One can make an argument for either view.
You can find references in Scripture to a plurality of elders in a church. James said if you are sick to "call for the elders of the church" (James 5:14). Paul sent for the "elders of the church" of Ephesus (Acts 20:17). Peter called himself an elder (1 Peter 5:1) among other elders: even if James was the "pastor" of the church in Jerusalem, he was one among other elders, and Peter says the elders are overseers and to pastor ("shepherd") the "flock of God" in an appropriate manner.
Some might argue that there was a plurality of assemblies in a given city, and though the city was referenced as the place of a particular church, there were potentially more than one assembly in that city; therefore, there would be more than one elder in a city. So if the elders of the church came together from a certain city, they would be from several assemblies within that city, even though the church referenced is according to the city they are in, and not their specific assembly--such as "the church of Ephesus."
Some churches have one elder called "the pastor," while others can allow for or have more than one elder. (The designation "the Pastor" has become the common designation for the vocational lead elder, though "pastor" is more of a function, and elder is an office; "pastor" is used in a more technical sense for that office.) Usually, the pastor role is supported financially, along with maybe some other roles in the church, according to the need and ability of the church. It is probably a rare thing if a church has a plurality of elders in which all are compensated and share an equal role. Usually one elder is "the pastor," even if he is a kind of first among equals. All elders are really "pastors" and teachers. Tradition is long standing that one man leads the church.
I think a plurality of elders could take the burden off one man, even if one is the head elder. I also think that since elders typically come from within the assembly, why shouldn't the one to be the vocational "pastor" not come from within the assembly? I think it would seem best if the pastor came from within the assembly instead of being stranger from without.
If a church had a plurality of elders, there could be an accountability among the eldership. I have heard over the years pastors saying they have no one in the church they can confide in or be encouraged by, so couldn't a plurality of elders meet that need? Though some might think this is problematic: because of the pastor's role and involvement with the assembly, he must avoid any conflict of interest (showing favoritism?) or keep some things absolutely private because of possible gossip, and therefore, he must go outside the assembly for the kind of input he needs.
Elders should recognize and appoint (ordain) those within the congregation who desire the office. There are some good reasons to raise up and keep your elders instead of them having to go out and find their own church--and thus be a stranger coming into a church ( it may not turn out well because he has unexpected beliefs that surface later).
I don't think we should esteem the pastor as like an Old Testament prophet who is called from church to church to go preach the word as God leads him. He's an elder to shepherd, not an Old Testament prophet.
So should there be one elder or potentially a plurality? It really depends on the size and needs of the assembly and the desire and qualifications of potential elders within the assembly. The tradition will probably continue of there being one man who is "the pastor." And maybe that is best for practical reasons. Scripturally, all the elders should be compensated, and there's no clear biblical support that it is a fully funded vocation, though it could be based on the size of the assembly, and yet, maybe for practical reasons, it is best to have a fully supported pastor, and the passing of time has made that evident.
No comments:
Post a Comment