Church Authority

[steve]

I was writing this response when Homer posted. I have only seen Homer's post (which overlaps mine in content) after writing the following:

Dwight:

You wrote:

In all 4 of these verses [Acts 14:23; 15:6 / Phil.1:1 / James 5:14], it is not clear at all to me that it refers to multiple elders for each local church. Rather, it appears to be speaking of individual elders of many local churches.

You must admit that, what is not clear to you may nonetheless be clear to those reading without harboring presuppositions to the text. That is, the Bible often teaches something inconsistent with what we assume to be the case. When we read such passages, which contradict our assumptions, our first line of defense is to claim they are not clear—and this is true! They are not clear to us, because we are trying to read them through a grid through which they do not pass without violence.

There is nothing in three of the four passages, above, that can support your interpretation. It may be, that the “elders” who met in the Jerusalem church at the council did come from a variety of churches, rather than from the Jerusalem church itself, though any affirmation of this would be entirely speculative. However, the other three instances will not work for you at all.

Acts 14:23 Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for each local church in Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch.

This will require a more careful attention to grammar (grammar is the means by which the framer of a sentence makes it say what he wants it to say, rather than something else). To say “appointed elders in each church” means nothing other than a plurality of elders in each church. For the passage to support your view, it would have to say, “appointed an elder in each church.” This would be the proper grammar to convey that several churches are involved, but that each had only one elder.

Acts 15:6 The elders from each local church in Jerusalem and the apostles came together here.

There is no evidence that there were individual “local churches” under independent leaders in Jerusalem, or in any other city in the first century. It is anachronistic to assume such. You are reading modern corruptions of the church into a historical scenario that knew nothing of it.

Phil.1:1 Paul and Timothy wrote to all the saints in Philippi, including the overseers of all the local churches or we could say to each overseer of each local church.

The Bible knows of only one church in Philippi—which apparently met in the house of Lyddia (Acts 16:15, 40). If the congregation outgrew its original venue, they would have found a larger one, or broken into separate house gatherings. However, there would still be only one church. While the Bible speaks of the “churches of Galatia” (Gal.1:2), because Galatia was a province or region, not a city, the Bible only speaks of one church per city—e.g., the church of Antioch (Acts 14:27), the church of Caesarea (Acts 18:22), the church of Ephesus (Acts 20:17; Rev.2:1), the church of Corinth (1 Cor.1:2), the church in Cenchrea (Rom.16:1), the church of Thessalonica (1 Thess.1:1). Revelation recognizes seven churches in as many cities—one church per city: "the seven churches which are in Asia:[g] to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamos, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea" (1:11). In every city, there was only one church—and in every city, there were to be appointed “elders” (plural) (Tit.1:5).

James 5:14 The same Greek word for "elders" here was translated "elder" in 3 other places in the New Testament. Also, where the KJV says "and let THEM pray over him", well, the Greek word from which THEM (846 in the Strong's concordance) is the translation, literally means "self" or "he, she, or it", none of which are plural. 

In James 5:14, it is clear that the elders (plural) are all of one “church” (singular)—"the elders of the church." Since the antecedent noun “elders” is plural, the pronoun referring to them must also be a plural—“them.” There is no escaping this—even with a Strong’s Concordance. 

Jesus told Peter to "shepherd His sheep" shortly before He ascended. Peter was to lead His sheep. Jesus did not tell the other apostles to do that. They were to follow Jesus, yes, but they were also to submit to Peter's leadership. By the way, they already were doing that. Peter said, "I'm going fishing." They said, "We'll go with you." Peter is always listed first in the 4 lists of the apostles. One of the lists actually says, "First, Simon Peter, ..." Peter did not have the attitude of loving to have the preeminence. 

 

None of these passages make your point. In restoring Peter to the ministry that he had forfeited by his three denials of Christ, Jesus recommissioned him as an apostle, with the assignment to feed Christ’s sheep. This does not position him above the other apostles—who were also shepherds of the church. It simply allowed Peter to remain among them and to share that commission. There is no hint of the primacy of Peter over the other apostles here.

James made the final decision regarding the dispute about Gentiles needing to be circumcised, etc. It appears quite obvious that he was the leader of the church in Jerusalem, or least of this council of Christians. Immediately after James made his judgment, the whole church created a letter with James' instructions in it and even said that this was the leading of the Holy Spirit and them in verse 28.

This very story proves that Peter was not given primacy over the other apostles, nor over the whole church. Peter gave testimony at the hearings, as did Paul, Barnabas, and (probably) others. It was James, not Peter, who gave the final ruling under the Holy Spirit. James definitely was the principal spokesman for the Jerusalem church after Peter’s arrest (Acts 12:17). However, he was not the counterpart of a modern church “pastor.” He (like Peter) was an apostle (Gal.1:19), and provides no prototype for any modern churches that have no apostles among them. 

Paul told Timothy that a prospective elder must manage his own household well, or he will not take care of the church of God. The church is also called a household in the Bible.  

Husbands are the leaders of their families, even though Jesus is their leader. There cannot be 2 earthly leaders with the same authority in families.  

The analogy of the church as a family is not exact. For example, the family is ideally led by its father. In the church, the Father is unseen, in heaven, as is His Son, to whom He has delegated the rule of the family. The oversight is delegated to certain of His servants.

Steve, imagine if another brother was leading your ministry with you, having the same say-so as you do regarding decisions involving your radio stations and travel, etc. I know, your ministry is not a church, but neither is a single family a church, yet both must have one person with the final say, yet still led by the Holy Spirit.  

Actually, I do not make any significant decisions about the direction of this ministry without consulting our board members and we act in consensus. I can't see any problem of having a board that has the final say through consensus. But you are correct that The Narrow Path ministry his not organized as a church.

Nature itself teaches us that there is almost always an animal who does have the highest rank. Animals fight for that position.

Hmmm. Sounds like the behavior of brute beasts—not of Christians (Matt.20:25-26).

Someone has well said, "Anything with two heads is a monster."

The church has one head—Jesus (Eph.1:22-23). It has many servants, including the elders of the church.

Who is this faithful and sensible slave whom Jesus put in charge of his church?

This does not affirm one-man leadership of a church. Each member of the eldership team must see himself as called to be “a faithful and sensible slave”. When Paul tells Titus that “an overseer must be…” (Tit.1:7), he is not suggesting that there is only one overseer. He has already spoken of the elders/overseers in the plural (v.5). To speak to a group of Sunday School teachers, and to say, “A Sunday School teacher must be such-and-so” is quite natural, and when Jesus said, “Who is a faithful and sensible slave…” He was addressing all of His apostles as belonging to that category.

He is called a shepherd or a pastor or an elder or an overseer. He gives the church their spiritual nourishment at the proper time. Jesus does not say here that He puts 2 or 3 or 4 faithful slaves in charge of His household.

Christ is over His own household (Heb.3:6). Servants are given separate assignments. Elders are among the servants (see above). Some of them “lead well” and some of their number “labor in the word and teaching” (1 Tim.5:17). This statement in Timothy is about the elders in the Church in Ephesus, where Timothy was laboring (1 Tim.1:3). We already have seen that there were a plurality of elders in that church (Acts 20:17), and this exhortation in 1 Timothy confirms it.

How is it possible that God would reward a faithful shepherd with the good reward of being in authority over ten cities in the next life, but if he is in authority over a small portion of the body of Christ here in this life, it is a bad thing?

I know little about the arrangements in the resurrection order. Suffice it to say that we are not, here, discussing the society of the perfected saints, but the leadership of very imperfect local congregations.

[jasonmodar]

Matthew 25:45 "Who then is the faithful and sensible slave whom his master put in charge of his household to give them their food at the proper time? Blessed is that slave whom his master finds so doing when He comes. Truly I say to you that he will put him in charge of all His possessions."

Matthew 25:45 says "The He will answer them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.'" (NASB)

I believe you meant Matthew 24:45.

Who is this faithful and sensible slave whom Jesus put in charge of his church?

Jesus himself is in charge of his Church.

He is called a shepherd or a pastor or an elder or an overseer. He gives the church their spiritual nourishment at the proper time. Jesus does not say here that He puts 2 or 3 or 4 faithful slaves in charge of His household. Only one can be in charge of one household. If others are called to be in charge, God will lead them to another portion of His household.

Unilateral authority over a local body of believers is not promoted by this passage nor any other passage of Scripture. Even in the example of James from Acts 15 where James seemed to be an individual leader his judgment was not rendered in a vacuum. As Homer appropriately pointed out there were multiple authorities who gave input on a decision that was reached by multiple parties, not one man.

If the shepherds are faithful with the authority God has given them here on earth, then there will come a day when He will say to them: "Well done, good slave, because you have been faithful in a very little thing, you are to be in authority over ten cities?" Luke 19:17

Agreed

How is it possible that God would reward a faithful shepherd with the good reward of being in authority over ten cities in the next life, but if he is in authority over a small portion of the body of Christ here in this life, it is a bad thing?

It isn't a bad thing to have authority over a small portion of Christ's body. "It is a fine work he desires to do (1 Tim 3:1)." I don't believe that's the argument being put forth. Even in churches where there is a head pastor (which is the majority of churches) that head pastor typically doesn't have unilateral authority. There is a body of elders, a board, or some other leadership team that is set up. I'm not interested in piling on the guy but Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill Church are a prime example of a head pastor who had too much control (or at least attempted to wield too much control). That brought about devastating consequences for that body of believers.

I personally am okay with a head pastor as long as he is not the sole authority in his church. Maybe that's your perspective as well, Dwight, and I'm misunderstanding the point you're trying to make.

[dwight92070]

Okay, so my wife and I and our 4 children started attending a church that just goes by the name "Homechurch" back in 2001. Dan is the pastor, that is what we call him, Pastor Dan. He has a wife and 3 daughters. Only one son remains at home with us, Jared, but he attends a different church, so my wife, Oralia, and I still go to homechurch, which meets in Dan and Kay's house. We meet once a week, Sunday, at 10 a.m. for 1 1/2 to 2 hours. Pastor Dan is, for the most part, a full time pastor, but he does some teaching of night classes at Colorado Christian University. We do not pay him a salary but he does pass an offering plate each Sunday, and he does teach that tithing and offerings are Biblical concepts, and I believe that too. However, in all these years, I can count on one hand the number of times that he has actually taught on those subjects. He never has said, at least not that I can remember, that the tithe belongs to the local church. I know that he and Kay tithe on the offerings they get and give offerings over and above that. Both of those go to other Christian outreaches.

Pastor Dan is our leader, under Jesus, of course, and he believes that, but does not "lord it over us". The extent of His authority is to: 1. Call all the people together when church starts; 2. Counsel couples or singles when needed or asked; 3. Teach every Sunday - occasionally he will ask me or one of the other brothers to teach. If one of us tell him that we would like to teach some Sunday, he gladly steps aside, and gives us the floor, so to speak; 4. Baptize those who desire that 5. Marry those who ask for that, i.e. if he believes that the 2 persons can do that Biblically; 6. Presides over funerals; 7. Visits the sick and prays for them. 8. Presides over communion each week; and he will "cut short" anyone who tries to disrupt the meeting by a polite "we can discuss that later".

Dan is, I would say, very opinionated and is unashamed to tell us his beliefs, either during his sermons or at other times, but he is never obnoxious or unloving about it. There is no requirement to agree with him, but he is always ready to discuss any disagreements with any of us, again in a gentle, loving manner. If we don't agree with him, as long as it's not about the essentials of the faith, it's not an issue with him. If there is a need for an extended discussion about any questions or disagreements during his teaching, he will ask us to do that after the church meeting is over. Also, after each Sunday morning teaching, he will always ask for questions or comments.

He has said many times that the theme at homechurch is: 1. To love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength and 2. Love our neighbor as ourself. Yes, he believes he has the final say regarding church matters, but he always discusses things with all of us first. But the things that he has the final say on are almost always practical, logistical, objective things. He never presumes to have the final say over our personal lives or decisions, but is always happy to give counsel in those areas. He does not have an attitude of "wanting to be first". He does not act like nor is he a cult leader. He does believe that a pastor, i.e. a shepherd, should have the final say in all local assemblies and that the Bible teaches that. But his idea of "the final say" may not be what others think it is. It is not a dictatorial attitude, unwilling to listen to, and when appropriate, accept others ideas or opinions. Again, he draws the line at the essentials of the Christian faith. He does not compromise there.

So, am I ignorantly part of a cult? Have my family and I been spiritually harmed or harmed in any other way because we have attended a church for 15 years that does not believe in or practice a plurality of elders?

I sincerely ask for your opinion.

Dwight

[dwight92070]

Steve,

You said that "there is no evidence that there were individual "local churches" under independent leaders in Jerusalem, or in any other city in the first century." What about 1 Corinthians 16:19? Prisca and Aquilla had a church that met in their house in Ephesus. You also said that "the Bible only speaks on one church per city", yet here we have a church meeting in Prisca and Aquilla's home in Ephesus in the first century but Acts 20:17 also speaks of the church of Ephesus. So did all of the Christians in Ephesus meet in Prisca and Aquilla's home (to meet your requirement that the Bible only speaks of one church per city)? I don't think so. It is quite obvious to me that the church of Ephesus was comprised of many local gatherings, most likely in homes, and each one of them could rightfully be called a church, as was Prisca and Aquilla's. And could it not be possible that this happened in Jerusalem and other cities as well in the first century?

So if many Christians met in homes in the first century, as we know they did, then who led them? Did each home have several shepherds? Or did each home have one shepherd?
There is one body of Christ in Denver, i.e. one church in Denver, but there are thousands of local churches meeting throughout the city. So if we were to say that the church of Denver has a plurality of shepherds, we can all see how confusing this can be? Does this mean that each individual church gathering has several shepherds over it or does it mean that there are many shepherds in Denver, each of which oversee one individual church? I'm sure both exist.

[dwight92070]

By the way, how could Diotrophes be a one-man leader in a church as Steve has stated, if those churches all had a plurality of elders? It does appear that he was an elder with the final authority. He even put people out of the church. 3 John 9-11 Also, John said that, if he came to that church, he will call attention to HIS deeds, i.e. Diotrophes deeds, not the deeds of multiple elders. John did not say that the problem was that there was only one elder in the church. The problem was, as is often the case, Diotrophes, had a heart problem. So, if this was a church will one elder who had the final authority, do you think there were more churches like that? I do.

It appears that Peter was the leader of the apostles and James, the half brother of Jesus and not one of the 12, was the leader of the church in Jerusalem. Remember, Peter, James and John seemed to be part of an inner circle that Jesus granted privileges to, that He didn't to the others. Of course, this would be a different James, one of the 12. Also Jesus told Peter, "Upon this rock, I will build my church." This was not said to anyone else. Another scripture says that the foundation of the church was the apostles and the prophets, with Jesus being the corner stone.

1 Timothy 3:4-5 He (an overseer) must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?)

I work at a post office with over 100 employees. We have several supervisors, but only one manager. Even the unbelieving world knows that 2 or more managers will not work. Why is it that we, as believers, can't also see that? You can't have several managers with equal authority overseeing the church. Didn't Jesus say, "My sheep (plural) hear My voice (singular)" He was the good shepherd modeling how all His shepherds should do it.

Have you watched a flock of geese fly over in a "V" formation? There's only one leader for each "V" formation. Even God's creation teaches us that. Two leaders would confuse the geese.

How about if we had 2 Presidents? How would that work? Let's see, we could have Trump and Hillary at the same time. Or how about Trump and Cruz at the same time?
A plurality of leadership goes against nature, common sense and the Bible.

[steve]

Dwight,

You are reading the passages with a set of presuppositions that are, I believe, based upon later developments in the institutional church.

There is one church worldwide, called "the body of Christ." In every city, there is a local sampling of that body, consisting of every Christian in that location—we might call this "the local church" (though the term is not found in scripture, in any connection).

In any large city, the church is likely to become too large to meet in one home, so it eventually meets in multiple homes and assemblies. Each of these may be called "the church in so-and-so's house" or "the church meeting at the Grange Hall," but the word "church," in such cases, is simply synonymous with "assembly" or "congregation." All the house "churches" in the town are one "church" in that town. They are not politically independent from one another, or led by leaders who act independently of the other elders in other local assemblies.

Therefore, Paul could speak of the church in the house of Priscilla and Aquila—one of which was in Ephesus (1 Cor.16:19), and, later, there was one when they were in Rome (Rom.16:3-5). There probably were other house assemblies in Ephesus, in addition to that which met in the house of Priscilla and Aquila, yet there was only one "church of Ephesus" (Acts 20:17; Rev.2:5).

Similarly, in Rome, many believe there were four other house gatherings besides that which met in Priscilla and Aquila's house (see Rom.16:10, 11, 14, 15). However, all of these gatherings were assumed to be one church, as they were all expected to read Paul's epistle, addressed to "all who are in Rome...called saints" (Rom.1:7).

The Corinthian church was eventually too large, we may assume, to meet in one assembly in one home (we have no exact information). Some of these, it seems, were favoring Paul's style of teaching, while others liked that of Apollos, and some felt some loyalty to Peter (1 Cor.1:12). Paul expressed objections to this—not because of any separation in physical assembling, but because they were not all seeing themselves as one body in the town, in Christ (1 Cor.1:13). There must have been occasions when this local unity was expressed in larger gatherings, when these smaller groups combined for fellowship together, because Paul speaks of gatherings "when the whole church is gathered together" (1 Cor.14:23).

It may be that a small house gathering was led, if necessary, by one person, but the whole church would be led by elders. These elders, even if they oversaw smaller subgroups, were one body of leaders of the "local church"—by which I do not mean any one of the little groups, but of the whole church of the locality.

What does this mean, in practicality? It means that the smaller gatherings were in unity as a single body in their city. If, for example, a person came under church discipline in one group, it would be expected that all the other groups would honor that discipline. A person excommunicated from one assembly could not simply go across town and join another assembly (as the modern church allows). If one smaller group became guilty of teaching error, it would be the legitimate concern of the other assemblies in town, since they were all one body. A financial crisis in one assembly would be equally the burden of other Christians in other local assemblies, because they were united as one church.

I cannot imagine that the elder, or elders, overseeing one assembly would remain aloof from those overseeing other assemblies. This would be viewed as factious. The leaders of all the assemblies in town would share the concerns and strategize the outreach to the whole town together. I think the modern (limited) analogy would be the occasional large church today, whose members are divided into smaller groups within the one church, or which have numerous "campuses." Since they could not simulcast one man's sermon to all the campuses, the elders of the church would likely be distributed to the smaller "campuses" to provide hand's-on leadership. But they would all be the elders of one church.

While I do not have chapter and verse for some of these scenarios, they are the most natural implications of the unity of the one church in a given town, a concept which clearly is taught in scripture.

I believe that Diotrophes was an ambitious man who seized power in an easily intimidated assembly, in the absence of an eldership. If there were elders there, John would have expected them to do something about the troublemaker. Some young churches had no appointed leaders, because there were no mature Christians among them. The churches established by Paul on the first missionary journey spent their first several weeks or months without appointed leaders. Paul and Barnabas appointed elders in each of those churches, on their return journey to Antioch (Acts 14:21-23). Apparently, some of the young churches in Crete also had no leaders, and needed Titus to appoint them in every local church (Tit.1:5).

It is my considered opinion that Corinth also had no recognized leaders at the time when Paul wrote to them. Paul viewed the church as infantile, and he may not have trusted any group of them to be charged with oversight. Therefore, when he urged church discipline, he made no reference to any local leaders taking a role in the process, but simply appealed to the authority of Christ, and himself as with them in spirit (1 Cor.5:4). Corinth was fraught with problems, but in Paul's correspondence with them—the bulkiest of his letters to any church—he never alluded to their leaders, elders, pastor, or whatever. I believe they had no recognized leadership. Instead, Paul alluded to one family—that of Stephanus—as having been saved longer than the others in the church, as being servant-minded, and as being the type of people to whom the saints ought to submit, along with any of Paul's team that might happen to visit their church (1 Cor.16:15-16). There is no hint of Stephanus, his wife or children (to whom submission is urged) holding official offices of leadership. Appeal is made only to their maturity and good character.

Your belief that plurality of leadership is impractical and unworkable is based upon examples of worldly organizations. Jesus forbade His disciples to set up such authority structures (Matt.20:25-26). He said that no one was to be recognized as having an authoritative label or title, but that they should regard themselves as a family of brothers (Matt.23:8-10). Like the church, a family has one absolute authority—the father. In a biblical family, the firstborn son would sometimes exercise authority on the father's behalf. Jesus, the firstborn, occupies that role in the church. Below the firstborn, there is no natural ranking among siblings. Jesus said that all Christians were to view one another as siblings. Each, of course, has his assigned duties, of which there are some assigned to shepherd and teach, while others perform their respective tasks. Those who lead do not possess special authority over the other siblings. That is what Jesus specifically forbade to be done among His disciples.

There is no evidence anywhere in scripture that Peter had authority over the other disciples. If he had, there would have been no need for the Jerusalem Council. Peter would not have had to argue his case, and he would not have left it to James to declare the verdict. Peter could simply have announced, in a general encyclical, that Gentiles need not be circumcised. That was the right conclusion, but it was not left to Peter to decide alone. He never is seen as having the last word about anything.

To say that group leadership simply does not work is to exhibit limited awareness of how many churches have always functioned. There are many groups that operate with a consensus of the eldership, without there being a lead elder among them—and some even function on the basis of consensus of the whole assembly. It should not be assumed that something will not work, which has never been tried in any group with which you are familiar. There is such a person as the Holy Spirit and such a shepherd as Christ, whose leadership is promised to God's family.

A much more comprehensive biblical analysis of these matters may be found in my article, "What is Church?", at http://www.thenarrowpath.com/ta_church.php and in my lecture series, "Some Assembly Required", at http://www.thenarrowpath.com/topical_le ... lyRequired

[dwight92070]

Steve,

I can't believe the angry tone of your post and the digs. Apparently you are familiar with my history and know that I have not had any personal contact with a church with a plurality of elders. You said I am not familiar with any such group and therefore would not know if it worked or not. Wrong. Apparently this really hits a nerve with you. I wonder if it bothers you that I disagree with you on this point, because many of your "followers" or "disciples" or listeners agree with you and are seeking to have some authority in their church, which may not be their rightful position or god-given calling. Tell me, Steve, what God-given authority figure do you submit to?

Once again, you speak with such authority, but much of your post was speculation. I doubt very seriously that you have verifiable knowledge of whether individual churches were all independent or interdependent. I would hope that they were interdependent to some degree, but even that is not a requirement of scripture, i.e. that every small church be interdependent with every other one in town. It's very possible the presuppositions are coming from your end.

To say that Jesus forbade titles of authority and leadership appears to be a misunderstanding of His teaching. The New Testament is filled with such titles for Christian leaders. Leaders, rulers, teachers, overseers, managers is implied in 1 Tim. 2, are all used of Christian leaders.

It appears to me that many of those who hold your view, that churches should have a plurality of elders with equal authority, are persons who desire to be one of those elders and desire to have that equal authority.

Korah was like that. He thought it wasn't fair that only Moses and Aaron should have such authority. The view you hold can reveal a wrong attitude about God-given authority and an evil jealousy for that authority.

You keep on saying that each city had one church, as if I didn't know that. I see the word "church" used in 3 different ways in scripture: 1. The universal church or the body of Christ worldwide; 2. The church in a specific city, such as the church of Ephesus or the church of Corinth and 3. The church that meets in a home or a "local church", which I know is not a Biblical term, but conveys the meaning nonetheless.

Acts 14:23, taken in context, is referring to the 2nd meaning of "church" , referring clearly to verse 21 and the church in Lystra, the church in Iconium, and the church in Antioch and possibly Derbe. In other words, when they had appointed elders in these cities, having prayed with fasting ... So it does not force me or anyone to come to your conclusion that each local church (#3 meaning) had several elders, and you can't escape that, with or without a Strong's concordance.

[steve]

I can't believe the angry tone of your post and the digs.

Really? I was not aware of any anger—nor even anything personal—in my responses. Certainly there was nothing of it in my heart or mind. Almost my entire post was merely didactic—that is, laying out a biblical case, without personal rancor or personal evaluation of you. I suppose that I did say I thought your comments proceeded from limited experience, but is that a dig, or an angry comment? I was not aware of it.

Apparently you are familiar with my history and know that I have not had any personal contact with a church with a plurality of elders.

Actually, I know nothing of your personal history. My comments are based upon what you have written.

You said I am not familiar with any such group and therefore would not know if it worked or not. Wrong. Apparently this really hits a nerve with you.

Hmmm. It seems to me that you are the one exhibiting raw nerves. I have simply sought to answer your points, one-by-one, as I would any other post on any other topic.

I wonder if it bothers you that I disagree with you on this point, because many of your "followers" or "disciples" or listeners agree with you and are seeking to have some authority in their church, which may not be their rightful position or god-given calling.

Why would I be bothered by your disagreement with me? What have I to gain from your agreement, or to lose from your disagreement? It is not my goal to get everyone to agree with me. I assume that most Christians disagree with me on many things—including the present topic. This does not bother me. If it did, I would make more of an effort to agree with them, or to conceal my own points of disagreement.

I am not aware of having personal followers. I have correspondents, listeners, and friends. I could not name one person that I could call a "follower." However, anyone who shares my views on these things would certainly not be coveting authority in any assembly. This is the very attitude that I denounce.

Tell me, Steve, what God-given authority figure do you submit to?

I endeavor to submit to Christ, and to all who properly speak for Him. I don't have any individual with whom I stand in a hierarchical relationship and whom I see as a special authority over me (though my public ministry activities are conducted under oversight of a board of spiritual men). Am I supposed to be in such a relationship as that of which you are asking?

Once again, you speak with such authority, but much of your post was speculation.

A paragraph or two of my post were lacking in textual proofs—and I acknowledged that. Those portions, as I mentioned, contain applications that would seem to be necessary inferences from the points the Bible actually does make. Anyone is free to disagree with my applications, if they find compelling reasons to do so.

I doubt very seriously that you have verifiable knowledge of whether individual churches were all independent or interdependent. I would hope that they were interdependent to some degree, but even that is not a requirement of scripture, i.e. that every small church be interdependent with every other one in town. It's very possible the presuppositions are coming from your end.

My presuppositions come from the biblical teaching about the unity of the body of Christ. Have you been able to identify where yours come from?

To say that Jesus forbade titles of authority and leadership appears to be a misunderstanding of His teaching. The New Testament is filled with such titles for Christian leaders. Leaders, rulers, teachers, overseers, managers is implied in 1 Tim. 2, are all used of Christian leaders.

You are assuming that these words in scripture speak of authoritative offices. There is no evidence of this. Some translations of 1 Timothy 3:1 read "office of a bishop [overseer]", but this entire phrase is translating a single word, which does not contain the word "office." It is a traditional translation, influenced by the institutional nature of the church at the time the translators lived.

There is no word "ruler" in any passage about church leadership. In scripture, the word only occurs with reference to Jewish and secular rulers. The word "rule," in certain passages (Rom.12:8; 1 Thess.5:12; 1 Tim.5:17), is mistranslated. It is proistemi, which means to "stand in front of", or to "preside." There certainly were people who presided at meetings—though, if they were the same people as the elders, there were apparently a plurality of them. There is no particular authority over other believers implied in the service of presiding over a meeting.

Sometimes church leaders are described as "them which have the rule over you" (Heb.13:7, 17, 24 KJV). However, this entire phrase translates one Greek word (hegeomai), which should be translated as "those who lead," not "rule" (as acknowledged in most modern translations). There is no rulership implied by the word "lead." A lead dog does not "rule" over other dogs. He just runs ahead of them, and they follow his lead.

A "teacher" does not exercise authority over the church, except insofar as what he teaches may be true—in which case, the church must submit, not to the man, but to the Truth. However, that is equally the case, whether the Truth is presented by a teacher or by a child.

The word "manager" is not found in any passages about church order. An "overseer" is a function, not an office.

It appears to me that many of those who hold your view, that churches should have a plurality of elders with equal authority, are persons who desire to be one of those elders and desire to have that equal authority.

Really? Can you name one or two to whom this judgment would seem to apply?

Korah was like that. He thought it wasn't fair that only Moses and Aaron should have such authority. The view you hold can reveal a wrong attitude about God-given authority and an evil jealousy for that authority.

Actually, not at all. The view I hold disdains one man exercising authority over another man, except in special, hierarchical arrangements, such as family or employment. Torah, to my knowledge, was not advocating a plurality of elders in the church. I think he wanted to undermine Moses—and probably to take his position himself.

You keep on saying that each city had one church, as if I didn't know that. I see the word "church" used in 3 different ways in scripture: 1. The universal church or the body of Christ worldwide; 2. The church in a specific city, such as the church of Ephesus or the church of Corinth and 3. The church that meets in a home or a "local church", which I know is not a Biblical term, but conveys the meaning nonetheless.

I agree with this, and said as much. I did not assume that you knew or didn't know these things. I simply pointed them out. Some people do not know these things, and you are not the only reader at this forum. You should not take things as personal insults which have no such intention.

Acts 14:23, taken in context, is referring to the 2nd meaning of "church" , referring clearly to verse 21 and the church in Lystra, the church in Iconium, and the church in Antioch and possibly Derbe. In other words, when they had appointed elders in these cities, having prayed with fasting ... So it does not force me or anyone to come to your conclusion that each local church (#3 meaning) had several elders, and you can't escape that, with or without a Strong's concordance.

Are you suggesting that, in cities that had been evangelized only weeks or months earlier, there were already multiple separate "churches" meeting in various venues? This is possible, but far from likely—and not obvious.

Paul appointed "elders" in Lystra, and "elders" in Iconium, and "elders" in Pisidian Antioch. Each town is said to have had a church, which would have been planted only a short time earlier, when Paul's team had recently passed through and preached there. There is no mention of multiple assemblies in any of these towns, and it would be remarkable if such infant churches had grown so rapidly, in Paul's absence, so as to require several venues in each town for their meetings.

In order to support your supposition that each "congregation" had only one elder, while the reference to the "elders" refers to the combined leaders of all the congregations in the city, you must show the likelihood that these cities actually had more than one congregation in them—a supposition for which no evidence or argument could be advanced. We have agreed that some of the larger churches, in major cities, eventually had multiple assemblies, or "campuses." There is no evidence that this was true in smaller cities, nor even in most cities. The burden of proof would be on the one wishing to insist that a given city had multiple Christian assemblies. If you do not have multiple congregations in Lystra, Iconic and Antioch, then we are stuck with the fact that each church had several elders—which is also what James assumed to be the case (James 5:14), and Paul dictated (Tit.1:5).

[dwight92070]

Dwight speaking:

Acts 14:23, taken in context, is referring to the 2nd meaning of "church" , referring clearly to verse 21 and the church in Lystra, the church in Iconium, and the church in Antioch and possibly Derbe. In other words, when they had appointed elders in these cities, having prayed with fasting ... So it does not force me or anyone to come to your conclusion that each local church (#3 meaning) had several elders, and you can't escape that, with or without a Strong's concordance.

Steve speaking: Are you suggesting that, in cities that had been evangelized only weeks or months earlier, there were already multiple separate "churches" meeting in various venues? This is possible, but far from likely—and not obvious.

Dwight speaking: Yes I am suggesting that and I believe it is not only possible but very likely. Wherever they went, Paul and Barnabas brought large numbers of people to the Lord. In Pisidian Antioch, "nearly the whole city assembled to hear the word of the Lord" (Acts 13:44) "In Iconium ... they spoke in such a manner that a large number of people believed, both of Jews and Greeks." (Acts 14:1) The miracles that were performed by them drew large crowds. Paul commanded a lame man at Lystra to "stand upright on your feet" and the crowds were amazed. Acts 14:10-11 Of course, many of the people wanted to worship them and so probably were not saved, but it is very likely that many believed. Also in Derbe they made many disciples as well (Acts 14:21) but it is not clear whether verse 23 refers to Derbe. The point is that there were a large number saved from these cities. Notice, too, that in Derbe it says that they "made many disciples", not just that they "believed". It is very possible that they spent a longer time in Derbe, to actually bring them to a good level of maturity, especially since that city was receptive. It's possible that several months had elapsed before they returned to these cities. So the possibility of many small churches in each city is very high.

[steve]

You m,ay be right, but it is speculation. There is no indicator of what number may have been considered "many." It could have been twenty or two-hundred. In either case, it would not tell us whether they met in one or in many assemblies. I think it unlikely that, in the absence of any recognized leadership, the churches would have multiple organized assemblies in a town with only new converts. This would be my instinct, however. Yours apparently differ.

None of this affects the question of multiple elders in a church. The case, as it stands in this discussion so far, is as follows: every scriptural reference to church leaders expressly mentions or allows for plurality of elders in a single church. There is no reference that speaks of an individual elder alone overseeing any congregation. The best your position can say for itself is that you can explain every passage in a way that supports your view—whether it is a natural interpretation or mere speculation. The most that can be said for my position is that it conforms to the words of all the relevant passages naturally, without any speculation or fancy exegetical footwork.