The example of the Apostles and their writings define the role of church officers as, “publicly recognized leader[s] having the right and responsibility of performing certain functions for the benefit of the whole church.” The first formal office is that of elder. The New Testament calls this same office by other names in a synonymous fashion calling elders also, “pastor,” “overseer,” or “bishop,” (Eph 4:11; 1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:5—7 NASB). 1 Timothy 3 and 2 Peter 5 both attribute to this office the role of ruling and governance over the local body. In Ephesians 4 and 1 Timothy 5 the Apostle Paul further defines the office as responsible for teaching. Thus, one may conclude from the biblical evidence that the office of elder serves the church in both a ruling and teaching capacity.
In the context of the nature of church governance, one also finds a strong emphasis on the shepherd-like, servant nature of elders. Based on Paul’s listed qualifications for elders, one finds that elders, above all else, are examples to the flock. Therefore, their rule and teaching must not be tyrannical or arrogant, but rather intentionally demonstrated through their lifestyle as well as through their words. This strong emphasis on the church community leads Strauch to affirm the necessity of elder leadership in the local church body. He writes that the office of elder most resonates with the church’s mission and nature in humility under the headship of Christ.
However, not all scholars agree on the unified nature of elders as both rulers and teachers. R.S. Rayburn argues that because different passages of Scripture define elders in different ways that the office of “elder” cannot be applied universally, but particularly. He offers, instead, that churches should have specifically appointed teaching elders and ruling elders. G.W. Knight disagrees. Knight argues that in the context of the church’s communal nature a dichotomy between clerical and lay elders must not be drawn. However, Knight does agree with Rayburn that teaching elders should be distinguished from ruling elders. Both arguments fail, though, to stand against the biblical evidence. Paul’s emphasis in 1 Timothy 3 and 5 on both the potential leader’s grasp of doctrine and management abilities suggest instead that an elder must be able to both teach and rule. Though some elders will perform one duty more than the other duty, an elder must be able to do both.
The second office described in the New Testament is the office of deacon. Contrary perhaps to its use in some churches, deacons are not rulers but primarily servants and administrators in the church. The word in the Greek for deacon, diakonos, means servant. Though not explicitly addressed, the office appears to be established in Acts 6, where the Apostles appoint certain men to attend to the church’s administrative matters. 1 Timothy 3 addresses the office specifically, listing deacons’ responsibilities to include the financial matters of the church, administrative responsibilities, ministry to the physical needs of the church, and visitation and counseling.
Grudem argues that the New Testament provides two methods of church officer appointment: divine institution and congregational election. In a period of the church where revelation is limited to the written Word of God, the Bible, congregational appointment, thus, seems to be the biblical method for choosing church officers. Examples include Acts 6 and 15. However, some argue that the precedents set in Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5 lean toward appointment by an outside superior governing body, or Episcopalianism. Neither of these passages, however, excludes congregational consultation in the process of appointing church officers. Moreover, the word translated, “appoint,” could also signify, “install.” Thus, these two examples neither negate congregationalism nor set a definitive alternative model. Further, biblical instances of church discipline exemplify the case for congregational authority. In both Matthew 18 and 1 Corinthians 5 the final authority on the expulsion of a church member rests with the entire congregation.
The nature of church governance as demonstrated throughout the New Testament, along with the explicit passages on church office, demonstrates a plurality of elders to be the most biblical form of church government. In recognition of the congregation’s authority and indwelling of the Spirit, those individuals in a given local body who meet the qualifications should be recognized by the church body, elected by common vote of the church’s members, and then submitted to in teaching and governance. Such a system will enjoy both paid-vocational elders, commonly called the pastor in most churches, as well as lay elders who serve on a volunteer basis. Grudem argues in defense of the plurality of elders writing, “Within such a system the elders govern the church and have authority to rule over it, authority which has been conferred by Christ Himself, the head of the church, and by the Holy Spirit (Acts 20:28; Heb. 13:17).”
Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1994), 905.
Case, “Pressures on presbytery,” 89.
Strauch, Biblical Eldership, 109.
R. S. Rayburn, "Three Offices: Minister, Elder, Deacon," P 12 no. 2 (1986): 113.
G. W. Knight, "Two Offices (Elders/Bishops and Deacons) and Two Orders of Elders (Preaching/Teaching Elders and Ruling Elders): A New Testament Study," P 11 no. 1 (1985): 2.
Ibid., 4
Dever, “The Doctrine of the Church,” 795.
Grudem, Systematic Theology, 920.
Love this!
ReplyDelete