Featured Elder rule, lead

Technical details of a secular nature, such as wheelchair access, seems to be the architect's purview.

 

I doubt we have a wide disagreement. My position is not that every church absolutely must have plural elders at all times. However, a church should not reject the concept of plural eldership, or the fact of plural eldership as the Lord provides. Some churches make an “always & forever” definite rejection of plural eldership in favor of the single-pastor model only. I do, nevertheless, see plurality of elders “prescribed” rather than just “described,” in the sense that is how the apostles established the churches, and the churches were to hold and perpetuate the traditions they had received (e.g. 2 Thessalonians 2:15).

 

It probably differs from church to church - no surprise there. At our church, elders serve 2-year terms (except the senior pastor, who serves until retirement or until removed by a super-majority vote by the congregation) and deacons 1 year. Nominations are solicited in late fall, and those nominees meeting the biblical qualifications are contacted by our pastor concerning their willingness to serve. Willing nominees stand for election at the first of our triennial business meetings, in late January or early February. (The other two scheduled meetings, in May and September, act mainly as progress reports on church finances compared to the budget passed in the first, though other items such as missionary support are frequently addressed as well.)

 

In my particular situation, it's a worship space which is going to be built. Something that now comes to mind is seeking input from the minister of worship/music, a full-time person who also oversees the sound systems, etc. I doubt he would consider himself an expert in sound or acoustics, but he almost certainly would have insight far greater than the elders when it comes to the use of the space, and may have contacts or colleagues with "horror stories" of what to avoid. I guess in many ways this will actually become his "work space". It does seem wise to utilize the resources within the body which are available in terms of skill, experience, or possible contacts in a given project or endeavor.

My greater concern is the possible distraction this could become from true shepherding of the flock if they begin to get bogged down in the details of a building project, but I really don't know what kind of time or energy it is requiring of them, so I cannot fully weigh in with an opinion, it's just something I've been pondering.

 

Some of the most successful (in secular terms) churches are single-pastor led, but I don't think that's biblical and it does put too much power in the hands of one person. In the NT, a plurality of elders were appointed at each of the churches. And, the Bible doesn't even give us the name of anyone who pastored a church.

A few people had churches that met in their homes, but that doesn't mean the home owner is the pastor. But, meeting in a home probably does mean the church was tiny, as opposed to churches that met other places like a large "upper room", which I take to be a venue at a public establishment. The Bible says very little about how churches were operated in the New Testament, but one of the most solid things we know is the plurality of elders were appointed by bishops at every church. Still, that what was their practice, rather than an instruction to us.

 

There are two completely different types deacon laid out in scripture. You like John Macarthur (sometimes) he has a detailed teaching on it.

 

No there isn't

 

Yes there is.

 

Do you have a link to where MacArthur explains what he means by that?

 

Answering the Key Questions About Deacons

He has a sermon that he goes into more detail, but I cant find it.

 

Thanks.

 

Maybe you're both wrong?

 

Maybe everybody is wrong.

 

I guess that's that! Theologically speaking...I suppose everyone is wrong in some way, due to the Fall and the noetic effects of sin.

 

I think that would be in a non-formal sense. But if you have a serious situation where one comes to the Church for counsel with a serious sin issue, he would likely be ministered to by the Pastor or an Elder.

But of course, informally, iron sharpens iron.

 

If you read Jay Adams or are familiar with biblical counseling organizations such as CCEF or ACBC, they would advocate the same idea that was behind the Reformation...that we have a priesthood of believers, who are all called to all the "one another" commands of Scripture, which includes encouraging and admonishing, speaking the truth in love, etc. I would argue with them that biblical counseling, formal or informal, is little more than discipleship. You may find that elders or more equipped to do so because of their knowledge of the Word, but our church trains biblical counselors so that the laity are doing this quite a bit.

 

It's a different issue, but I'd like the Church to just go back to pastoral counseling, and stop sending people to "trained" counselors. I'm surprised I'm saying that having been a proponent of this until recently.

Getting a degree in nouthetic counseling, IMO, is something anyone can do with enough time and money, but it can never guarantee someone is actually a good counselor. A good counselor is someone who has proven to be a good husband/wife and parent over time, and can therefore encourage and advise others. Or it's someone who has successfully gone through a situation that others are going through and need encouragement about.

I've personally had counsel from both the "trained" and from "untrained" pastors and godly Christians. The former was a disaster, the latter a blessing. I've also recently heard from friends with the same experience. I think NC is a well meaning enterprise, and I think the theology is good and sound, but something's not quite right. I just think God calls individuals to tasks like this. It's not a simple matter of formal academic training.