Featured Elder rule, lead

Jesus taught, what I understood to be an equal brotherhood, ". . . for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. . . ." -- Matthew 23:8. So the instruction of ". . . the rule over you . . . ," found in Hebrews 13:7, Hebrews 13:17, Hebrews 13:24, bothered me a little. I figured it we just me. KJV, NKJV. Thank you @Revmitchell for your comments in this thread. For which I checked the translation.

 

I'm making the point that the Apostles, and not only the Apostles, governed churches that they were not local members or pastors of. Today, any denomination trying to emulate that would have an episcopal structure. In fact, the Bible does use the term episcopal/bishop for overseers, of which the Apostles functioned.

The Bible teaches that there were bishops over the churches. The bishops appointed a plurality of elders at each church and the local churches appointed deacons.

Every church is ruled by elders or bishops. I've never known a church ruled by the congregation, beyond voting for elders. If there is one, the congregation would spend an hour or more each week after the service talking business.

 

In the first case you gave, Acts 6, I would say that the Apostles probably were members of that local church. However, the apostles did exercise outsized authority not present in any office in the church today. Yet, in the case of Acts 6, it is shown that the apostles exercised the authority of choosing deacons in conjunction with the consent of the congregation (they chose). With that example, I see no reason to assume there is no consent of the congregation in the other instances; the wording doesn't exclude it.

The biblical usage supplies evidence for synonymous usage of bishop, elder, and pastor. In Titus 1, Paul speaks of Titus’s purpose in Crete to ordain elders, then begins to speak of their qualifications prefaced with the word “bishop.” The “for a bishop” beginning of verse 7 indicates it connects back to the idea of elders in verse 5. They are connected. They are synonymous. Bishops are elders.

In 1 Peter 5:1-3, Peter exhorts the elders in these places. To the elders he exhorts, Peter says these elders are to “bishop” (ἐπισκοποῦντες) and “pastor” (ποιμάνατε) the flock/church of God. Incorporated in the duties of the elders are found, in verb form, the names of the other interchangeable terms – bishop & pastor, episkopountes & poimavate.

Paul calls the plural elders of the church at Ephesus to meet him in Miletus. In charging the elders, he calls them “overseers” (bishops; ἐπισκόπους) who are to “pastor” (ποιμαίνειν) the church/flock of God. In this case, the noun form of episkopos is used directly, and again the pastoring is embedded in the verb form of feeding (poimainein) the flock.

In addition to the synonymous usage of the terms bishop, elder, and pastor, the collective and harmonious nature of the three terms may be deduced from the scriptural qualifications for office. 1 Timothy 3:1-7 details the qualifications for the office of bishop – “A bishop then must be…” Comparing 1 Timothy 3:1-7 to Titus 1:5-9 demonstrates that the office of bishop and elder are the same office in qualifications, with two nominal descriptors. The Bible contains no separate and distinct qualifications for another office, except that of deacons, signifying that pastor is not a distinct office with separate qualifications from the bishop/elder.

First, that means the churches you have known is limited. I know churches who vote on most everything, and that end of the spectrum can get out of hand too. Second, we don't decide faith and practice based on our experience. Third, if a congregation can install and remove elders, they ultimately are ruling, even if they leave the ordinary details up the the elders.

 

It's highly unlikely that all Twelve Apostles were members of the same congregation. I doubt they were members of any congregation, let alone all of the same congregation.

You argued that the Apostles had "outsized authority" to function as a modern bishop, yet you know that Titus also appointed elders. You know Titus wasn't an Apostle. You know Titus wasn't a member of the congregation where he appointed elders.

The similar qualifications of good character is hardly evidence that bishops and elders are the same thing. Whatever the language, Titus and others still appointed boards of elders in the churches, congregations of which they weren't members.

You're still trying to see evidence where there is none. It's the job of the elders to oversee the their church. Because that verb is applied to the function of elders doesn't mean the office of elder is the same as the office of bishop. And, still, regardless of language, Titus and others still functioned as modern bishops.

Do you have a link to the website to one of those, or any church, that shows that the congregation votes on most everything? If there is, I bet it's a tiny church, particularly one that is ruled by a family or two, and the pastor is just their hireling. And, if there is, it's a rare exception to the rule that every church, including every Baptist church, is ruled by elders or bishops. And, even if there is a congregation of any significant size doing this, there's still those leading elders who tells the congregation how to vote, and they vote that way, so the congregational vote itself is rather meaningless, more of an affirmation of the elders than congregational rule.

 

Why would you doubt that, at the point of Acts 6, while they were all still in Jerusalem?

No, my point regarding the apostles themselves was that there is no comparable modern office.

Of what church was Titus a member, since you seem to know? The bigger question is not whether he was a member there, but whether he appointed elders without the consent of those he appointed and the church to which he appointed them.

The big picture, of which some of this is merely supporting points, is that bishops and elders are used synonymously, of the same office. The elders are called bishops (overseers) in Acts 20. The elders are called overseers in Titus 1. The elders are called overseers in 1 Peter 5.

What do you mean by a modern bishop, as opposed to one that is not modern?

No link that I know of. You can either take my word for it or dismiss it, either way suits me. I doubt any churches would put that much detail about "we even vote on the color of the toilet paper" on a website anyway.

 

I have no doubt that Jerusalem was the home base for the Apostles, and that they gathered there for council and conferences. But, we know from biblical and non-biblical sources that they also traveled throughout the known world. I don't think any of the Apostles were members of a local church, because their calling was to travel (didn't all the Apostles die far outside of Jerusalem, on their travels). It would have been incompetent of the Apostles to pile up their talent and knowledge all in one location, don't you think?

The Bible says Titus traveled from town to town appointing elders, and therefor he wasn't a member of the churches where he appointed elders. And, as a reminder, Titus wasn't an Apostle with outsized authority.

I don't know what your point is. I doubt Titus pointed a gun to anyone's head.

Still, whatever they were called, men like Titus and the Apostles functioned as modern bishops in an episcopal government.

By modern bishop, I mean in a governing hierarchy above the local church, unlike elders who mostly governs only one church from inside that one church.

It's extremely common for churches to have Statements of Faith that outline both their most important doctrines and the doctrines that differentiate them from most other churches (always the latter, unless they're trying to hide their beliefs). It's common for churches to post sermons and articles about their beliefs. If I was part of a church that had the congregation vote on practically everything, it would be on the website.

If the congregation really does vote on everything, then there might be a church calendar online referencing such votes. There would likely be minutes of congregational meetings online.

But, it doesn't happen, except maybe at a tiny church where the pastor is considered nothing but a hireling. Or, you've seen a tiny church or two vote on a few things and assume they're voting on practically everything when they're not.

True democracy doesn't work. The people are too ignorant and busy to do anything in a democracy except to destroy the church with unreasonable decisions and impossible expectations. Even a handful of qualified elders tend to do a poor job running a church, let alone the masses. The same is true of secular government and corporations.

 

The context was not about where they ended up, but where they were in Acts 6. In seems by Acts 8, they were yet still in Jerusalem. And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.

No, but he was appointed/sent by an apostle. When the Apostle Paul sends someone to our church to appoint elders, we will likely consent. When some modern bishop shows up to run something, we'll send him packing.

So are you using "modern bishop" to mean something different from what you think is a biblical "bishop"?

Of course, I never argued for a "true democracy" as an ideal, only pointed to the fact that your knowledge of the variety of functional government in Baptist churches is limited. Even the Southern Baptist Convention, which claims to have over 40,000 churches in the US alone, adopted a statement that includes "Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes. In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord." (Baptist Faith and Message, 2000, Article VI).

 

Do you understand "elders" as preachers, or something else?

 

Where the context says they were in Acts 6 is not in the least bit an issue. I no longer know what you're talking about.

 

Well, I guess that settles it.

 

Elder is used a number of times in the New Testament. Many times it is not referring to a church office (e.g. elders of the Jews, someone aged). The times it clearly refers to an office in the church are the times we need to inspect closely. The following are from Acts.
Acts 14:22-24, elder is an ordained office in the church.
Acts 15:4-6, 22-23, elder is a distinct office from apostle (while an apostle might be considered an elder 1 Peter 5:1, someone ordained an elder was not an apostle)
Acts 20:17, 28, elders are overseers (bishops)

 

I'm new to this forum. This has been a very good discussion, and I really appreciate the desire to discover the Bible's teaching and view on this subject.

I am part of a church led by elders, but after some time, it now seems as though it may be elder-rule. I'm trying to apply the Acts 6 principles to our modern situations. I'm currently seeking to sort out why it seems that even the church staff (who are also Deacons) do not seem to be able to lead ministries without the elders directing in very specific ways, or they feel they must get elder approval for what seems like basic leadership decisions.

The elders have said they are working with an architect on new building plans, but I'm curious if this would typically be something they would delegate to a committee so that they can focus on the ministry of the Word and prayer?

I don't want to stir up any strife in the body by asking these questions, or come off as suspicious...these are definitely godly men who love the flock, no question. Does this all seem pretty reasonable for elder-led churches?

 

Gracepreacher, welcome to the Baptist Board. When you have time, we'd love to have you introduce yourself in the New Member Introductions forum.

I am not sure I understand enough of your situation, or exactly how your church is governed. I do not think it is necessarily unreasonable for elders to work with an architect. However, to me the most reasonable solution would be to delegate the work in the trenches with the architect to members who are skilled in the area of designing and building, whoever they be, and that this work be brought to the elders for oversight, and ultimately to the church for the final decision.

 

Yes, at least ideally so. On the other hand, not every church will have deacons who are skilled in building, design, etc. Someone who knows the field might be drafted to advise and work with them.

Even an apostle could mend and make tents when it was necessary. In my church, I would be the most qualified to meet with an architect to discuss building matters, since that is (was) my trade. I would not leave prayer and ministry of the word to do so, but I would not withhold my talents either. There is some difference between things that need ongoing attention – e.g. the daily ministration to widows in Acts 6 – and things that come up for temporary attention.

 

Appointing a committee seems unnecessarily bureaucratic, if the elders don't need the help. I also assume the elders are the most qualified to know what's important in an architectural plan.

 

I gently disagree. Though in several passages the NT mentions elders in the plural, I've found no verses that prescribe multiple elders, only descriptions. Therefore, I see the number of elders as a matter of church liberty and God's provision. In 1 Tim 3 one finds qualifications for a bishop (singular) and for deacons (plural) but I don't think either the singular or plural in the passage are prescriptive. Were plural elders required, it would seem to limit church plants to teams, never to be done by a one man (as was the case nearly 40 years ago for our church.)

Some thoughts on Acts 6 and plural vs. congregational church polity:
The "sideboards" were set by the Apostles - "...seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom..." while the choices of the 7 were clearly congregational. Then the Apostles showed their approval of those choices by laying on of hands. To me, the modern day biblical equivalent is elders (since there are no longer apostles) set an agenda, the congregation - including the elders - vote on the agenda, and the elders retain authority to ensure the congregation doesn't take things off the rails. We call in congregational polity, but in fact it's a joint venture with both elders and congregation having specific roles. And the fact that 7 were chosen at first does not, IMO, limit church liberty concerning size of the deaconate.

Acts 15 offers a similar relationship, though with less details. James, the (apparent) senior pastor - to use today's term - of the Jerusalem church stated the situation, after which the congregation chose who would be sent to Antioch for correcting those who were insisting that believers had to continue following Jewish law.