“If the NT required multiple pastors for every church, this passage would have said so – but it does not.”

[Dan Miller]

If I tell my son, “If you want to be a soccer player you have to practice, practice, practice.” And he walks away and says, “Dad used singular - ‘soccer player.’ So obviously a team can consist of just one player.” Then he didn’t get the point and what he did get he misunderstood.

Dan, I think I know what you are trying to say, but I’m not sure that your analogy accomplishes that.

My point is that it is possible and normal to speak about a person in a role using singular terms, even when such a person, acting in his official capacity within that role, will act as one of a group of others of the same role.

[Dan Miller]

My point is that it is possible and normal to speak about a person in a role using singular terms, even when such a person, acting in his official capacity within that role, will act as one of a group of others of the same role.

I agree! By designating pastor by a singular form, Paul allows for multiple pastors, but he does not require multiple pastors by doing so. He allows for a single pastor, too ;)

[TOvermiller]

Dan Miller wrote:

My point is that it is possible and normal to speak about a person in a role using singular terms, even when such a person, acting in his official capacity within that role, will act as one of a group of others of the same role.

I agree! By designating pastor by a singular form, Paul allows for multiple pastors, but he does not require multiple pastors by doing so. He allows for a single pastor, too

I agree that this passage allows either view:

1. Plurality only (or very much preferred) (my view)
2. Single pastor (and more as needed, but one “senior” or “head”)

This passage (1Tim3) only tells us what the qualifications for elders are.

But I don’t agree that this passage insists that either is ok.

And IF Paul had used pleural grammar, “elders,” that would not prove that a single elder is disorderly. Like I could say qualifications for mayors are x, y, z - but each town has one.

[Dan Miller]

… pleural grammar …

Plural :)

Good one.

But if, in the same paragraph, you said “qualifications for mayor” and then added “qualifications for council members,” most readers would probably conclude that you were thinking of the office of mayor in a singular sense, and office of council member as a normally plural situation. No small wonder then, that some find that same pattern implied in I Timothy 3 for the bishop and deacons.

In truth, I am an advocate for a plurality of elders, but like so many issues, those who insist on this as a requirement are pushing their agenda too hard. The I Timothy 3 passage should slow them down a bit.

[G. N. Barkman]

In truth, I am an advocate for a plurality of elders, but like so many issues, those who insist on this as a requirement are pushing their agenda too hard. The I Timothy 3 passage should slow them down a bit.

Well stated.

[TOvermiller]

Dan Miller wrote:

… pleural grammar …

Plural

That’s what happens when people with a medical education participate! :)

It is tough, Greg, to read something like 1 Tim 3 without prejudice when you have already a view in mind, as I admittedly do. But even your description of how singularity might be specified is, “most readers would probably conclude.”

I want to address the word “required” in the tile of this thread. Yesterday I said:

1. Plurality only (or very much preferred)

And I have been stewing over what should go in those parentheses. Perhaps “expected” or “maturity” better conveys the idea. I certainly wouldn’t want to claim that you’re not a church if you only have one pastor.

To my reading, the New Testament paints a picture of church life supported by plural elder leadership. Do you have theological question? It goes to plural elders (Acts 15). Do you need doctrine guarded and the sheep pastored? These are done by the (plural) elders (Acts 20). Do you need to have a case that needs to be heard? Plural elders (Acts 22). Do you need to formally ordain an elder to ministry? Plural elders do this (1 Timothy 4:14). Does the church need to be led in the Word? Plural elders (1 Timothy 5:17, Titus 1:5-9). Are you in need of [spiritual] healing? Call your elders (James 5:14). Does the flock need shepherded? This is done by plural elders (1 Peter 5).

I know of no situation in the NT where the prescribed remedy is, “Go and ask your pastor.”

Dan, I agree that NT evidence indicates that plurality of elders is much preferred. I agree that this is clearly the most commonly employed arrangement. It is surely the ideal situation, and the goal for which every congregation should strive. But to say, as some plurality advocates insist, that a church without a plurality of elders is not a true New Testament church goes too far, in my opinion. The I Timothy 3 passage should give pause to such assertions. If a church does not have qualified candidates, it is detrimental to install unqualified candidates into the office of elder, as I have observed in some cases where churches were straining to achieve the hypothetical requirement imposed unwisely by themselves or others.

Also, there is another often over-looked factor, namely, can a church afford a plurality of elders? It seems to me that a clear NT teaching that elders should be financially supported by the church, is often sacrificed upon the altar of achieving plurality. How does a NT precept get trumped by a NT description? (Agreeing, as I’m sure you do, that there is no NT requirement for plurality, only multiple descriptive phrases.)

…The I Timothy 3 passage should give pause to such assertions. If a church does not have qualified candidates, it is detrimental to install unqualified candidates into the office of elder, as I have observed in some cases where churches were straining to achieve the hypothetical requirement imposed unwisely by themselves or others. …

As I think through the question I posed earlier I also settle somewhere near “very much preferred.” But I feel like that doesn’t adequately express the maturity side. I do see plurality as a NT imperative, but I do NOT mean by that that a church is sinning by having just one.

It’s much like if I command my son to be a doctor, he is obeying by and while he’s attending medical school. If he forgoes training and just sets up shop as a doctor, well that would be a disaster.

[G. N. Barkman] Dan, I agree that NT evidence indicates that plurality of elders is much preferred. I agree that this is clearly the most commonly employed arrangement. It is surely the ideal situation, and the goal for which every congregation should strive. But to say, as some plurality advocates insist, that a church without a plurality of elders is not a true New Testament church goes too far, in my opinion. The I Timothy 3 passage should give pause to such assertions. If a church does not have qualified candidates, it is detrimental to install unqualified candidates into the office of elder, as I have observed in some cases where churches were straining to achieve the hypothetical requirement imposed unwisely by themselves or others.

No plurality advocates I’ve read advocate that a church should “install unqualified candidates into the office of elder” just to have a plurality of elders. In fact, the plurality advocates I’ve read insist that before men are installed as elders that they must meet the biblical qualifications needed. For example, here’s Strauch:

The most common mistake made by churches that are eager to implement eldership is to appoint biblically unqualified men. Because there is always a need for more shepherds, it is tempting to allow unqualified, unprepared men to assume leadership in the church. This is, however, a time-proven formula for failure. A biblical eldership requires biblically qualified elders (Biblical Eldership, 68).

In a church context where there is only one elder, that elder should look for qualified men who can be trained and groomed to become elders.

How plurality should work isn’t really on topic. Thomas wrote in part to express that 1 Timothy 3 promotes single-elder church government by using singular for elder and plural for deacon.

I believe the use of singular there is consistent with either single-elder polity or plural-elder polity. This passage doesn’t give me pause regarding plurality. It could be like, “If you want to be a soccer player you’ll have to work hard.” And it could be like, “If you want to be mayor you’ll have to…”

On the practical way for small churches to make plural elders work = both elders have to be committed to being bi-vocational. See my comment here:

I’m in an odd situation. My State job pays well, so my small church salary is just fine. I feel strongly enough about dual elders that we just brought on another pastor and will pay him an identical small salary. I could have made a play to (1) combine both small salary, (2) and add significant savings from when we reduce the secretary’s hours next year, to (3) create a decent solo pastor salary that could have allowed me to quit my job and be a “fulltime” pastor.

But, I decided to bring on another elder because the current one is retiring.

I think the new elder and I represent what you’ll see in the future. We both have credentials to work outside the church and expect to do so during our entire ministries. He is about to do a quick MA to get a better teaching job in public schools, and I’ll soon do likewise for an MPA to further my government service.