Chapter 8: Plurality of Church Government

The Scriptures speak of only two groups of ruling bodies within the local church—Elders and Deacons. All of those ruling in the house of God MUST meet the qualifications found in I Timothy 3. We see the results in many churches today of deviating from the qualifications. As the standards for leadership have been lowered, we have seen a corresponding lowering of the quality of the work being performed in the body of Christ.

The early church is still our example in this respect, as well as in all others. There was no rush to install either Deacons or Elders in the early church. Both offices required that qualified men be carefully sought out to fill these positions. To turn from the standards of leadership presented in I Timothy 3, even though they may seem very rigid, is to frustrate the "plans" and "principles" of God.

A plurality of leadership is seen throughout the New Testament. Nowhere is one man in complete charge of the work of God. Jesus himself began with twelve Apostles who, excluding Judas Iscariot, carried on the work in its infancy, following the ascension of Christ. We find, in Acts 15:2, that there were other Elders added to the apostolic group as the church in Jerusalem grew. As the need arose, Deacons were added to this body of believers.

Many of the Elders, some of whom were at one time Deacons, were mentioned by name. It seems evident that these Deacons had progressed to the place of Elders, such as Philip the Evangelist as seen in Acts 6:5; 21:8. Agabus the Prophet and James the Pastor of Jerusalem church of Acts 15 were also given by name as having become elders in Jerusalem along with the Apostles.

The church of Jerusalem is not our only example. The church at Antioch of Syria is another vivid example. We see here, also, a pattern of mothering other churches, as well as plurality of ministry. Barnabas went from Jerusalem to Antioch to strengthen the church that had begun there. After staying there a while he went to Tarsus to get Paul to come and work with him. There was certainly a plurality of Elders. A year or so later, Prophets went up from Jerusalem to help in the ministry at Antioch. So it seems that, for a time, anyway their leadership came from a mother church.

As time progressed there were Prophets and Teachers in Antioch. It seems quite evident that some within the church had developed to the degree of being ordained as Elders. I'm sure that they were qualified before Barnabas, Saul and possibly even, Agabus would set them into a place of leadership. We even see the church at Antioch sending Elders from themselves to minister to others. Is not this the Scriptural pattern—"freely ye have received, freely give"? We are commanded to go into the entire world and make disciples, not just sit at home and grow fat spiritually.

The church of Ephesus is another good example of the plurality of Elders. As discussed in Acts 18:18,19, the plurality of Elders was even seen in the pioneering stages of this church. God doesn't mean for one man to be responsible for a work by himself. His pattern, even in the early stages of a work is for two or more ministries to work together. We see, in Acts 20:17, that more Elders were evidently added to the church.

This seems to have been the pattern, wherever churches were started. Paul and Barnabas set in a plurality of Elders in all the churches that they established (Acts 14:23). Whenever assistance was sent to the churches, it was delivered by the Elders of one church into the hands of the Elders of receiving church. The Elders are always to play a predominant roll in the leadership of the churches.

I feel to emphasize again that you will never find the word Elder in its singular form when in reference to leadership over the church. Yet we must affirm that one Elder is generally considered as "chief", "senior" or "head" Elder within the local assembly. There are several men who were considered "head" Elders in the New Testament church. For example, Peter (Acts 5:3), James, the Lords brother, (Acts 15:13) and definitely Paul who established churches and remained to mature them. We also have the letters to the churches in Revelation Chapters 2 and 3, which were to be given to the "angels", "messengers", or the chief Elder of those individual churches.

Even though the scripture is emphatic in teaching a plurality of Elders, it does not teach an equality of Elders. Each ministry must be given freedom to function within its own sphere, and each will more likely be at different levels of maturity and capabilities in their given ministries. There is to be no power struggle. Each Elder has his own ministry, which he is responsible for.

One astounding purpose for the plurality of Elders is found in the sphere of church discipline . Discipline carried out by one man loses its effect and authority. It often does not accomplish its intended purpose—restoration. Instead, it often stimulates rebellion and the loss of the one being disciplined. A plurality of leadership encourages submission from the flock. The decisions of a group of spiritual men will be adhered too much more readily than that of on man. A plurality of Elders is protection for Elders and flock alike bringing with it the greatest benefit to both sheep and shepherd.

The plurality of Elders and church discipline is also to be considered in the context of the need for the discipline of Elders as well. Under God's pattern of leadership, no man is standing independent of the whole. The plurality of the Elders leaves opportunity for an Elder to be disciplined as well as and as effectively as any member of the body. This is equally true whether he be Pastor, Teacher, Evangelist, Prophet, or Apostle. We need to "submit to one another," for the good of the whole body (I Peter 5:5).

Another positive effect of plurality of Elders, is the fact that it brings proper "balance" to the body in all matters. Since each of the Elders will not only be at a different level of maturity but will also have a different type of ministry, the Elders will be able to augment on another in the feeding ministry and in the ministry of the Word. This is also true of discipline. In disciplinary matters, a plurality of Elders brings checks in various ways as to either speeding or slowing the process as need may be.

In the remainder of this chapter, I would like us to briefly analyze Acts 15. This chapter has been used and abused to support every conceivable type of church government. It has been used to support denominational authority of local churches since this chapter can be used to show that the church at Jerusalem had authority over other churches. Acts 15 has also been used to support the contention that the senior pastor is the final voice of authority within the local church since James, the chief elder, had the final voice. However, none of these contentions are supported if we carefully exam the situation as it is literally recorded in Holy Writings.

Brethren from the Jerusalem church who had brought erroneous teaching to Antioch and were causing division had infiltrated the church in Antioch. Paul and Barnabas, mature brethren, did what was right and proper by going to the root and source of the problem when they confronted the Elders of the church in Jersualem, the home church of the troublesome brethren. They presented the problem, which these brethren had brought and sowed, into the Antioch church. The whole church at Jerusalem eventually became involved, or at least informed, about what was transpiring. It is very evident from the scripture that they were in agreement with the decisions of their Elders. What a healthy situation as we see the Elders all together in getting the mind of the Spirit-even though it was the chief Elder what that mind was. Then, praise God, the whole church body stood behind the decision of their Elders. Please study Acts 15 carefully in relation to this thought.

The church in Jerusalem was sought out—not because it was the top ecclesiastical authority, but because it was the source of the problem. James, the senior Pastor at Jerusalem, voiced the final decision of the whole and not just that of himself. It was definitely a "thus saith the Lord", and was confirmed by all present. There were no powers of persuasion, or gifts of salesmanship, influencing the minds of others. Rather, there was a definite word of the Holy Ghost to direct the affairs of the local church, which is always in order.