Applying the Method
When we answer theological questions, we often find ourselves confronted with a variety of evidence. Some of the evidence will point in one direction while some of the evidence may seem to point in one or more other directions. Because the evidence is of different sorts, it carries different weights.
Weighing the evidence to discover an answer is one of the more difficult challenges in theological method. It is more of an art than a science. It usually involves an element of judgment. When the evidence appears to point in more than one direction, we must allow some of the evidence to explain the rest. In other words, part of the evidence will explain not only our answer, but also the remainder of the evidence.
Previously, I have suggested three methodological principles that should guide us in making these judgments. First, didactic (teaching) passages must explain historical references. Second, clear passages (texts that have only one likely interpretation) must explain obscure passages (texts that have more than one plausible interpretation, but in which no single interpretation is significantly more likely than another). Third, deliberate passages (texts that aim to address the theologian’s question) must explain incidental passages (texts that touch on the question only tangentially).
These principles need to be illustrated in practice. Therefore, in the present essay I wish to bring them to bear upon a theological question. In doing so, I shall deliberately avoid the issues that have more obvious answers (e.g., the fundamental doctrines). Of course, by selecting a question with a less clear answer I shall open myself to disagreement. That kind of interaction, however, is useful and necessary. Theologians learn through conversation, which is one reason that the best theology is done in community.
The question that I propose to examine is this: “Must a congregation have more than one elder in order to qualify as a rightly-ordered New Testament church?” Phrased this way, the question makes certain assumptions. It assumes that a church is a particular congregation. It assumes that pastor, bishop, and elder all refer to one office. It permits the possibility that a church may have more than one elder. The question is whether plural eldership is essential to New Testament polity. In other words, I am asking whether a church is sinning if it has only one pastor.
In answering this question, the first line of evidence that is usually considered is the uniform pattern of the New Testament. Among the apostolic churches, plural eldership was widely, and perhaps universally, practiced. Paul and Barnabas ordained elders in every church (Acts 14:23). They consulted with the elders of the church at Jerusalem (Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22). Later, Paul called for the elders of the church at Ephesus (Acts 20:17).
What about Paul telling Titus to ordain elders in every city (Titus 1:5)? Could a city have held more than one church? The New Testament contains no reference to any city having more than one church (though the church in a city might have met in several places). Certain church fathers insisted that each city could have only one church. We lack adequate grounds to insist that some cities had more than one church. On the other hand, we cannot completely exclude the possibility, even if it seems unlikely. Probably the safest approach is to consider Titus 1:5 an obscure text. It is not the best text to rely upon for proof in either direction.
At any rate, the New Testament offers plenty of evidence that many of the apostolic churches had multiple elders. In fact, plural eldership is (nearly?) a uniform pattern in the New Testament. Historical examples, however, must not be construed as requirements. Even universal practices (such as reading the New Testament in Greek) do not constitute binding mandates upon all subsequent churches. The most that we can infer from the practice of the New Testament churches is that it is not wrong for a church to have more than one elder.
What about didactic passages that make reference to honoring elders (1 Tim. 5:17), esteeming those who are over you in the Lord (1 Thess. 5:12-13), or obeying those who lead you (Heb. 13:17)? While not all of these passages use the labels pastor, bishop, or elder, these are almost certainly the individuals who are in view. And yet these passages do not aim to answer questions about eldership or church offices per se. They are about the obligations that Christians bear toward church leaders. Whatever is said in these passages about the number or function of the elder is tangential or incidental to the point of the text.
So far, all of the evidence that we have seen is historical (rather than didactic), obscure (rather than clear), or incidental (rather than deliberate). This leads to a question: Does the New Testament contain any clear, didactic text that aims to address issues of church order and, specifically, the office of bishop? The answer to this question is yes, and the text is 1 Timothy 3.
According to 1 Timothy 3:15, Paul is writing so that Timothy will know how to order congregations. The issue with which Paul is most concerned is church office. He addresses two offices: the office of bishop (1-7) and the office of deacon (8-13). In both cases, when he refers to the office, he speaks of it in the singular (3:1, 10, 13). When he refers to the individuals who occupy the office, however, he sets up a contrast between deacons (in the plural, 3:8, 12 with their accompanying pronouns), and a bishop (singular, 3:2 plus the following pronouns).
Not infrequently, the suggestion is made that Paul’s contrast may be purely stylistic. That may be the case. It is also irrelevant to the question we are trying to answer. Our question is how many elders (pastor, bishops) the New Testament requires in order for a congregation to be fully ordered. In the key text on the subject—the didactic passage that aims to speak to questions of church office and order—Paul requires a bishop, not multiple bishops.
How many elders does the New Testament require a congregation to have? Evidently, one. A church with a single pastor-bishop-elder is (in this respect) fully ordered and conformed to the biblical requirement. It may choose to have multiple elders for a variety of reasons, but it is not sinning if it chooses to call only one pastor.
But does not Titus 1:5 require multiple elders? We have already seen the obscurity that is created in this verse by Paul’s use of city rather than church. Another layer of obscurity is introduced by the uncertainty over whether Paul is writing a prescription for all churches or simply an ad hoc description of what he wanted in the churches of Crete. Given these obscurities, we should be hesitant to use Titus 1:5 as a proof text in either direction. If these obscurities could be cleared up then this verse might tilt the balance toward affirming the necessity of plural eldership.
In fairness I should point out (though it ought to be obvious) that I have not reviewed every bit of evidence in this short essay. Other passages could be adduced. I believe that none of the remaining evidence is of a different kind than the evidence that has been examined. It will fit into the categories that have already been established.
Perhaps I should also reiterate that my answer does not preclude the possibility of a congregation having multiple elders. If it chooses to do so, then other questions must be answered, such as whether elders function collegially, hierarchically, or in some other way. Whatever one’s view of singular eldership, one must also discover how elders are supposed to rule or lead (e.g., 1 Timothy 5:17). These questions remain unaddressed by my discussion.
I began with the question of how many elders the New Testament requires for a congregation to be fully ordered. My conclusion is that the New Testament requires only a single elder per church. I do not claim that this answer is certain. In my judgment it is probable, given the methodological commitments that I carry to the evidence and my understanding of the individual texts. If those commitments were successfully challenged, or it could be shown that some of the evidence ought to be weighted differently, then the answer might change.
Crucifying from La Corona
John Donne (1572-1631)
By miracles exceeding power of man,
He faith in some, envy in some begat,
For, what weak spirits admire, ambitious hate:
In both affections many to Him ran.
But O! the worst are most, they will and can,
Alas! and do, unto th’ Immaculate,
Whose creature Fate is, now prescribe a fate,
Measuring self-life’s infinity to span,
Nay to an inch. Lo! where condemned He
Bears His own cross, with pain, yet by and by
When it bears him, He must bear more and die.
Now Thou art lifted up, draw me to Thee,
And at Thy death giving such liberal dole,
Moist with one drop of Thy blood my dry soul.
Kevin T. Bauder Bio
This essay is by Dr. Kevin T. Bauder, who serves as Research Professor of Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). Not every professor, student, or alumnus of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
- 1 view
One area that almost no one mentions is the repeated NT teaching that elders should be financially supported by the church. It seems to me that this is to be the norm, a requirement. Obviously a church’s financial ability will limit the amount of support available for each elder. If “full time” rather than “part time” is the goal, a church will work towards supporting one elder full time, rather than two or more partially. The idea of elders who are unsupported financially does not seem to me to have any NT foundation. That means that the question may boil down to financial considerations. How many elders should a church have? As many as they can afford.
Cordially,
Greg Barkman
G. N. Barkman
[G. N. Barkman] Well said. More can be said, as Dr. Bauder himself expresses, but this is a concise summary of the question regarding the number of elders in each church.Hmmm, idk. When Paul writes, “Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine” (1 Tim. 5:17) he seems to be implying some elders should be compensated, in distinction from other elders.
One area that almost no one mentions is the repeated NT teaching that elders should be financially supported by the church. It seems to me that this is to be the norm, a requirement. Obviously a church’s financial ability will limit the amount of support available for each elder. If “full time” rather than “part time” is the goal, a church will work towards supporting one elder full time, rather than two or more partially. The idea of elders who are unsupported financially does not seem to me to have any NT foundation. That means that the question may boil down to financial considerations. How many elders should a church have? As many as they can afford.
Cordially,
Greg Barkman
Isn’t the distinction in this verse in “amount” rather than “some and not others”? I mean, every elder received some honor (whatever that might be), some just received more than others, right?
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
[Kevin] Probably the safest approach is to consider Titus 1:5 an obscure text. It is not the best text to rely upon for proof in either direction.Kevin, thanks for the article, but let’s give a pause before calling Titus 1:5 obscure based on the phrase, “in every city.” If significant disagreement on a text means it should be placed on the back burner when formulating doctrine, then Titus 1:5 shouldn’t be placed there. It really has never been a point of dispute or any significant contention for 2,000 years now. IOW, it isn’t considered obscure.
Besides, you well know that ancient disagreement on a text doesn’t in itself relegate it to “back burner” status in establishing biblical doctrine. So let’s play Titus 1:5 as it lies :bigsmile: , and ask an opposing question of the text: “Did Paul want a single pastor appointed for any church on Crete?” Well, the verse simply says “appoint elders in every city.” Some say Paul wanted multiple churches in every city on Crete with one elder each. But that reads too much into the text, for then it would have to say something like, “appoint an elder in every church.” Interestingly, there is precedent that supports this. One ancient theologian (Theophylact) changed the Greek text of Titus 1:5 so it read “appoint an elder in every city.” That helped him and others because of his prior commitment to episcopalianism. He actually changed the text to support episcopalianism! In comparison, calling Titus 1:5 obscure is quite benign :bigsmile: .
But whatever else might be said about Titus 1:5, we haven’t really “heard it” until we personally feel how radical it really is, and how much it cost the believers on Crete. By it every church on Crete that had any form of governance other than eldership was forced into reform by apostolic mandate. How this was done and why, and its implications for believers today, is explained in my book, The Titus Mandate. What this means is that any and every “single eldership” church on Crete, (and every other connectional, congregational, and episcopalian church), was forcefully changed to eldership. Not one church on Crete was allowed to retain its own preferred polity. And let’s even add a little more intrigue to the matter. Most likely, some of those existing churches were started by Cretans saved at Pentecost (Acts 2:11). Therefore, being saved under an apostle’s ministry on the Church’s birthday didn’t put one’s preferred polity above apostolic doctrine. The Titus Mandate must have brought a great deal of angst to many on Crete (both regenerate and unregenerate), and no doubt, a number of church leaders on Crete did reject Titus 1:5 and it’s Author (Titus 1:10-16, Titus 2:8, Titus 2:15, Titus 3:10-11).
Wouldn’t it be nice today to have one church in every city led by all the most Christ-like of men in that city? I’m sure you would thrive in leadership amongst such brothers. That’s the way it was when the church was organized under the apostles. Have you considered 1 Pet. 5:1-5 and James 5:14? Both texts reveal that every church these apostles wrote to possessed a plurality of elders – and they sure wrote to a lot of churches (1 Pet. 1:1, James 1:1). Both books contain commands for all believers that are impossible to obey when a church doesn’t have a plurality of elders (1 Pet. 5:5, James 5:14). How might single-eldership explain the believer’s obedience to those commands – as contextual related to whatever form of polity a church employs? :|
[Kevin] According to 1 Timothy 3:15, Paul is writing so that Timothy will know how to order congregations.
I’m not sure everyone will agree with you that “I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God” (NKJV) means “I write so that you may know how you ought to order congregations”.
Timothy’s ministry in Ephesus wasn’t extended to other “congregations” (i.e., plural churches, as you write), but to one church – Ephesus (1 Tim. 1:3). And importantly, this church already had a plurality of men serving as an elder board before Timothy got there, as Acts 20:17ff shows (though I doubt all were qualified). This means 1 Tim. 3:1-7 must be read in light of a single church with a ruling plurality of elders. Timothy is only to appoint men into the existing eldership who meet the apostolic qualifications. (Plural eldership in Ephesus is also seen in 1 Timothy 5:17ff.)
Finally, if I can make an observation on the larger issue of “applying the method.” If I’m correct about 1 Tim. 3:1-7 then the whole matter of “single elder” churches is one not entertained in Scripture and in this regard it is like trying to justify the polity of the RCC from Scripture. Which means that the question, “Can we find justification for single pastor churches” is not the historic reality of the NT even while it is part our present reality. From a methodology that seeks to ‘think God’s thoughts after Him,” what this means is that we should go to the Bible and ask “what is the polity taught in the NT?” To me, this approach seems best suited to benefit from your wonderfully stated “three methodological principles.”
[Chip Van Emmerik] Ted,I’m not familiar with that interpretation there. “Amount” is certainly in view, but only for those elders who rule well - not for all elders. Remember the context - Ephesus already has a plurality of elders before Timothy arrives, and aguably, after he leaves. If the verse is taken to mean simply “amount” then this text means that all the elders should be paid - some single and some double. But clearly that goes beyond the text, where double honor appears to be equivalent of “generously” - 1 Tim. 5:18.
Isn’t the distinction in this verse in “amount” rather than “some and not others”? I mean, every elder received some honor (whatever that might be), some just received more than others, right?
[Dr. Bauder] What about Paul telling Titus to ordain elders in every city? (Titus 1:5) Could a city have held more than one church?Dr. Bauder, when you ask it this way, it sounds like we need to doubt plurality in this passage.
But I think your question should be altered. You should ask, “Could it be that ALL the cities held more than one church?” Because if even one city was a one-church city, then Paul’s command is for plurality of elders in that church.
Even today, most of the cities in crete are smaller than Mankato. I would think that the population in Paul’s day was very much less. It seems very unlikely that they would have encouraged multiple churches in every single city.
I don’t think that’s the force of the verse. If an elder doesn’t rule well, there are bigger issues than the question of whether he gets paid.
The clear implication is that all elders are expected to be in the “rule well” category, and thus they are to be paid well. This is especially true of those who labour extensively in the Word and teaching.
I see no Biblical basis for unpaid elders, other than inability to pay, an elder’s willingness to serve unpaid (as per Paul’s example in I Cor. 9), or both.
***
At the last general election, the British people “elected MPs in every constituency.” Of course, they only elected one MP per constituency. But just google “MPs in every constituency” and you’ll find enough links to know that it’s not uncommon usage — even the official parliament website uses it. The plural can be used with “every” without necessarily indicating any more than one MP in every constituency — or more than one elder in each church or city.
Therefore, the “elders in every church” or “elders in every city” could just be using the plural with elders to reflect multiple churches, or multiple cities. The most natural reading would be that it indicates more than one elder in each location, but the wording doesn’t necessarily require that interpretation.
Thus, these passages, to my way of thinking, would fall into the “obscure” category. How much weight you would apply to them would depend, in part, on how likely you think it is that the plural was used in this way. I suppose if you can prove that the plural was never used this way in Koine Greek, or that it was commonly used in this way, it would impact your view of these passages. Perhaps someone has studied that aspect of it.
Grace and peace,
Greg
G. N. Barkman
[G. N. Barkman] I trow not.HUH??!
Keep in mind this is a family friendly blog. ;-)
[G. N. Barkman] the question really does boil down to this: How many elders can you support? That helps cut through the fog of the “how many elders” debate, and puts it in very practicle terms.Then why isn’t a church’s ability to support an elder one of the elder qualifications? It’s noticeably absent in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:6-9. Further, given your support requirement, a 1st C slave couldn’t have been an elder, even if he met all the elder qualifications. This too is unprecedented in the NT.
Why didn’t Paul just command the church in Ephesus to support all the elders instead of expecting pay for just those who rule well in preaching and teaching? They had a plurality.
1 Cor. 9:14 seems to provide the answer - those who make their living from the gospel should be supported from the gospel. Not all elders need make their living from the gospel. You think Aquila did?
The reason this is not listed as a requirement for elders in I Timothy 3 and Titus 1 is because it is not a requirement for elders. It is a requirement for churches.
As far as a 1st century slave is concerned, do we have any evidence that a slave, not emancipated, served as an elder? If not emanciapted, but owned by a Christian, he might well be freed by his master to serve. If so, why would this bar him from being paid by the church? I understand that 1st century slaves often did earn wages, even from their masters. But bringing up hypotheticals is hardly a way to deal with texts of Scripture.
Warm regards,
Greg
G. N. Barkman
[G. N. Barkman] Ted,OK, forget the slave hypothetical. That dogs not hunting.
The reason this is not listed as a requirement for elders in I Timothy 3 and Titus 1 is because it is not a requirement for elders. It is a requirement for churches.
As far as a 1st century slave is concerned, do we have any evidence that a slave, not emancipated, served as an elder? If not emanciapted, but owned by a Christian, he might well be freed by his master to serve. If so, why would this bar him from being paid by the church? I understand that 1st century slaves often did earn wages, even from their masters. But bringing up hypotheticals is hardly a way to deal with texts of Scripture.
Warm regards,
Greg
Payment of elders is not a requirement for churches. Many churches in the world have not the resources, and 1 Tim. 5:17 is written not to the church but to Timothy (i.e., leadership). Elders oversee the expenditures of churches, not the congregation (in the NT). Not all of Ephesus’ elders were paid, nor do I think they were all qualified.
Titus 1:5 may have be viewing multiple congregations per city.
It may be speaking collectively (e.g., analogously to “electing MPs in every district—nice illustration! Or as in the sentence, “He went East to find wives for every miner,” which certainly does NOT imply polygamy).
Even if Paul is directing Titus to ensure that multiple elders are appointed in every church, however, (and I tend to think that is the case), it remains a simple historical directive for a particular occasion. It does not constitute a rule to be applied in every situation, but is a local instruction for Titus in Crete.
For all three of these considerations, Titus 1:5 is not a good text to settle the question.
To get down to brass tacks on this aspect of polity, we need to go to 1 Timothy 3, which is definitely NOT limited to the local situation at Ephesus. How do we know? Paul tells us. He states that he is writing in order that Timothy “might know how it is necessary to conduct a house of God, which is a church of the living God, a pillar and ground of the truth.” Even the prominence of a particularly influential church like Ephesus is not sufficient to exhaust this description.
In 1 Timothy 3, Paul is addressing, not the local situation at Ephesus merely, but the local church as an institution. He is laying down order that should be applicable to any church at any time in any place.
If the question is, “How many bishops does 1 Timothy 3 require for a church to be fully ordered?”, then the answer is “One.” Anything beyond that is a matter of prudence and practical necessity, not a question of biblical requirement.
Did churches in the New Testament have plural elders? Yes. Did all of them? We don’t know, but maybe they did. If they did, does that imply that churches today must have plural elders? No. An “is” does not constitute an “ought.” Reasons unique to the First Century social milieu may have made plural elders desirable, and where those same conditions hold, they may still be desirable. But “desirable” is not the same thing as “required.”
Keep your eye on the ball. Answer the question that is being asked. The question is not whether it is useful for some churches to have plural elders. The question is not whether the apostolic churches actually had plural elders. The question is not whether we think it is a good idea to have plural elders. The question is not how plural elders are related to one another. The question is not how elders are to lead congregations (i.e., what it means for an elder to “rule”). The question is not whether all elders are to be paid, or whether they are to be paid equally. The question is, “How many elders does the New Testament require for church to be rightly ordered?”
Any answer that goes beyond “one” goes beyond that actual teaching of the text of the New Testament.
G. N. Barkman
NOW, to what are the Elder shepherd overseers plural to? They were plural to the area assemblies or cities! Thus Elders were chosen by the assemblies who gathered in various places in the area. Each area of assemblies had Elders. How many? As many as were genuinely qualified! And who were the qualified? Those who met the general requirements of 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. They evidently were to be of such knowledge and wisdom as to be able to sit with the Apostles to decide a major historical and doctrinal issue as was done at Acts 15.
Now let the time machine transport us to the 21st century where 2000 years have gone by and we find ourselves on a well populated planet with thousands of cities. Where are those area assemblies? In each area or city the saints are divided and separated into the Methodists, Baptists, Assembly of God, Community churches, dancing churches, rock band churches, and those Presbyterians and Bible churches. So do they have Elders? Some have qualified Elders and evidently some do not. Some have nothing but unqualified hucksters and their minion followers all called Elders. Those assemblies with qualified Elders are few but still around. Who are these qualified Elders? They are at least the ones who have gone through the contemporary ordination process. The ordination committee of peers comes, questions, and recommends to the assembly. So perhaps in each area there are multiple qualified Elders. Some assemblies also have multiple Elders within themselves by label. Most are usually not that qualified. Few are apt (able) to teach. Some teach well. Others are just good men capable of ministry (Deaconing) but not true Elders.
The Elders of the NT assemblies were plural to that which simply does not exist today. They were serving area assemblies all bound together in unity of one Lord, one faith, and one Baptism.
It is nice to try and pull together scripture that gives evidence of more than one elder chosen at a given area and period of time. But we must ask to what they are plural? Do we indeed have such plurality today that can be compared to the assemblies of NT? If you know of any please let me know. Meanwhile I will endorse having at least one Elder who has been chosen and set apart by an ordination process. In some churches there may be more than one qualified. Let them also go through a genuine ordination process. Let them have a high level of qualifications. Well, prepared, well mentored, and well tested. SOME CALL THEM PASTORS.
The Baptists are not necessarily wrong when they have one Elder (Pastor) and the Presbyterians and others are not necessarily right when they have an alleged plurality of Elders (by label).
What is wrong is the present movement to take assemblies of saints and make them into religious institutions with but saint attenders such as at the theater. In this scenario the self appointed plural Elders give the assembly participation at the will of the alleged Elders. There is then no longer true assembly. In a biblical assembly, it is the whole assembly that is the pillar and ground of the truth. The Elders must be selected by an assembly of saints who stand upon the authority given them as a group at 1Timothy 3 and Titus 1 along with 1Timothy 3:15.
Discussion