The practical importance was that all the functions in this list were "trans-local" or itinerant, except "pastor." Of course, that assumed the present-day definition of "pastor." But if "pastors" were itinerant "teachers," that would take care of the apparent discrepancy, and leave even less (if that were possible) justification for evangelical ic pastor-bishops.

Peter tells "the elders among you" to "be shepherds ("pastors") of God's flock that is under your care..." (1 Peter 5:1-2 NIV). If elders (plural) are shepherds/pastors (plural), is Eph. 4:11 speaking of elders - or do local elders AND itinerant teachers both function in a shepherding capacity?

Brother, what scripture would prove this bold statement of yours?

You also wrote:"Elders who are qualified to be overseers have replaced the gifts and now function having been equipped by the Scriptures in the established Body, i.e., founded by the apostle Paul."

What scripture would verify that:
(1)overseers have replaced the gifts?
(2)That these overseers are now equipped by the scriptures rather than by the gifted men given by
the risen Christ for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry? and
(3)That the the Body was "established" or "founded by Paul"??

Further, you wrote:"Thus overseers shepherd the flock by example leadership. They are servants of all and have no authority."

I certainly do agree with this as it is made plain by the teaching of the Lord Jesus in Luke 22:25-27 and Hebrews 13:17. But I am unaware of any scripture which would teach or verify your last statement:

You wrote:"This (the shepherding of the flock by example leadership)is the means for equipping the saints today and is far superior to the edification gifts."

Would you please simply give us the scriptures which state these things? If one's doctrines are not stated in the words of scripture, are they scriptural doctrines?

It is good to see that you are still there, as vigilant and as charitable as ever. But where will this person ever find scripture to back the statements made? If they did did exist, they would probably have been stated in the first place. It is not a good idea to make claims first and then to go back to try to fit scripture to them.

But we are not answering the original question: "Do local elders AND itinerant teachers both function in a shepherding capacity?" This may have to do with the claimed autonomy of the local assembly.

What do you say?

[This message has been edited by aixen7z4 (edited 11-03-2003).]

Shepherding is a definite function of the eldership but any teacher or brother or sister could also assume that role. It's just the outworking of being our brother's keeper.

Consider that James points to the eldership to pray for the sick. Surely others could pray for them as well.

The giftings and duties in the early church were much more fluid than most realize. We tend to compartmentalize. All in my opinion, of course.

May the Spirit illuminate our darkness.

DA in TN

I believe there is a distinction between a GIFT and a WORK. For example the gifts of Ephesians 4 (including pastors) are MEN given by the risen Christ to His church (the Body). "He gave some apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers..."

But by way of contrast, elders are those who have given themselves to a WORK. Their sphere of labor is always seen in connection with the flock in a particular place (city). I Tim.3 sets this idea forth: "If any desire overseership, he desireth A GOOD WORK." (NOT "a good gift"!) Notice too, that being a pastor is NOT one of the qualifications to be an overseer! (I Tim.3 and Titus 1). The only gift or ability that is required is the ability to TEACH.

So I believe that MEN who are given by Christ to the Body as pastors (shepherds) have the responsibility of shepherding to do FOR THE BODY, and thus they travel widely with the burden of the "care of the churches" upon them. The apostle Paul was such a shepherd.

But men who are elders who do the work of overseeing the flock in a particular city are not men who generally and continually travel from place to place but rather are given to the work of tending A PARTICULAR FLOCK. The apostle Peter was such an elder. (I Peter 5:1-3) Peter did travel in a very limitted manner, but never to the extent of the journeys of Paul. Rather his ministry was primarily to the flock of God at Jerusalem.

In short, being a pastor does NOT make one an overseeing elder. (Paul was a pastor, but not an elder.)
Also, being overseeing elders of a churdch in a particular city does not make such men pastors who are given by the risen Christ to the Body. (Peter was an elder at Jerusalem, but not a pastor given for itinerant pastoring of saints in many places.)

How does this apply practically?

It shows that the whole traditional concept of one "pastor" of a local congregation is a practice which is absolutely foreign to scripture! Scripturally, pastors are given by the risen Head to the Body. Thus their ministry is very clearly TO THE BODY, and not only to a flock in one city. They are not "called", "hired", "paid" or "fired" by the sheep of a particular flock!!!

But overseeing elders (plural)are appointed by the owner of the sheep and their sphere of responsibility is WITH THE SPECIFIC LITTLE FLOCK over which they have been appointed overseers. See Acts 20:28. Such elders are not to be salaried or paid by those they serve, but rather are to work with their own hands to meet the needs of needy ones among the flock! See Acts 20:34,35

Does this help to answer the original question?

Your brother in Christ,
Bruce

Anyone who wants to pick up any of these fascinating eldership issues should feel free to move the thread, or any part of it, to the Eldership Forum where others would naturally look for it later. Thanks.

Remember to Register and an email can be sent to you when someone responds to your post.

All truth is related and begins and ends with Jesus, the Lord. That I know!

I wouldn't prejudge folks who have the 'Jesus Only Shepherd' stance, as it's quite understandable due to the fact that many of them have come out of spiritual dictatorships, where their growth was stunted, their wallets were emptied and they were meant to feel that they were somehow failures for not measuring up to denominational Babylon's expectations. So a little bit of leeway for their newfound freedom is quite OK for now.

But what happens if we are all happily fellowshipping in a homechurch one night, and a 'visitor' comes along and turns out half way through the proceedings, to be a "wolf in sheep's clothing"? Don't we need a shepherd then? God has set various ministries into His body (ala Eph 4:11) and they are now being recognised once more as ministries, (or functions, rather than authoritarian officicials,) and it is encumbent upon those with a shepherd's heart to protect the flock from such preditors WHEN THE NEED ARISES!

I believe that many years ago, when a lot of church planting was going on, that those who saw through such characters were honoured for their efforts, but over time, more and more spiritual duties were dumped in their laps, because they appeared to 'be so spiritual'. At the same time, the "congregation" felt safe in the knowledge that they now had a man who could handle himself in a scrap with a wolf, and that mostly things should be left up to him to decide and to do. Welcome to the concept of the incoming 'Pastor' model.

But the Lord never intended that any one person should have to do it all. Maybe in the beginning, yes, for a while until the new converts were up to scratch, but certainly not forever. Jesus always sent His disciples out two by two, so why would we ever expect only one man to do it all? The sole purpose of the ministry giftings given in Eph 4, is to get the members of the body into a position where they are doing the work of the ministry (including infrequent bouts of 'wolf wrestling!')

In John chapter 10 (a frequent resting place for the 'no shepherd' crowd) the passage gives and image of 'one fold, one shepherd' and fair enough. But Jesus also asked the apostle Peter specifically three times whether he would look after that fold, after He had gone back to heaven. Peter agreed that he would, and later on in his letters to the churches, told others to do the same. So, the 'no shepherd' crowd might have it a bit out of perspective.

The Jerusalem sheepfold back in those days was an imense structure, capable of a capacity of around 10,000 sheep, but local shepherds would have had no more than between 50 to 100 sheep. 200 sheep would indicated a rather wealthy, but self employed shepherd, who would have had several 'undershepherds' working with him to manage such a large and valuable flock. Each shepherd would come and literally call his own sheep out of that huge crowd of 10,000 or so, and they, recognising his voice and his voice alone would begin to find their way to the door. (Don't forget that Abraham, David, Moses, Jacob and other biblical characters were shepherds, and they had lots of hired help too.)

When a shepherd wanted to take his flock out to pasture of a morning, he would be given access by the door keeper, who recognised him as having that right of access. Jesus makes it quite plain that anyone 'who climbeth up some other way is a thief and a robber' and should not have access. The door keeper gives us a picture of the Bible teacher, who keeps the door (watches over doctrine from a practical point of view.)

By his solid foundational teaching, he establishes a biblical criteria (the boundaries of the sheepfold and the size and shape of the door -Jesus said 'I am the DOOR') so that whoever measures up to that Christlike role (with a shepherds heart, not a 'pastors' desire to be a ruler) can have access, but whoever is rejected by the doorkeeper's doctrine as being a hireling, is usually the one who gets caught climbing over the back wall, and is hastily beaten off by both the shepherd, who owns the sheep, and the doorkeeper, whose charge it is to protect them from the wolf in the shepherd's absence. So you can see how these two ministry giftings work together for the benefit of the sheep - not as a Babylonian priesthood, but as a team, each one functioning in their calling.

Then Psalm 23 applies - these shepherds (yes I do believe in a plurality of elders in a local flock, not a Roger Ramjet character) would tend their sheep, taking them into green pastures and still waters, until the evening when they would be once more placed back under the watchful of the doorkeeper for the night. John 10, along with Psalm 23 gives us a basic picture of the role of both shepherds and teachers within the church, and those who have been the victims of false shepherds (ala Ezekiel 34) need the comforting arms of Jesus Christ, the chief shepherd, extended to them through His body, until they experience healing and forgivness for past wrong deeds done to them.

(I hope to write a post soon on the one-dimensional thinking which often marked the previous era of house churches in the West.)

Imagine, Jesus is our Shepherd yet employs "under shepherds."

1Pet. 5:2-4 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.

Thank you for the big picture, brother!

I agree that there needs to be 5-fold, or 4-fold ministry in the church. I don't agree with the idea that these ministers are all salaried professionals. Paul wrote of prophets within the Corinthian congregation. He wrote 'if any man consider himself to be a prophet or spiritual...' If prophets were prophets becuase they were hired as professional 'prophets' or ordained into being 'prophets' then this verse wouldnt' make much sense. Apparently, prophets were recognized as prophets because of their gifts.

Some people have sensed the Lord call them as prophets, but they have believed the teaching that prophets are 'full-time ministers' and they expect to go into professional pulpit ministry. The ministry of the prophet is _supposed to_ function within the assembly. Prophets within the assembly are supposed to use their gifts to edify the body. Teachers within the assembly are to do the same thing. These gifts are dispersed in the body, and not just the possession of a few.

For instance, Phillip the evangelist had a travelling ministry in his younger days, but later on had a house church in Ceasarea with his daughters (who incidently, had the gift of prophecy.) Agabus, a recognised prophet, travelled to see Paul on one accasion, and showed by signs (taking Paul's belt and binding himself) prophetically what would happen to Paul if he went to Jerusalem. Paul and Barnabas both took assistants with them (apostolic team/travellers) when they went to visit different fellowships, and there were indications (especially in Romans and Collossians) that certain people had been entrusted with the care of the local church, which met in their houses (Archippus, who was reminded of his ministry - Timothy who was to teach sound doctrine, but also do the work of an evangelist). I know there is much confusion over this topic, but I believe it involves a lack of understanding the differences between a ministry gifting (five fold gifts to the body of Christ) with an office within the local church (elders and deacons).

Elders and deacons primarily minister locally, but God can raise them up to travel, if they are also endowed by the Holy Spirit with a ministry gifting - it's as simple as that. God has set up His church so that it functions according to needs - not the traditional structures of men, which have bound and hampered the church for too long. If we need five elders in a larger church, then we can have them. If we only need three, and two of them are called to missions work, or to start another church down the road, then so be it. God is not limited by our three dimensional thinking - He is outside of the constraints of time and space, and can raise up others, should those who were called to go (or alternatively, stay) are either unable or unwilling to do so.

Austin Hellier
Downunder