Why the Church Must Have Elders

The Doctrine of Biblical Eldership is Required for Every Church

Plurality of Leadership

One of the key missing ingredients to a healthy church life today is the doctrine of the plurality of leadership. The Bible not only argues that the leaders ought to be theologically well versed, but it argues with unquestionable clarity that the church is to have more than one pastor/elder/overseer. It is necessary to give a small glimpse of this issue as it relates to the biblical basis of a church. Doctrinally solid churches desire to follow the plurality concept. The church should have elders in the plural. Elders and deacons are not the same office. Elders are the pastors of the church and the deacons are the servants of the church. Often times people confuse the two, and when this happens trouble generally results. Many problems arise in a church that only desires to have one pastor-elder. This idea of a single pastor at the helm misses the point of the Bible in no small manner. Nowhere in the sacred Scriptures can one find proof that a church should have only one elder-overseer.[1] The Bible calls for a plurality of leadership, which requires two or more elders and if necessary deacons to fulfill those tasks which if not done would keep the elders/pastors away from the study of God's word.  Each church should strive to develop and mentor men to fulfill this divine office of leadership. Elders are crucuial for a healthy ministry!

Protestantism ought to maintain the historical distinction that there is no "Pope" within a church. What this means is that all to often in a Protestant church the single overseer, normally called the Pastor, functions in a similar fashion as does the Pope over the Roman Catholic Church. What this man says is the final authority (or at least he tries to make it that way). What is the difference when a Protestant minister stands before the church and says: "God has told me that this church is to have this vision for our ministry" and when the Pope speaks with the "gift of infallibility"[2] declaring a statement of doctrine for the whole church that must be obediently followed? Is there really any difference unless the church has a team of elders-pastors who keep one another in check and balance?

It seems to me that the doctrine of a plurality of elders divides the Protestant river from the spiritual hierarchy river that flows from the Church of Rome. The Bible specifically states that every church is to have elders and deacons. Nowhere do the Scriptures teach there is to be only an elder-pastor (singular) and deacons. Why is it that we have more than one deacon in most churches but not more than one elder/pastor? Ironic is it not? It seems that churches of the Protestant river have been dabbling and bathing in the Church of Rome's river of thought. Scriptures always speaks of elders in the plural. It is one issue if a church does not have anyone qualified for the role of elder. That certainly is a legitimate hurdle and task that may take time to overcome. But it is totally another issue for a church not to desire nor strive towards the goal of having multiple co-equal elders governing the body of Christ. A church that does not work towards this goal is refusing to submit to the guidance and wisdom of Scripture. Acts 14:23 says, "And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting, they committed them to the Lord in whom they believed." The text clearly reveals that in every church a plurality of elders governed the body of Christ. In Acts 20:17, you find Paul "called to him the elders (plural noun) of the church (singular noun)." Without a doubt, one cannot dismiss this without compromising the clear doctrine of church government.

Paul wrote to Titus, "This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you" (Titus 1:5). Dr. Wayne Grudem noted that in each of the towns, at that point in history, they had only one church within it.[3]Again, this explicitly points out the plurality of leadership in each church as each city church had a plurality of equal elders to govern the body of Christ. James, the most experienced elder and a "primary leader of the elders"[4] in first church of Jerusalem, says that if a person is sick they are to call the "elders" of the church so they can pray over them (5:14). Again the plural form proves the church had a plurality of leaders. In the book of Peter we find that he urged the plurality of elders among each individual church to oversee and shepherd the flock God had placed under their leadership. "Peter assumes that all these churches . . . would have elders leading them."[5] Again in the book of Hebrews the Scripture says, "Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account" (13:17). Notice the word again is plural. This was not an elder/pastor and the deacons, rather it was a body of elders who collectively led the congregation and deacons. As Dr. Robert Saucy summarized, this doctrine of a plurality of leadership must cause those who wish to remain faithful to the New Testament to "avoid the concept of a single ruler of a congregation."[6] The plurality of elders leading the congregation rightfully means the authority and leadership is divided among the several which resembles the pattern set forth in the Old Testament Jewish community from which this system drew its roots.[7] This type of shared leadership in many ways remains foreign to most Christians today.[8]Alexander Strauch adds that there is needless confusion over this subject. He said:

To hear some scholars speak, you would think that the Bible doesn't say one word about church elders or church government. But that is not true. The New Testament records evidence of pastoral oversight by a council of elders in nearly all the first churches. These local churches were spread over a wide geographic and culturally diverse area--from Jerusalem to Rome.[9]

Noted pastor-teacher and President of the Master's Seminary, Dr. John MacArthur, says that the teamwork effort of the leaders is the norm for the New Testament even though it does not seem to be in our modern day church. He says:

All the biblical data clearly indicates that the pastorate is a team effort. It is significant that in every place of the New Testament where the term presbuteros is used it is plural . . . . The norm in the New Testament church was a plurality of elders. Nowhere in the New Testament is there reference to a one-pastor congregation . . . . It is significant that Paul addressed his epistle to the Philippians "to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, including the overseers [pl., episkopoi] and deacons" 1:1. . . The clear New Testament Pattern for church government is a plurality of elders . . . . decisions were made by a collective process . . . . Much can be said for the benefits of leadership made up of a plurality of godly men. Their combined counsel and wisdom helps assure that decisions are not self-willed or self serving to a single individual (cf. Prov. 11:14). In fact, one man leadership is characteristic of cults, not the church.[10]

No doubt, much of what people see today in single-pastor ruled congregations reflects something other than biblical Christianity. Not only is it impractical to think one person can lead an entire family of Christ, even if only a small church, but it simply defies Scripture for a church to function this way. The early church established by the apostles followed the plurality concept. Such a concept does not rule out gifted leaders among that plural body of elders, but it does most certainly rule out any such idea of "one man at the helm" who is the so-called "CEO" of the church or "senior pastor." As several evangelical authors collectively point out,

In the historical narrative of the New Testament, the churches always had more than one elder or pastor-teacher. Though it is possible that one or more may be paid for his services and the other elders in that church body are not. The main point, however, is that they are all equal. When the door is closed and they must make decisions, their opinions are all the same weight. No one is "head" [senior] pastor or elder in a hierarchal or superior sense. One may have more training than the others, say a seminary education, for example. Yet all must act together and rule over the affairs of the church equally.How do some denominations and churches justify having no elders or simply calling the pastor "the" elder? Churches that violate the biblical guidelines do so on the basis of tradition. "This is the way we've always done it," is their only reply.[11]

I wonder what is the real difference between a Roman Catholic's tradition of papal infallibility and the modern day error of Protestants who exalt one man to the same hierarchal realm of authority over the local church? It would seem that the doctrine of plurality of elder-pastors divides the waters on this subject. In conclusion Dr. Wayne Grudem, a conservative evangelical theologian summarized the issue this way:

Two significant conclusions may be drawn from this survey of the New Testament evidence. First, no passage suggests that any church, no matter how small, had only one elder. The consistent New Testament pattern is a plurality of elders "in every church" (Acts 14:23) and "in every town" (Titus 1:5). Second, we do not see a diversity of forms of government in the New Testament church, but a unified and consistent pattern in which every church had elders governing it and keeping watch over it (Acts 20:28; Hebrews 13:17; 1 Peter 5:2-3).[12]

Early church history also verifies this concept. Contemporaries of Apostle Paul, Peter, and John endorsed the idea that each church ought to have a plurality of leadership. Clement of Rome (A.D. 30-100), a disciple of Peter and Paul,[13] wrote a letter to the Church of Corinth whereby he mentioned the plurality of leadership structure for the early New Testament Church.[14] Likewise, Ignatius (A.D. 35-105), a disciple of the Apostle John,[15] also taught the doctrine of plurality of elders/bishops.[16]A mature and discerning heart will recognize the wisdom of the Lord and submit to his pattern of church leadership. A plurality of elders within each local church is the vital link to maintaining spiritual health in the body of Christ. The internal plural elder body, not a single pastor, deacons, committees, or denominational powers, remains the central component to guiding and keeping the divine truth within the body of Christ.[17]

However, pride and arrogance by a denomination, local pastors, and/or the congregation to either maintain full power in "one single pastor" or to continue based upon tradition for the "one single pastor" model or a denominational model does not display wise discernment. For congregations on the whole to come to maturity and move from infant stages of Christianity to mature stages they must accept the biblical doctrine of a plurality of elders leading within the local church body. All other options will lead to disastrous consequences in the church and community of faith. Such examples below reveal the options and problems that occur when the biblical model is abandoned.

The Flaws of a Hierarchic Church Government Model

Hierarchic rule, such as within an Episcopal, Presbyterian, or Methodist system where a bishop, synod, or general assembly controls the priests or pastors and consequently each church, violates the autonomy of the local church as well as ignoring the doctrine of the priesthood of the believers. Such churches as this leave the church susceptible to major doctrinal errors that cannot be corrected if the hierarchic powers drift towards liberalism. Today many honorable and pious Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Methodists suffer such a tragedy because when the hierarchy turned liberal the local churches were at the mercy of the liberal leaders who control the direction of the churches. The struggle of many pious Methodists, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians against homosexual ministers, liberalism, modernism, and other sins that have ruined many of the mainline denominations have been fed to the local churches by the liberal hierarchic powers that neither love God nor man! The structure of these denominations' church government has left them without a means to correct the liberal ideology. Such a tragedy serves as a stern warning against having the power center located outside of any local church. Dr. Charles Ryrie agrees commenting that "If doctrinal defections come into a denomination, history teaches that it is difficult, if not impossible, for a local church to call the superstructure to account; and if the local church feels it necessary to leave the denomination it can do so often only at considerable cost and sometimes even the loss of all their property."[18] Hierarchic rule does not work properly because the Bible does not support this concept. The New Testament model argues for internal control by each church governed by a body of elders.

The Flaws of a Pure Congregational-Democracy Model

Pure congregationalism, however, as within many, but of course not all, of the more liberal Baptist and Congregational denominations and fellowships, has many problems of its own. When the people reject pastoral oversight, this too violates the New Testament. Such churches that are pure democracies[19] or thoroughly congregational often fall into the committee quagmire. For anything to get accomplished in the church everything must go through some standing committee. Such committees, or deacon boards, are often led by people who are immature and lacking in biblical, theological, and spiritual maturity that is required to make godly leadership decisions. And even if all of these committee members and deacons were deeply spiritual, which certainly does not seem to be the case in the majority of churches, it is simply unwise to have large numbers of people sitting on all these boards. Again Dr. Ryrie, a conservative scholar within the Baptistic and congregational circles, notes, "It is beyond me why large boards are needed, regardless of the kind of organization they direct. Indeed, I think a large number of members hinders board work. The best functioning boards on which I have served had five to seven members."[20]Ignoring this wisdom often leads to a bureaucracy type style of church government. In these churches accomplishing some type of work or ministry is more like trying to get a bill passed through the House of Representatives and the Senate. By the time the idea works its way through all of the committees or boards the idea has so drastically changed it either reflects something very different than what the pastor(s) know is required or necessary by Scripture, or in many cases the idea simply stalls and never comes to fruition due to the cumbersome delays and hindrances of getting everyone on the same page biblically. In such models leadership and respect for pastoral authority is often weakened and in many cases almost, if not totally, obliterated. As Ryrie criticizes, "Too much congregationalism fails to profit from the gifts of leadership. It also allows immature and carnal believers to have equal say with others."[21]

Many modern Baptist churches have developed a popular and well-intentioned, but truly unbiblical, model to try and steer a middle of the road between hierarchic and pure congregational models. This model still, however, leans too heavily to congregationalism in its denial of pastoral authority as mediated through a plurality of elders.These churches recognize that the church should have multiple leaders. So these churches often establish a deacon board with only one elder (the sole pastor of the church). In this model the deacon board basically controls the pastor. But the Bible never anywhere in the New Testament authorizes deacons to have authority to spiritually govern the local church. The only authority deacons have is that which the elder body grants to the deacon body. Deacons, if following the biblical model, serve the elders and the body. Dr. Mal Couch, with a host of other evangelical scholars, have strongly noted how many churches, such as these modern day Baptists, have ignored the clear teaching of elder ruled churches. These scholars point out that many churches today elect deacons and those deacons erroneously function as a board that governs as an advisory board over the pastor of the church. Instead of elders governing the church and deacons serving the local body of Christ, the church and deacons try and avoid the biblical model by substituting a new model whereby the deacons fulfill the role of the elders along with one single pastor.

Some churches, especially Baptist, try and get around this obvious fact [that deacons are servants not authoritative leaders]. They incorrectly see the pastor as the only elder (singular) in the church with a group of deacons who only act as an advisory board . . . . This arrangement is not biblical. And if it is not biblical, the local assembly cannot carry out its purposes as God intended. Either the patterns laid down in Scripture by the Holy Spirit are followed or they are not. Because so many churches violate the patterns of church polity, this could be one of the reasons there is dysfunction in the local assembly.[22]

The church must reject all patterns of church government that violate the teachings of the New Testament if spiritual health is to ever be restored to the local church and to the community of faith at large. God prescribed a system of government whereby the leaders lead from within the local church by the plurality of elders who govern the body of Christ that collectively forms the priesthood of believers. This is the model that exemplifies a doctrinal fidelity that balances the leadership with congregational responsibility. If biblically based, each church must have a plurality of elders, and if the church has deacons then the deacons serve underneath the authority of the local elder-pastors.

Ancient Church History and Scripture Confirm the Doctrine of Plurality

We may rightly conclude that not every detail of church government has been set forth in the Scriptures.[23] However, one need not conclude that since we lack some details that the main structure or the essential essence of how a church should function has been left to the imagination. Any evangelical that endorses the sufficiency of Scripture must realize that Scripture has given to us all we need to construct a healthy, viable, biblical, and effective form of government for a New Testament Church. It is a shame that certain Christians show more concern for the national structure of government than they do for church government. Could they have become unbalanced? No doubt national government, or even state, county, and municipal government is important. But if that has any importance then Christians should realize how important church government is to the life and health of the people who will go out and influence the current secular government or common business world? The Bible gives us some clear principles for a healthy church government. One of those principles rests within the concept of a plurality of leadership.

The doctrine of the plurality of leadership has deep roots in Church history. The earliest Christian writing outside of apostolic writings has been attributed to Clement of Rome (30-100 AD). History tells us that the church of Corinth had a major disruption with the people and the elders. In Clement's letter around A.D. 95 he urged "the Christians who were in revolt against the leaders to end their disturbance and to be in subjection to the elders."[24]Clement served as a bishop/elder/pastor [words for the same office] in the church at Rome and many think he was a disciple of both Peter and Paul.[25] After the apostles Paul and Peter died, one of their contemporaries, Clement, became the apostle's representative.[26] Interestingly his writings mention early forms of church government that reflect a plurality of leadership in the pastoral body. It seems that Clement may have used the term Bishop and Elder as synonyms at times,[27] although his counter-part, Ignatius, seemed to divide the leadership into bishops, elders, and deacons. Clement of Rome may have been referenced in Philippians 4:3. Specifically concerning Church government, Clement said:

And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labors], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture in certain places, "I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith."[28]

It seems almost undeniable that one of the earliest church leaders, who grew up in the era of the apostles and in all likelihood received instruction from the apostles, personally embraced the idea of the church having a plurality of elders leading it. In his statement both the bishops, who are the coequal pastors, and the deacons are plural. This strongly points to the early model of church government. Each church had a plurality of elders and deacons to serve the people respectively.

Not only does the view arise early in church history, but Scripture also teaches the view. People may question whether or not the early church fathers did this correctly. Church history has never been the source of authority for the mature Christian. Christians can reject something done or taught in history if it fails to align with Scripture. Without Scripture, it is possible that the style of government used in the early church developed through convenience. People could argue that different types of church government developed and that no one style has any more sanction than another if the Bible were silent on the issue. However, such is not the case with teachings of the New Testament. The Bible openly states that a team of elders led in each church. These elders were the pastors of the church.

The Bible sets forth the pattern of plurality for the leadership structure. The congregation receives the benefit of multiple leaders that oversee their lives in Christ. Healthy congregations must strive towards this model and embrace this form of church government if they want to walk in submission to the authority of God's Word. As some Bible teachers have noted: "It is a fact now generally recognized by theologians of all shades of opinion that, in the language of the New Testament, the same officer in the church is called indifferently bishop or elder, or presbyter."[29] The word Pastor (poimenoj-poimenos-pastor) is only used once in the entire New Testament (Eph. 4:11). And make sure to note that even in this one use it is again plural. This term, properly translated shepherd, is used again to describe the work of elders in 1 Peter 5:1-2 whereby Peter tells the elders to shepherd (poimanate-poimanate-shepherd) the people of God. The word pastor describes one of the functions of the overseer. Commenting on this subject of the plurality of leadership and work of the elder/pastor the professor, scholar, and church historian Dr. Henry Sheldon said:

The presbyters, or elders, were the highest local authority in a church. With them rested the chief responsibility, both for government of the Christian society and for the provision of suitable instruction. The common mention of them in the plural shows that a number were elected to the office in each church. They formed a presiding council analogous to the board of elders in the Jewish synagogue. It was from the synagogue the name presbyter, or elder, was borrowed. The episcopal title, on the other hand, the name overseer, or bishop, was Gentile of origin, having been used among the Greeks to indicate an office involving a species of oversight. Originally both names related entirely to the same office. The New Testament recognizes no distinction between them. The words presbyter and bishop are used interchangeably.[30]

These elders, who are also titled pastors, bishops, and presbyters work collectively to guide and oversee spiritually the body of Christ. However, as the church progressed after the death of the apostles the biblical doctrine of the eldership became distorted. The first phase of this distortion developed when one of the bishops or elders became the senior elder over the general board of elders.[31] But such a distinction that gradually developed has no support from the New Testament. In all reality, it flatly contradicts the New Testament doctrine of coequal elders who collectively pastor God's flock. Sheldon specifically denies that such a view has any endorsement from Scripture. He realizes that the "New Testament does not inform us of the growth even of this distinction. It nowhere raises one presbyter above the rest, and clothes him with a special dignity as bishop."[32]

The Bible cuts away any vain speculation that the church should have only a single elder, pastor, or the idea that a church can have several elders with one senior elder that has authority over all the rest of the pastors. One elder may have more experience, theological education, and more maturity than others, but it does not entitle him to a status whereby he becomes the senior elder in the sense that he is the boss or hierarchic leader over the other elders. Such a view is common in churches of this day that has a senior pastor/elder with many associate pastors who function beneath the senior elder. Such a view does not find support from Scripture. Each elder is equal to the other elders according to the Bible, and these elders all serve as pastors to the people of God. Furthermore, each elder functions as a pastor to the other pastor(s). Dr. Wayne Grudem discusses the function of these elders, which is to pastor the hearts of the people.

Although the noun pastor (poimen) is not used of church officers elsewhere in the New Testament, the related verb which means "to act as a shepherd" or "to act as a pastor" (Gk. poimano) is applied to elders in Paul's address to the Ephesian elders. He tells them "to shepherd the church of God" (Acts 20:28 . . . .), and in the same sentence he referred to God's people as "all the flock," using another related noun (Gk. poimnion) which means "a flock of sheep." So Paul directly charges these Ephesian elders to act as shepherds or "pastors." The same verb is used in 1 Peter 5:2 where Peter tells the elders to "shepherd (poimaino) the flock of God that is your charge" (author's translation). Then two verses later Jesus is called the chief pastor or "chief shepherd" (Gk. archipoimen, 1 Peter 5:4), implying quite clearly that Peter also viewed the elders as shepherds or "pastors" in the church. Therefore, although the noun pastor is only used once to refer to elders, the related verb is used twice in passages that explicitly identify the task of shepherding with the office of elder.[33]

Nowhere in the New Testament will you find that the terms elder, pastor, bishop, or presbyter has been used in the singular tense. Furthermore, nowhere in the Bible will you find that there is one pastor over a body of elders. Elders are pastors and "pastoring" describes the function of each elder. Lastly, all through the New Testament the pastoral office contains more than one man at the helm. A plurality of elders pastor and oversee the church if it is a pure church under the authority of Scripture. Only one senior Pastor exists, namely the senior Priest and senior Overseer Jesus Christ. He stands alone as the senior leader and Chief Pastor of God's family.

Philippians 1:1 is another place where the doctrine of a plurality of leadership is unmistakably and glaringly upheld. Paul opens the writing and addresses the overseers and the deacons. These two groups constitute the two offices of the early church. The text says: "Paul and Timothy, bond servants of Christ Jesus, to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, including the overseers and deacons." The term overseer again is plural. This church had two or more coequal pastors. This church did not have one man at the helm as is so often the practice in our culture today. Again, as already noted, "one man leadership is characteristic of cults, not the church" of Jesus Christ.[34] Alexander Strauch adds to that saying:

Paul's brief mention of overseers and deacons provides a wealth of valuable information for our study on eldership. It confirms . . . that elders were established in the Pauline churches. It also confirms that there were elders in the churches of Macedonia (Europe), not just in Asia Minor and Palestine as Acts records. . . . Paul's usage of the terms overseers and deacons indicates a generally accepted recognition of official designations for church leadership positions (offices). Some commentators, however . . . claim that the terms overseers and deacons are used functionally to designate all the people who supervise and serve the local church. They deny that Paul is referring to specific church offices. They support this view by the absence of the definite article before the terms overseers and deacons. But the absence of the definite article in Greek is insufficient reason to assign purely a functional sense to the terms. The context itself makes the terms definite. If Paul wanted to speak generally, he would not have used the noun forms as he did. He would most likely have used the participial forms, overseeing and serving. . . . Paul's usage of the plural nouns indicates that Philippi had a plurality of overseers and deacons. The use of "overseers" (plural) has profound implications. In one stroke, the plural form utterly confounds later theories of church government.[35]

Scripture teaches with clarity that the churches founded by the apostles had multiple elders. The only exception to this may have been early in the life of the church at Corinth. It appears to begin with that this fellowship did not have any strong leadership as the congregation seemingly led in a manner of "congregational consensus."[36] This pattern however does not constitute the norm since in most instances, if not in every other church, the New Testament spoke to the idea of a plurality of leadership. It seems probable that it simply took the fellowship of Corinth some time to mature enough to where someone could serve in the office as an elder. Paul may have been hesitant about appointing anyone as an elder within that fellowship when so much immaturity permeated the congregation.

However, a group eventually matured and fulfilled this role and office because Clement's letter in A.D. 95 reveals that at least by that date Corinth had elders within the body governing the affairs of the fellowship. The church was probably established somewhere around A.D. 50 to A.D. 55. So somewhere between the birth of that church and the date of Clement's letter the church grew into compliance with the instructions of the apostles. More churches today need to comply with God's word on this subject. Every church that willingly ignores the concept of elders governing the body of Christ disobey the word of God. Therefore, even church history concerning the particular church of Corinth reveals that eventually even this fellowship embraced the doctrine of a plurality of elders governing the body of Christ. All NT churches today should do likewise if they honor Jesus Christ.

The elders were given the charge by the New Testament apostles to oversee the church. These pastors guided the people collectively. The task of guiding the fellowship rests within the eldership. Elders govern the church. Deacons function as the servants of the church. A quick or detailed reading of 1 Timothy 3 reveals the differences. Elders are the authority base and the deacons are the serving base. Elders must be able to teach Scripture and pastor others. Deacons must know the faith but they do not have to be able to teach since they are not the doctrinal rulers of the church. Though both must know doctrine, only the elders carry the requirement to teach and rule the body of Christ. Thus this governing is never done by one person but by a group of godly and devout men.

Philosophically This Only Makes Sense

One need not work in ministry long to realize that the "one man at the helm" mentality will ruin a church. Many people have often stated that absolute power absolutely corrupts.[37]Edmund Burke once stated, "The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse."[38] Who is it that can assist in keeping an elder in line if there is only one pastor-elder leading the whole church? If one man has the "senior pastor" title and he has right to hire and fire all subordinate staff, who then will really speak up to him if he is in sin? Is it not odd that we think the deacon servant body ought to have many members yet we think the position of elder should rest on one primary person? Is that not odd and strange? It is as if most churches and Christians are afraid to place more than one man in the position of pastor-elder. But this is exactly what the New Testament calls for if the church desires to follow the Bible. Strauch again comments on this fear:

I am convinced that the underlying reason many Christians fear the plurality of elders is that they don't really understand the New Testament concept or its rich benefits to the local church. New Testament eldership is not, as many think, a high status, board position that is open to any and all who desire membership. On the contrary, an eldership patterned on the New Testament model requires qualified elders who must meet specific moral and spiritual qualifications before they serve (1 Tim. 3:1-7). Such elders must be publicly examined by the church as to their qualifications (1 Tim 3:10).. . . They must be motivated and empowered by the Holy Spirit to do their work (Acts 20:28). Finally, they must be acknowledged, loved, and honored by the whole congregation. This honor given by the congregation includes the giving of financial support to elders who are uniquely gifted at preaching and teaching, which allows some elders to serve the church full or part time (1 Tim. 5:17-18). Thus a team of qualified, dedicated, Spirit-placed elders is not a passive, ineffective committee; it is an effective form of leadership structure that greatly benefits the church family.[39]

Why would any church not desire to have a team of such leadership? Who can logically think that one man can lead the church family as effectively as a team of elders can? It seems that any church that does not embrace this truth has either grown confused as to what Scripture says, or the current leader may have possibly become jealous of the "senior pastor role," and thus he is not willing to submit to Scripture. Or maybe the deacons of a particular church want to control the church, and thus they reject this ideology. In either case, whether the deacons or pastor refuse this model, they in essence are violating the NT model of church government. Even our national government understood this principle in the formative days. The very reason why the United States government has three governmental powers is because the founders realized the need for a plurality of leadership. They understood that if all power was placed in a king then the susceptibility for corruption drastically increased. Likewise, no church should have only one person in power, and the deacons are not the ones called by Scripture to keep the sole or senior pastor in line. The church ought to have two or more elders with co-equal authority leading the church. Some may not heed this due to spiritual confusion, but in such a case the current leadership, even if one man, must teach the people that the church is biblically required to have more than one pastor.

If, however, the pastor is currently and continually rejecting this Scriptural teaching of a plurality of leadership then he has actually disqualified himself from the ministry, for the pride of his heart has blinded him from following biblical doctrine. This doctrine was designed by God to protect the flock! Just as the American forefathers knew to protect the people there needed to be collective powers that were separate and distinct, so also the church should have collective leaders who are distinct yet vested with authority to guide one another and the people. Any man who ignores this has undermined his role as a true protector of the sheep. A team of elders can better serve the people. The pressure of pastoral leadership requires that a team work collectively. One of the reasons why sin is so rampant in the body of Christ today is because the structure of church government that has one man in the senior status leaves him unable to fulfill all that is required for the ministry. How can one man oppose wide-spread doctrinal error in the body? This accounts for the massive burn out rate in modern day ministry. Pastors who have the heart to lead the people out of sin cannot fulfill this calling for they are so often made to stand alone! Such a tragedy can only show this error pleases the evil satanic realm that seeks to undermine the purity of the church. Follow the Scriptures and place a team of elders committed to godly and long-term discipleship of one another and the people and the church will flourish spiritually. The elders will guard one another, and they will guard the people with much more vigor and strength. When evil opposition arises the team will be able to stand together on Scripture and handle the evil schemes that the forces of hell throw at the bride of Christ. However, if the church has one man at the helm it asks for trouble.

Team leadership is not only needed to fight off sin in the body of Christ and from the wiles of Satanic attack, but it is needed to balance one another. As stated above, the elders, who are faithful to the New Testament, will disciple one another. They will balance one another and assist in areas where one man is weak. Ignorance can only mildly describe the level of intelligence that says one man can effectively lead the whole family of the faith. God even gave Adam a helper so that he and his wife could rule the animal kingdom, and then collectively they would lead the children the two of them would eventually produce. If it takes two people, a mother and father, to properly raise a child in the ideal situation then why does any church think one senior pastor can effectively lead an entire family of the faith? It simply makes no sense. Pagans have more sense than this. Infidels realize that numbers carry strength. How many street gangs do you know of that have only one member? They too realize strength comes in numbers. Politicians know that the more people pressing for some change the more likely that change will occur. Why then does this wisdom stop outside of the church doors? Why do some churches continue to defy not only Scripture but also common sense and logic? Has Christianity become so compromised that the people like being able to run over the leadership? Has Christianity become so shallow that the people do not realize the need for the plurality of elders? What reason can be given not to have a plurality of pastors other than "this is the way we have traditionally done things?" Elders are needed for the health of the body and for the health of the leadership itself. Strauch adds:

. . . fatal flaws or blind spots distort our judgment. They deceive us. They can even destroy us. This is particularly true of multi-talented, charismatic leaders. Blind to their own flaws and extreme views, some talented leaders have destroyed themselves because they had no peers to confront and balance them and, in fact, wanted none. For the single leader atop a pyramidal structure of organization the important balancing of one another's weaknesses and strengths normally does not occur. Note the strong language Robert Greenleaf, author of the book Servant Leadership, uses to convey his observations: "To be a lone chief atop a pyramid is abnormal and corrupting. None of us are perfect by ourselves, and all of us need the help and correcting influence of close colleagues. When someone is moved atop a pyramid, that person no longer has colleagues, only subordinates. Even the frankest and bravest subordinates do not talk with their boss in the same way that they talk with colleagues who are equals, and normal communication patterns become warped." In a team leadership structure, however, different members complement one another and balance one another's weaknesses. If one elder has a tendency to act to harshly with people, the others can temper his harshness. If some members fear confrontation with people, others can press for action. Elders who are doctrinally oriented can sharpen those who are more outreach- or service-oriented, and the outreach- or service-minded elders can ignite the intellectually oriented members to more evangelism and service. . . . I believe that traditional, single-church pastors would improve their character and ministry if they had genuine peers to whom they were regularly accountable and with whom they worked jointly. Most pastors are not multitalented leaders, nor are they well suited to singularly lead a congregation effectively. They have personality flaws and talent deficiencies that cause them and the congregation considerable vexation. When placed in a council of qualified pastors, however, a pastor's strengths make important contributions to the church and his weaknesses are covered by the strengths of others.[40]

A plurality of elders is not only historically validated, Scripturally validated, but it remains philosophically validated. A church would be sinning to ignore the benefits this team effort brings to the people. A coequal, collective, and shared leadership structure will enhance the ministry and encourage the people of the flock as they can draw from the strength of a group of godly, loving, caring, and doctrinally sound men of the faith.

New Testament Scriptures that Teach The Plurality Doctrine

A large portion of Scripture in the New Testament speaks to the issue of each church having more than one pastor or elder. In the list given herein take close notice that each time the word "elder" is used it is in the plural form. Not one passage anywhere in the Bible gives the idea that a church may have only one pastor or one "senior pastor" in the sense that the senior pastor is not held accountable to the other coequal elders or pastors. Such an idea as that runs contrary to Scripture. A biblically based church will recognize the need for a plurality of elders among the body. These selections of Scripture speak for themselves concerning the doctrine of plurality of leadership within each local church.

Acts 11:27-30

Now at this time some prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. ²⁸One of them named Agabus stood up and began to indicate by the Spirit that there would certainly be a great famine all over the world. And this took place in the reign of Claudius. ²⁹And in the proportion that any of the disciples had means, each of them determined to send a contribution for the relief of the brethren living in Judea. ³⁰And this they did, sending it in charge of Barnabas and Saul to the elders.

Acts 14:19-23

But Jews came from Antioch and Iconium, and having won over the crowds, they stoned Paul and dragged him out of the city, supposing him to be dead. ²⁰But while the disciples stood around him, he got up and entered the city. The next day he went away with Barnabas to Derbe. ²¹After they had preached the gospel to that city and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch, ²²strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying, "Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God." ²³When they had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.

Acts 15:1-6

Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." ²And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue. ³Therefore, being sent on their way by the church, they were passing through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and were bringing great joy to all the brethren. ⁴When they arrived at Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them. ⁵But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses." ⁶The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter.

Acts 15:22-23

Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas-Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, ²³and they sent this letter by them,

"The apostles and the brethren who are elders, to the brethren in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia who are from the Gentiles, greetings. . . .

Acts 16:4

Now while they were passing through the cities, they were delivering the decrees which had been decided upon by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem, for them to observe.

Acts 20:17

From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders of the church.

Acts 21:18

And the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present.

Philippians 1:1

Paul and Timothy, bond-servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, including the overseers and deacons.

1 Tim. 4:14

Do not neglect the spiritual gift you received through the prophecies spoken to you when the elders of the church laid their hands on you.

1 Tim. 5:17

Elders who do their work well should be paid well, especially those who work hard at both preaching and teaching.

Titus 1:5

I left you on the island of Crete so you could complete our work there and appoint elders in each town as I instructed you.

James 5:14

Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord;

1 Peter 5:1

And now, a word to you who are elders in the churches. I, too, am an elder and a witness to the sufferings of Christ. And I, too, will share his glory and his honor when he returns. As a fellow elder, this is my appeal to you . . .

All of the biblical texts that relate to the New Testament church call for a plurality of elders. Not one text anywhere in the entire New Testament teaches any church had only one senior pastor. All the elders collectively led the body of Christ. Even apostle Peter called himself one of the elders of the church. Dr. Grudem says:

Although some have argued that different forms of church government are evident in the New Testament, a survey of the relevant texts shows the opposite to be true: there is quite a consistent pattern of plural elders as the main governing group in New Testament churches . . . . Two significant conclusions may be drawn from [a] survey of the New Testament evidence. First, no passage suggests that any church, no matter how small, had only one elder. The consistent New Testament pattern is a plurality of elders "in every church" (Acts 14:23) and "in every town" (Titus 1:5). Second, we do not see a diversity of forms of government in the New Testament church, but a unified and consistent pattern in which every church had elders governing it and keeping watch over it (Acts 20:28; Heb. 13:17; 1 Peter 5:2-3).[41]

All churches would do well to heed this evidence. Scripture expresses clearly the essential biblical pattern for church government. Any church that does not desire for two or more elders to govern the church has violated the teaching of the New Testament. The apostles' doctrine ought to remain the doctrine for this era of the church. Elders will provide strength and wisdom for the body of Christ. This pattern of church government provides numerous practical benefits. However, practicality only serves as the secondary reason to institute this in all churches. Primary to this discussion is that God has prescribed this for the church. No church may expect to grow to health if they continually reject what Scripture says concerning elders. It is one thing not to have any men qualified for this office, but it is quite another issue for the leader or church to simply ignore this biblical instruction. Any church that ignores this doctrine will place the church family in danger. It is the elders that God has called and equipped to oversee the people's soul and spirit in the many slippery dangers of this world. Strauch passionately says:

Church elders hear and judge doctrinal issues. They help resolve conflict. They protect the church from false teachers. They bear the responsibility for the doctrines taught to the members of their flock. Elders, therefore, must be men who know God's Word. In a hostile world filled with satanic lies and false teachings, churches need shepherd elders who are sound in judgment and possess the knowledge of the truth.[42]

No one should ever underestimate the need, power, protection, and strength that a plurality of elders brings to the church. Without a plurality of elders to lead the body of Christ it will suffer gravely. Without a pure group of men that give of their life and time to serve the people of faith in grace and truth the saints lives will suffer spiritually. God's design has been instituted so that men and women and boys and girls will have proper guidance. The ideal situation is always for there to be a mother and a father in the home to raise a child. Likewise, an ideal church situation is where there remains a godly group of elders that raise and nurture us spiritually. Elders are like spiritual parents for the adult. Did not our own parents tell us that we would never be able to live life without someone giving us guidance in certain areas? Well the elders are those people in the church that oversee, govern, and guide our heart, spirit, and soul. These men give of their life to make sure we stand in glory with all purity. They oversee our souls and just as would any parent these leaders love, care, and serve as a source of authority for us in life as we live all of life. Those who reject this in essence reject the love of God. God's love is best communicated to us when we submit to the elders God has placed to rule within the church.