Biblically the church office of pastor and elder were the same. Pastors are elders and elders are pastors. And the Biblical instuction is that each local church should have a plurality of pastors. The decision of churches as to who shall be their pastors is one of, if not the most important decision they can make. Churches should understand Biblical eldership and practice it with joy.
Alexander Strauch notes: Biblical eldership is dependent on men who seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness (Matthew 6:33), men who have presented themselves as living and holy sacrifices to God and view themselves as slaves of the Lord Jesus Christ (Romans 12:1-2), men who love Jesus Christ above all else, men who willingly sacrifice self for the sake of others, men who seek to love as Christ loved, men who are self-disciplined and self-sacrificing, and men who have taken up the cross and are willing to suffer for Christ.
The Scriptures use the imagery of shepherding to describe the work of pastors. As keepers of sheep, pastors are to protect, feed, lead and provide for the flock. Let’s consider these four jobs of pastors:
Protecting the Flock: A major part of the New Testament elders’ work is to protect the local church from false teachers. As Paul was leaving Asia Minor, he summons the elders of the church in Ephesus for a farewell exhortation. Paul told the pastors to shepherd the church by protecting her from savage wolves that will attack the church from without and within, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. See Acts 20:17-31.
According to Paul’s required qualifications for eldership, a prospective elder must have enough knowledge of the Bible to be able to refute false teachers. He left Titus in Crete to appoint a plurality of pastors in each church. He instructed Titus that these men must be able to hold fast the faithful word and must be able to refute those who contradict sound doctrine. See Titus 1:5-9.
Feeding the Flock: All New Testament elders were required to be “able to teach” (1 Timothy 3:2). Listing elder qualifications in his letter to Titus, Paul states, “[The elder must hold] fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict” (Titus 1:9).
In an extremely significant passage on elders, Paul recognizes the amount of time that such teaching requires of pastors, time in study, preparation. Paul instructed congregations to financially support the elders within their church who work hard at preaching and teaching. See 1 Timothy 5:17-18.
Leading the Flock: In Titus 1:7, Paul insists that a prospective elder be morally and spiritually above reproach because he will be “God’s steward.” A steward is a “household manager,” someone with official responsibility over the master’s servants, property, and even finances. Elders are stewards of God’s household, the local church.
Elders are also called “overseers,” which signifies that they supervise and manage the church. Peter uses the verb form of overseer when he exhorts the elders: “Therefore, I exhort the elders among you . . . shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight” (1 Peter 5:1-2). To the church in Ephesus, Paul writes, “Let the elders who rule [lead, direct, manage] well be considered worthy of double honor” (1 Timothy 5:17). Elders, then, are to lead, direct, govern, manage, and otherwise care for the flock of God.
Providing for the Flock: Pastors bear the responsibility for meeting the practical, diverse needs of the flock. For example, James instructs members of the flock to call for the elders of the church to pray for them and counsel them through spiritual crises and sickness (James 5:14). Paul exhorts the Ephesian elders to care for the weak and needy of the flock: “In everything I showed you that by working hard in this manner you must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He Himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive’ ” (Acts 20:35).
Tweet
Jason Robertson is a husband and a father and a pastor. He is dedicated to leading and equipping his the Church with God’s word and biblical theology for life ministry, using a combination of pastoral, church planting and evangelism experience. He holds a Master of Divinity from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He is experienced in church planting, evangelism, missions, and the training of pastors and Bible teachers.
Jason has been preaching the gospel since 1985, serving the first ten years of ministry as a Southern Baptist itinerant evangelist out of Milldale Baptist Church in Zachary, LA which ordained him in 1993. He has preached in hundreds of churches in over 30 States and 4 countries. He planted churches in Siberia, Russia in the summers of 1993 and 1994. He founded Murrieta Valley Church in California, which he planted in cooperation with the SBC NAMB in 2001. He also teaches ministry students at California Baptist University.
You can hear his sermons and read his manuscripts on sermonaudio.com. Just follow the link to "sermons" at the top of this page.
That last point has a word in it that needs to be emphasized, especially in cessasionist circles. That is, the elders must be “called on” to come and counsel and pray for the sick. Unfortunately, I and most pastors I know are not psychic and cannot detect when folks are sick or in trouble unless someone calls.
Hmmm. Actually the office of pastor as seen in the modern church corresponds better with that of bishop. But it is really a moot point as the Bible doesn’t give us a definitive ecclesial structure, but rather shows us that structures adapt to serve the community in the context that community lives. Which gives us a great deal of ecclesial flexibility in constructing our churches so that the saints are equipped to be Christ to the world which God so loved.
Good post, Jason. Biblical example runs counter to the “CEO” or “Executive Pastor” model we see so often now. We have had ample opportunity in the past few weeks to see our mature, godly elders in action at our church. I am grateful to God for such men.
Biblical eldership ensures pastoral accountability in a way that business models don’t.
God puts out some good ideas sometimes.
But it is really a moot point as the Bible doesn’t give us a definitive ecclesial structure
One of freedom, I would like to comment on that statement, but I have decided to first ask you to elaborate. Define difinitive ecclesial structure for me.
The structure that exists to support what we commonly refer to as the church. That is building, people, programmes, liturgy, etc. There are models in the NT but nothing that we can point to as definitive for all of Christianity. In fact a feature of primitive Christianity is diversity in ecclesial form yet everyone was ok with that. It is not long into it that the tripartite form takes primacy (eventually that becomes bishop, priest and deacon but that is another story for another day).
For me it is more important to serve the church than to have a particular ecclesial structure, at least that is how I read the variety of forms described in the NT.
So are you saying the you do not believe scripture explicitly teaches an ecclesiological structure, such as but not limited to, plurality of elders and servant deacons? I am strictly talking about a local church body.
I’m saying that the Bible doesn’t teach as normative any particular ecclesial structure of the local church body. There are a number of ministry designations mentioned: bishop, elder, episcopate, deacon, prophet, teacher, apostle, head of household, etc. There is an elasticity to respond to local ecclesial need, structure is meant to serve community not the other way around. Clear enough?
Actually its about as clear as mud. Maybe I am slow, but I am trying to put feet to your theology. I can tell you that I think I disagree with you, but I am not really clear on your point.
Give two differing examples on the structure serving different types of communities.
Ephesians describes a robust early model with apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. This is an early model.
I also have studied primitive house churches and the church in Ephesus consisted of a number of slave churches with simple a household head serving as the Eucharistic presider.
1 Timothy describes all three offices of the later developed Tripartite ministry (Bishop, Deacon, Elder (trans.)).
A book that is a good place to start on a primitive church ecclesiology is: Volz, Carl A. Pastoral Life and Practice in the Early Church. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1990. I have read a number of such books in my study of the ancient church.
Hey Scott, I’ve read around a bit on the site and I would say that we would disagree quite a bit on even the purpose of the church, so I can easily bet what your bias will be for ecclesiology. Also my philosophy of ministry is quite opposite to what is presented here in this site, I have seen much fruit from teaching people how to think for themselves and engage their cutlure with the gospel (instead of innoculating the congregation from the culture through dogma which from my experience makes them of no real Earthly good). I have also found that not having a bounds set sociological model is helpful and actually matches closer to the practice of the ancient Church, especially in times of persecution (IIRC Hippolytus gives us some key insights into the baptismal process during persecution). While there was a strong bounds before someone participated liturgically, people were engaged in the primary ministry of the Church long before they were liturgically involved. Not that you can or should translate that exactly into our cultural setting, but it is useful to know that how structures were maintained were also quite flexible in the primitive Church. What is interesting is that in the midst of that diversity the Church experienced a unity. What I find now is that many would claim to know “the” ecclesial model that is “from” God. Christ established a people not a building, we are gathered (called together) around a purpose (gospel) not a structure (hierarchy or otherwise). To think otherwise is to say more than the Bible does on the subject and to contradict almost 2000 years of Church history (which is one wild ride for those who care to study it in depth). Also to claim otherwise is a form of gnosticism, it is a claim to special knowledge that is needed for salvation – Luther I’m sure rolls over in his grave at the amount of gnosticism that has infected the Church these days.
I wanted to spell this all out so you know my biases before continuing. I suspect you will disagree with me on many points, it is only fair for you to know what you are getting yourself into. I can’t commit to a lengthy argument at this point – although I love to have a healthy dialogue with folks I disagree with, I find that often useful in shaping my own ideas. But as a pastor, father, husband, student and blogger I have to guard my time carefully.
blessings,
Frank Emanuel
Pastor Freedom Vineyard
That philosophy sounds way more emergent than Vineyard.
The Vineyard is classicaly a center-set sociological model. What is Emergent about it? Not that it would matter I appreciate a lot of the Emergent conversation, that’s why I laid my cards on the table. Historically the strong bounds-set sociological model belongs to the protectionist and isolationist models, which I take from reading this blog is where you likely fit. Maybe you have some misconceptions about the Vineyard? If you read Tod Hunter’s essay on the Way Forward (from Quest for the Radical Middle) you can easily see that the vision for the Vineyard as a movement has a lot of resonance with some of what is happening in the Emerging conversation. However, one of our big values is autonomy of the local congregation which means there is bound to be a lot of variance from congregation to congregation. We unite over a set of core values instead of a set ecclesiology or philosophy, but these values do inform the kinds of ecclesiologies and philosophies that will emerge.
I found it interesting that you said we would agree even on the purpose of the church. So let me ask you two questions. After reading Fide-O what do you perceive as our beliefs on the purpose of the church and how does that differ from your view of the purpose of the church?
We unite over a set of core values instead of a set ecclesiology or philosophy, but these values do inform the kinds of ecclesiologies and philosophies that will emerge.
“We unite over a set of core values instead of a set ecclesiology or philosophy, but these values do inform the kinds of ecclesiologies and philosophies that will emerge.”
So then, 1)You unite over a set of core values 2)Core values and set ecclesiology and philosophy are different things 3)your core values, which are neither ecclesiological nor philosophical, will eventually birth(emerge) ecclesiologies and philosophies
That is interesting. Can we assume that once your core values (which are not set ecclesiologies and philosophies) do finally emerge and produce ecclesiologies and philosophies you will no longer unite in them?
Hmmm, it might be helpful for you to see the core values of the Vineyard before you comment. http://www.vineyard.org or http://www.vineyard.ca will get you there.
I had left another comment but I guess it didn’t go through.
Scott I was just saying before that this site seems to promote a strong protectionist philosophy which builds barriers between the church and the world. But I do hope my assessment is incorrect.