouraged to see many folks leaving the denominational ranks of today's church, and establishing themselves in home fellowships, as most of it has degenerated either into dead 'churchianity' or some kind of gross paranormal counterfeit of the Holy Spirit (allegedly) that no decent Christian folks would want anything to do with. God bless the house church movement, in whatever form you take, and I pray that Jesus Christ will continue to build HIS church, and that those who have been chosen to lead it, will lead many people, both the saved and the unsaved, directly to HIM... "
Email this page to someone.
