Understanding the Small Church - Truly Different

is rooted in Greek city state forms of governance, I use forms I am used to. In the US, there are four basic forms of local government (at least that I remember form high school civics)

1. New England Town Meeting (with or without a board of selectmen)
2. Council\Manager
3. Council\(Strong\Weak) Mayor
4. City Commission (Galveston Plan)

I look at NT church governance as being close to the Town Meeting (with a Board of Selectmen) model with the addition of a strong mayor. As I understand it, the plurality of elders model looks like the city commission model.

[Don Johnson]

There is a great temptation to be sarcastic, but I’ll try to refrain.

However, two things to note. I am reacting to dmicah’s foolish interpretation of a singular overseer as a “collective group of men”. I am not saying that there cannot be more than one person filling an office of oversight in a church. As Aaron noted, when that occurs, usually one will be chief overseer or a chief will emerge.

But the second thing to note is that Paul uses the singular consistently in 1 Tim 3.1-7. Then, I guess he just got tired of using the singular for a collective so he decided to switch to the plural consistently in vv. 8 and following. But that doesn’t mean anything, eh?

Ok, I’ll stop. You can see a little sarcasm crept in.

Don,

Aaron wrote:

Use of the singular there doesn’t teach that there should be one elder or even that there may be only one. When speaking of an office, it’s common to use the singular of the office even if it is one that is always shared. An analogy would be how we talk about the qualifications for “senator” or “congressman.” Singular terms. So the grammar there is not decisive for the plurality question.

Dave wrote:

So are you saying this verse somehow means there can’t be more than one overseer (KJV bishop) in a particular local church? Strong’s seems to indicate that the word as part of its meaning of oversight, can include multiple “presiding officers”, but maybe you are thinking that applies to more than one church. At the moment, I’m failing to see how a man who wants that job is required do it to the exclusion of all others who want that job.

Thus, I wrote:

Don, I think your response was answered by others.

These guys said the same thing. Not sure where you get off calling my interpretation foolish, but whatever floats your boat. By the way, Greek word studies don’t trump context.

You wrote a lot. Thanks for your response. Always insightful.

I have never heard any one suggest that a corporate or business model of the church resembles that of a sole proprietorship.

But in practice, this occurs quite frequently without strong shared leadership responsibilities/decision making and accountability. I still contend we’re seeing the Scriptures wrongly when “leader” is translated as “boss”. Not sure if I’m conveying that well.

equal in authority but not necessarily in designated responsibility, you seem to acknowledge that there are realms of responsibility in which accountability exists. In other words, it seems you still have people reporting to a bossman,

Not exactly what I mean. Here’s an example. An elder may oversee children’s ministries. Another may oversee student ministries. Two more share duties for the public adult teaching/preaching. When the leaders/elders meet, they share what is going on in their ministries, look for ways to improve, fix problems, speak into each other’s live, etc. In this scenario, no single guy is “at the top” having direct reports give him a rundown. They are doing it collectively.

Elders/Overseers/Pastors appear to be equal in authority in the church.

Perhaps, but I am not sure where this appearance comes from. Part of it is that we have imposed a lot of things on Scripture that aren’t there, and we should be cautious with that.

I only share the opinion of many that if the words for elder/overseer/pastor are used interchangeably, then it implies their authority within the body be the same.

Right, but does Scripture forbid a single leader in a church? Nowhere that I am aware of.

I agree with you. And I think Aaron summed this point up well. The implementation of church polity is vague. He argued perhaps intentionally vague. So in this I agree with you. No Scriptural prohibition per se. But with the admonition for Titus to appoint a plurality of overseers in each city, and the author of Hebrews’s commendation to obey a plurality of overseers, it could be reasoned that the best possible scenario is a collective group of elders/pastors.

I don’t think it is all that complex at all, so long as we understand the distinction between the Bible and practical application. So my point is that if we are going to have biblical polity and biblical eldership, we are going to have to be clear on what the Bible says (either as directive or pattern), and what the practical outworking of that is in real life churches.

I agree with your nod toward simplicity. Everything is not explicit in the Bible, causing a spectrum of assembly polity options. However, I would point to the numerous volumes, the seminary courses, pastor’s conferences, and forums like this one that debate this topic, as evidence this can be complex. Perhaps obtuse is a better descriptor. As in a piece of furniture that is not very heavy, but too bulky to move alone??

I only share the opinion of many that if the words for elder/overseer/pastor are used interchangeably, then it implies their authority within the body be the same.

Thanks for the response. I think I misunderstood you here. I agree that the three terms are used for the same office, and thus, there is no differentiation in authority between the three terms. I am not sure that all elder/pastor/overseer are necessarily equal to every other elder/pastor/overseer. I think there could be a differentiation in authority among elders (a primus inter pares). I am, generally speaking, in favor of a plurality of elders.

[dmicah]

Don, I think your response was answered by others.

These guys said the same thing. Not sure where you get off calling my interpretation foolish, but whatever floats your boat. By the way, Greek word studies don’t trump context.

dmicah, first, I don’t think that I’m offering a word study. Word studies take an individual word and trace the development of meaning and usage through time in order to get insight into their meaning in a particular context. Grammatical analysis looks at the syntax of a sentence in order to understand what the sentence is saying.

Second, I don’t think anyone has answered my point in this passage. The fact is that you are the one who asserted that a singular noun is to be taken as a collective, meaning it refers to a group of people. There are actually two nouns in the passage, one referring to the office (office of an overseer, vs. 1) and one acting as a title for the man in the office (overseer, vs. 2). Both uses are singular. The first word is singular in every usage in the NT, the second is plural twice (Act 20.28, when a whole group of church leaders was gathered to hear Paul, and Phil 1.1, when Paul is addressing the church at Philippi including the overseers and deacons.) I have stated that I don’t deny that more than one man can fill the office in a church, but you are the one who said that the singular term is a collective noun, referring to a group. It seems to me that the burden of proof lies on you to show that the overseer (singular) is collective. I have offered evidence to suggest that it is not.

The 1 Timothy passage, giving the singular throughout the qualifications for overseer and the plural throughout for the qualifications for deacons, strongly suggests that the norm in a local church (this is a pastoral epistle, after all) is for one overseer and multiple deacons. That would especially be the case in smaller churches.

In any case, all I am saying is you haven’t proved your case. The grammar seems to me to suggest you are wrong. You can bring arguments to bear to counter the grammar, I suppose, but you would have to do more than simply dismiss the argument without making any attempt at a substantive reply.

What exactly is the “doctrine of the Nicolaitanes”, which thing the Lord hates?

The Bible doesn’t tell us and doesn’t give us much insight into it. Based on the connection to eating things sacrificed to idols and commiting acts of immorality, it is probably some sort of antinomianism or libertinism. I am not sure how that has anything to do with small churches or polity.

I don’t think anyone has answered my point in this passage. The fact is that you are the one who asserted that a singular noun is to be taken as a collective, meaning it refers to a group of people.

you are the one who said that the singular term is a collective noun, referring to a group. It seems to me that the burden of proof lies on you to show that the overseer (singular) is collective. I have offered evidence to suggest that it is not.

all I am saying is you haven’t proved your case. The grammar seems to me to suggest you are wrong. You can bring arguments to bear to counter the grammar, I suppose, but you would have to do more than simply dismiss the argument without making any attempt at a substantive reply.

Don,

You mentioned sarcasm earlier, so I can assume you’ll appreciate mine.

Not sure which thread you read, but I never made a grammatical argument. The OP did not address a specific passage, nor did I derive a conclusion from a specific passage. Yet, you argue as a fact, mind you, that I wrote about a specific passage and mixed up the tense of a word. I’m confused. I actually argued that a single leader model is a faulty derivation of a business model that makes the “senior pastor” into a bossman/CEO. Something which is a far cry from the idea of being a shepherd.

Second, this concept of plural leadership in a church is 101 stuff. The context of the entire NT points to multiple leaders being involved in the church. To say I have a burden of proof in this matter, is to ask me to prove gravity exists before we start talking about mass. If you’ll note, much of the derivation of elder leadership in the early church would have been influenced from the Jewish model of elder leadership. That is, collective. Thus, the actual discussion on this thread is how biblical leadership is applied, how things are enacted in our context/culture, whether a singular pastor/elder should be solo, and whether that is optimal.

Third, if you are going to talk grammar, how can you overlook so many plural uses of elder/overseer in the NT? Acts 11, 14, 15, 20, 21; Philippians 1; Titus 1; James 5; 1 Peter 5.

dmicah

I’ll leave the subject after this post. You can have the last word if you like.

[dmicah]

Not sure which thread you read, but I never made a grammatical argument.

That’s true. I never said you did. It appears that you are not reading my posts, so I’m thinking there isn’t much point in carrying on.

[dmicah] The OP did not address a specific passage, nor did I derive a conclusion from a specific passage. Yet, you argue as a fact, mind you, that I wrote about a specific passage and mixed up the tense of a word.

I am responding to the exchange where you were asked about the office of overseer [a singular word]. You responded with “collective”, I introduced a passage to the discussion. So you are right, you didn’t draw a conclusion from a specific passage, but when a specific passage was brought to your attention, you refused (and continue to refuse) to deal with it. Not that it matters, this is just a blog discussion.

[dmicah] The context of the entire NT points to multiple leaders being involved in the church. To say I have a burden of proof in this matter, is to ask me to prove gravity exists before we start talking about mass.

I am sure you are aware that this is not a settled matter, that the NT nowhere commands multiple leaders, that many conservative Bible believers differ, and so on. You claimed that a singular office/noun means a collective. I think I’ve demonstrated that the singular in 1 Tim 3 must mean something, you continue to ignroe it.

[dmicah] Third, if you are going to talk grammar, how can you overlook so many plural uses of elder/overseer in the NT? Acts 11, 14, 15, 20, 21; Philippians 1; Titus 1; James 5; 1 Peter 5.

If you will read my last post again, you will note that I acknowledge plural uses of overseer. To add in the plural elder confuses the issue, in my opinion. I fully acknowledge that the term elder is much more often used in the plural, that means something as well. However, we aren’t talking about the term elder at this point.

In any case, you appear again to be not really dealing with the argument I’ve made.

So… I think I’ll leave the topic where it stands, unless you care to actually engage the argument I’ve advanced. I suspect that we are taking this well away from the topic of small churches, though. Partly my fault. Part of the addictive nature of blog discussion.

some out there think that Nicolaitanism is a form of hierarchy leadership brought into the church in the first century which began to lord things over the people…in other words, clergy / laity distinction.

And who are these “some”? Any names?

So, if this is true about Nicolaitanism being a hierarchy of leadership brought in, in direct disobedience to the Lord’s commandment in Matthew 20:25-28,

Matt 20 is not about the hierarchy of leadership, but about the attitude of leaders. It is not saying don’t lead. It is saying don’t lord it over people (same as 1 Peter 5). The title of “overseer” itself, or “elder,” demonstrate hierarchy. Heirarchy isn’t the problem.

What we have today resembles a business model, and that has bothered me for many years.

Not sure who “we” is, but have you considered that perhaps we don’t have a “business model,” or that businesses follow a certain model or use certain principles for a certain reason. There are good ways to organize things, and that is known by common grace. So a church is different, but not entirely different.

Would it matter whose names I list? All I did was do a “Google” search, and came up with the information. With all due respect, I imagine you could do the same.

Yes, it matters because we need to judge credibility. Something showing up on Google is no help to that in many cases. We can however look at the Bible, and see that there is a solid exegetical reason why most people seem to see Nicolaitanism as libertinism and antinomianism. We don’t need Google for that.

On the contrary, I submit that earthly based, worldly “leadership” is precisely what the Lord is speaking about here, with lording it over us being the natural, fleshly extension of it. Serving the Lord through His Holy Spirit is a great responsibility and a privilege. “Power” and “leadership”, where one man is looked to for “all the answers” is not compatible with believers being able to exercise their spiritual gifts efficiently or effectively, as I see it.

That’s not “to the contrary.” I agree with all that. But that is not about church polity, small or large.

But I see something far different than what the Lord established through the Holy Spirit after Pentecost, alive and well in most visible churches today.

How do you see anything in most visible churches today? Do you really have the breadth of knowledge to comment on most of them? Could really even comment intelligently on more than one or two?

” We” refers to visible “Christendom”…in other words, everyone who professes Christ out there who chooses to meet in buildings that resemble temples ( strange that Christian churches would resemble other buildings dedicated to false gods, like Muslim mosques and Mormon temples, but that’s a completely different subject ).

Huh? Many churches meet in buildings that resemble schools, warehouses, auditoriums, etc. Jesus pretty much answered this question in John 4 where he downplayed the “where” of worship.

How about disbanding all the churches out there that are existing under tax-exempt 501(3)c status and re-form them.

What would this solve? Being tax exempt doesn’t prevent the church from fulfilling its mandate. The government can’t hold anything over the church’s head. There isn’t one thing I would do differently, except get more outside income to make up for what we would have to pay in taxes.

If you are upset about exorbitant buildings, then fine. I happen to agree with much of that. But the answer isn’t taking away tax exemption or going back to meeting in homes (which you can’t do in many locations for reasons both practical and legal).

It’s better, IMO, to focus on doing what Jesus said to do and not worry so much about the rest of it.

[Dave Gilbert] I no longer “go to church”, Larry, so I hope you’ll forgive my candor. I left the visible church because of various problems I saw, when comparing the way they operated to God’s word. They couldn’t be reconciled, so I remain outside the camp, as it were. There just isn’t a church in my area that’s interested in growing as a body together, delving into God’s word, and most of all, obeying Him as their Lord…it gets difficult to believe there may be others farther from my area, so I just assume the wrong things.

You abandoned the visible church because they weren’t following God’s Word to your standard. Doesn’t that put you in the same position you accuse them of being in? God’s Word clearly requires you to be part of a visible body of believers, and it doesn’t give any excuses for disobedience? Instead, it always shows examples in scripture of following this command within imperfect bodies of believers.

Sorry I keep getting off track regarding the apparent mess things are in when compared to the 1st century churches, then ( well, some of them were a mess, too…weren’t they? ). I really have to accept the fact that things are different today…It seems to me that everything’s gotten so complicated, it’s nigh impossible to have genuine, Christ-centered fellowship in what I see as entertainment-driven, spectator-oriented arenas that constitute the churches that I’ve either been in, or seen from the outside or on media outlets. Perhaps I’m being unfair, but “polity” is what I feel I’ve been commenting on all along. Polity, policy and so forth, actually.

Perhaps the “apparent mess” is just that … apparent. No church is perfect, and the first-century church that you are holding up wasn’t either. Reading through the NT indicates a lot of problems, including false teachers within the first few years of the church, immorality, drunkenness, and the like. It apparently included people who abandoned the church and were not coddled but rather told to get back into church. I don’t see how someone can love Jesus without also loving his church, even with its blemishes.

I no longer “go to church”, Larry, so I hope you’ll forgive my candor. I left the visible church because of various problems I saw, when comparing the way they operated to God’s word. They couldn’t be reconciled, so I remain outside the camp, as it were. There just isn’t a church in my area that’s interested in growing as a body together, delving into God’s word, and most of all, obeying Him as their Lord…it gets difficult to believe there may be others farther from my area, so I just assume the wrong things.

Your candor is not a problem, and you didn’t sin against me so I don’t need to forgive you.

But I am still not clear on what your objections are. You think churches should pay taxes. I am not sure why, but okay. You think the church shouldn’t be entertainment oriented and I agree. You think the church shouldn’t have one guy that does it all and, again, I agree. But you left the visible church because you can’t find one that meets your fancy? First, how is that not consumerism? You are refusing to be a part of something that isn’t exactly what you think it should be, and you continue to “shop around” looking for something better.

Second, I see you are from Illinois. It’s difficult to believe that nowhere close to you is a church that is making an effort to do what Jesus said to do. It’s not like this is Pakistan, or Kyrgyzstan or something. I can’t help but wonder if you haven’t placed yourself in authority over what a church should be and you are withholding your participation until some church fits your desire. (Again, see above on consumerism.) This is not a small matter, and an internet forum is perhaps not a good place to hash it out, but your complaints here ring kind of hollow to me, both in terms of how you understand what the Bible requires, and in terms of you claiming you can’t find any church in your area. It reminds me of the old parable about the guy who thought the whole world stunk. Turns out, he had limburger cheese under his nose. Years ago, I was counseling a person who had been through three or four different jobs in a couple of year period. This person complained about each job and the people who worked in them. Some of them were people that I happened to know. I pointed out that the only thing common thing among these “problems” was this person. When everyone else is the problem, it might be helpful to consider that you are the problem.

Here at SI, as an example, you took a very strong position on Bible translations, and essentially condemned all those who disagree with you. Then you admit that you really don’t know all that much about it. Shouldn’t that raise some concern for you? When those who happen to know a lot about it disagree with you, and hardly anyone with much knowledge agrees with you, that should be a major red flag. Perhaps the same thing is true about church. Perhaps you don’t know as much as you think, or perhaps you aren’t thinking rightly about the church, and it might be helpful to take a little deeper look at why people disagree with you.

Is this conjecture? Please list for me the passages where people were in clear disobedience for not being in attendance of their churches.

There’s a number of passages and principles. You brought up Heb 10:25 which is pretty clear. You are correct that it says nothing about how they meet, or how many there are. Which means that them meeting in a building they own (which you object to) isn’t really an issue, right? And since there are no numbers, the size doesn’t matter either. What matters is whether or not they are doing what Christ said to do, and what the NT shows them doing. BTW, the 2 or 3 you cite is in Matthew 18 regarding church discipline and that clearly shows an organized assembly.

I love my brothers and sisters..all of them, blemished or not. It has nothing to do with the building

Buildings aren’t at issue. You said you no longer went to church. The church is people. They usually meet in a building of some sort, one they own, one they rent, or one they borrow. I am not sure why you are bringing up buildings here (aside from objecting that churches own buildings). That seems a straw man. A church can meet wherever it likes, or is able to meet.

I think that the current “model” of “doing church” isn’t a biblical one, and has strayed FAR from where it not only originally began, but where it’s supposed to be.

Again, I am not sure what you mean by this. I am still not sure what you object to exactly. I might object to the same thing.

t’s a refusal to keep being locked into the same repetitious, tradition-laden and religious-feeling…and most importantly, unbiblical… way of fellowshipping that constitutes most visible churches I’ve been in

I am not suggesting you should do that.

It has everything to do with being able to find ANYONE that is interested in the special privilege of getting to know God personally, and obeying Him…free of all the distractions that characterize the vast majority of visible churches, IMO.

Come here, then. We are pretty small, but we are very interested in getting to know God personally and obeying him. We don’t have a lot of distractions at allr, aside from people getting up to refill their coffee during the message, and the occasional child disturbance. But we try to take it seriously.

I rarely meet anyone that professes Christ in a genuine way who isn’t a part of the institutionalized system.

Isn’t there a reason for that? It’s what the NT pictures. In the NT, those who heard Christ give his command to make disciples went out and planted churches, complete with leaders and everything. Again, not sure what you mean by institutionalized, but if you mean organized, then the NT has it, complete with some kind of membership list, some leader and teacher development and evaluation system, offerings, age-graded teaching, plus more.

…and hardly anyone with much knowledge agrees with you ( because they’ve long ago left, or just don’t post? )

No, I wasn’t referencing anyone at SI. I am speaking much broader than that. My point is that you hold a position regarding translation that has been well refuted, and hardly anyone holds it. There’s a reason why that is true.

The translation issue, nor any other issue regarding God’s word isn’t subject to a consensus. Regardless of whether 1000 people believe a lie, it’s just possible that a single person could be telling the truth on something, wouldn’t you say?

Absolutely. ?Truth is truth. Though it’s ironic that you bring up a thousand people believing a lie. It reminds me of the old line about manuscript evidence, that a 1000 copies of an error is still an error. But I am not really even bothered that much by that. I think the issue concerning the church is far more significant. As I have said several time, I am still not sure what your objections actually are.

What you’re saying Larry is, essentially, I’m outnumbered. Does that about cover it? And because I’m outnumbered, I must, therefore, be wrong about everything ( or at least most of what ) I say.

Nope, not saying that all.

What I am essentially saying is that the NT gives us teaching on the church, and that is what must control us, not our own personal ideas or reflections about it, and that those who love Christ love his church and are a part of it. Those who are not a faithful and active part of his church have a hard time demonstrating that they love Christ. There is no reason to believe someone who says they love Christ but consistently and intentionally refuse to associate with his body.

Dave, perhaps your comments here are misrepresentative. If you are saying that you meet in a small church that doesn’t own a building, but has biblical leadership, biblical teaching, biblical practices of the ordinances of baptism and communion, and biblical church order then you probably aren’t actually disagreeing. If you, however, reject the biblical teaching on church leadership, biblical authority, the ordinances, and church order, then that is a significant issue, I think.

BTW, Dave, just as an aside, many of the people who don’t post at SI or left SI did not leave because their views weren’t tolerated, but because other views were tolerated. There were a good number of people who left because we tolerate a wide variety of views on things like translations, soteriology, separation, alcohol, music, etc.

as far as I know it it:

If God has called you to a specific geographic location and you can’t find an existing congregation to join, you start a new one. On the other hand, if you havee the opportunity to move to a location where there is a congregation you’d join, do so.