Here is the audio of this post
In the last study we saw that the clear and unavoidable teaching of Scripture is that elders are plural.
However, even where there is a plurality of elders, more often than not, at least in my own experience, there is a lack of conformity with the second thing that is clear from the biblical teaching, and that is that elders are all equal.
In many church traditions – I am tempted to say most – there is a ‘status’ difference between what we might call vocational and bi-vocational elders. In other words, between those who are ‘full-time’ in their ministry and those who are ’lay’ elders, those who have another job outside of the local church. But there is simply no evidence of that distinction in the Bible.
Previously I have said that church leadership models that don’t explicitly mirror biblical examples may not actually be wrong, as such, but they have no basis in Scripture. I would go further in this case and say that an eldership where there is a difference in authority and status between the elders is not only non-biblical but that it is unbiblical.
Samuel Waldron is exactly correct when he says, “There is, therefore, no terminological or official distinction made between the pastor or the bishop and the rest of the elders. Indeed, there is no terminological or official distinction of any kind to be found in the New Testament in which one of the elders is given a title or said to possess an office that the others do not. The straightforward, and one would think obvious, implication of this patent, biblical fact is that all hold the same office and have equal authority.”1
Words and terminology are important and carry weight and significance, so when we talk about a leadership comprising of one or more pastors serving alongside elders; or when we refer to a Teaching Elder, or a Senior Pastor etc etc, we are, at the very least, in danger of undermining what is a clear biblical position, namely that elders are equal.
This equality can be demonstrated in a number of ways from Scripture. First, all elders have to be “able to teach” (1 Timothy 3:2), and “able to give instruction in sound doctrine” (Titus 1:9). So a non-teaching elder is, biblically speaking, a contradiction in terms.
Secondly, as we have seen, the only biblical terms – elder, overseer, pastor – are completely interchangeable and all apply to the same people, without distinction. Each can be referred to as any of the above.
The work of oversight, bearing ultimate responsibility for the work of the church, is not given to a small group within the leadership team but is given to all the elders / overseers / pastors as Paul makes clear, as we have seen, to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20.
Indeed, in practical terms, if there is a lack of genuine equality among the elders in a local church, then there is no real plurality either, since, as is very often the case, the, usually one, ‘full-time’ elder, carries more authority than the others and true plurality is lost.
As Scottish theologian John Murray writes, “The principle of parity is co-ordinate with that of plurality. Strictly speaking there can be no plurality if there is not parity. For if one is in the least degree above the others, then in respect to that hegonomy [i.e. superior authority], there is no longer plurality….There is not the slightest evidence in the New Testament that among the elders there was any hierarchy; the elders exercise government in unison, and on a parity with one another.”2
Equality does not exclude diversity
Diversity of roles
The fact that all of the elders are equal in status and authority does not rule out one of them becoming the leader of the leaders, the elder of the elders. Indeed, such is human nature that if not formally recognized and acknowledged as such, one will inevitably emerge from within the group. However, the problem is that if he emerges rather than being acknowledged he may not be the most suitable or the wisest. It is better for the leaders to choose or recognize a leader from among themselves than to simply allow one to emerge.
Understandably, but not necessarily, this leader among the leaders is more often than not the vocational, full-time elder. As the one – perhaps the only one – who spends his whole life in the context of pastoral ministry, not only does he have a greater undivided focus on the life of the fellowship, but he has likely received theological, biblical and pastoral training and is therefore best equipped to do so. But he is only and always, to use the common term, primus inter pares, first among equals.
“Even if the leaders try to avoid calling one of their number the team leader, someone will inevitably come to the fore, or will be regarded by the church fellowship as the leader among the leaders”. 3
In the early church, it is clear that some of the Apostles and church leaders were more prominent than others and recognized as being in a leading role though not in status or authority. See for example Acts 15:22; Galatians 2:9. James would appear to have been, in this sense, the leader of the Jerusalem church leaders. Paul, refers to the Judaisers who were troubling the church in Antioch as having come “from James” (Galatians 2:12). Luke, in Acts 15, says that these men “came down from Judea” (15:1) and that, in response, the church leaders in Antioch delegated “Paul and Barnabas and some of the others…to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders about this question.” (15:2)
In the ensuing Council of Jerusalem, James is the one who proposes a way forward following the debate, but he didn’t make the decision. What he proposed was agreed on by the apostles, the elders and indeed “the whole church” (Acts 15:22), because they had, “come to one accord” (15:25). So, it would seem that Paul uses “from James” as shorthand for indicating the church leadership in Jerusalem, and there is nothing whatsoever in the biblical text to indicate that James was superior to, or over and above, his fellow leaders.
“…there is not the slightest evidence that James the Lord’s brother held any position different in rank or order from the other presbyters of the Church at Jerusalem with whom he acted.” 4
Leaders “need to recognize one of their number as leader. This is an inbuilt principle of life, and we should not despise it. Husband and wife are equal, but leadership naturally rests with the husband…In some situations, there may be one elder or spiritual leader who is actually called “the pastor”, who will be expected to lead his fellow leaders; and in others there will be a team ministry. But in every team there has to be a leader.” 5
John Owen believed in “the necessity of precedence for the observation of order”.6
“Senior pastors do not exercise headship over an eldership team, nor do they possess the right to elevate themselves. They should neither act independently nor create a subtle culture where hyper-deference to their wishes is the norm. The senior pastor is called to build a team, not a personal ministry. His effectiveness should be measured by the maturity of his plurality, not his social media following.”7
“Every council or conference must have a chairman or president of some kind, whether appointed at each meeting, or for a longer term, or for life.”8
“…no elders should claim an office or authority not possessed by all.”9
What are the implications of this clear scriptural evidence? It is interesting how few labels are given to church leaders in the New Testament compared with the plethora of those used in different church traditions and groupings today. As churches grow, under the Lord’s prospering, appropriate structures need to be adapted and put in place, but words and terms are important and carry meaning, so we should do everything we can to demonstrate and make clear that we are seeking to follow biblical principles and practice.
For example, calling someone in a plurality of elders, the ‘teaching elder’ strongly suggests that he does something different from the other elders, and perhaps has a different status, when, as we have seen, a teaching elder is actually a form of tautology. Equally, to describe one elder among others the ’senior elder’ also conveys a distinction in authority among the elders.
One of my great regrets as I look back on many years of pastoral ministry is that I didn’t follow the advice I now give having come to a much greater understanding of the biblical teaching on these matters.
In my first of three pastorates I was the only fulltime elder, assisted by various Deacons, though on my last Sunday in that church I had the joy and privilege of ordaining, if I remember correctly, three men to the role of elder. In my third church, I was the sole elder/pastor for the first year and then was joined by others over the subsequent 8 years. However, I was always known as Pastor and they were known as Elders. That is a mistake and one I would not allow to be repeated. It seems to me to be best that when, in a local church, there is a plurality of elders they should all be referred to in the same way, either as Pastors or Elders. There may be an understanding among themselves, and even among the congregation, that one leads the others, but it should not be done in such a way as to suggest a distinction in status, position or authority.
Diversity of gifts
We noted previously, when we considered the plurality of elders, that one of the reasons why plurality is necessary is that no single individual, no matter how gifted by God, will have all the skills and wisdom and knowledge to address and manage every situation that will present itself in the life of a church.
In both Romans 12:3-8 and 1 Corinthians 12:4-5, Paul affirms the diversity of gifts God has given to individual members of the church and that, of course, also applies to the elders; each “having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us” because “there are varieties of gifts”. And that diversity is seen in both the gifts themselves but also in the degree of giftedness. So, since all the requirements for eldership apply to all the elders, all must be “able to teach” (1 Timothy 3:2) and, because of the nature of their work, they must all have gifts of leadership and people skills among others. But that does not mean they will all be equally gifted in regard to those gifts they all have, not to mention individual gifts they bring to the team of leaders.
“A difference of gifts and training is recognized among those who belonged to the one order of eldership….Neither in the synagogue nor the Church were all elders alike “apt to teach” 10
“One has an enormous heart of care and compassion for people, and though they all have a pastor’s heart, this man understands people and human needs in a unique way. Another has a sharply strategic mind. Another is a detail person, while someone else is a Bible giant. Of course, they all know their Bibles well, but this person brings greater spiritual perspective to bear than the others. Part of the dynamic of team leadership is learning to benefit from the varying perspectives of different people…Those who are gifted public speakers are called on to speak from the front of the church, while elders with greater people skills are drawn into more complicated pastoral situations.”11
It is a mistake, in a supposed attempt to preserve the parity and equality of the elders, to ignore or reject the diversity in the giftedness of the elders. The eldership itself, and the congregation as a whole, will be the poorer for such a strategy. As John Owen wrote, “The absolute equality of many pastors in one and the same church is liable unto many inconveniences if not diligently watched against.”12
We cannot leave this subject without addressing a specific scriptural text that has been a matter of considerable disagreement and debate. 1 Timothy 5:17 reads, “Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honour, especially those who labour in preaching and teaching.”
The underlying issue that has been hotly debated over many centuries is whether Paul is referring to two groups within the eldership or one; in other words does this verse, at the very least, undermine the principle of parity?
This is what John Calvin had to say on the matter: “…Saint Paul sets down two kinds of governors of the Church…the elders that travail in the word of God. And then he sets down others…So then it follows that there were Elders who were not preachers, who had no office to teach, nor to preach the word of God…They had an eye to men’s behaviour, to warn those who did wrong, and not to tolerate public offenses, to the end that they might have authority, as men appointed in the behalf of the whole church….Yet we must mark moreover, when Saint Paul speaks of Elders, that he means not all those who have the title, but those who govern well, and do their duty.”13 In other words, there were two types of elders.
Iain Murray 14 tells us that this one text and this one issue occupied the delegates over a number of weeks at the Westminster Assembly meeting in London in 1643. Murray also tells us that Samuel Rutherford “admitted that there were over a dozen possible interpretations” of that verse.15, so it doesn’t surprise me that having consulted numerous commentators on their understanding of 1 Timothy 5:17, scarcely two agree with each other.
Now, as we approach this verse, we need to limit ourselves to the issue in hand, namely, does this verse teach two different groups of elders – those who rule and those who preach and teach? We are not, at this point, considering the issue of “double honour”.
Let me give you a few quotes from the commentators:
William Hendriksen: “…the excellently ruling elders” (thus literally) are honored by the congregation…..An elder deserves to be honoured; particularly if his labor excels in quality. This honor is due especially to those who labor in preaching and teaching…..A man who spends all his time and effort in kingdom-work (a “minister”) certainly deserves “a good salary”. 16
Philip Towner: “…the main distinction is probably between those elders who had faithfully discharged their duties (whether leading well and preaching/teaching, or in the case of some lacking the latter gifts, just exercising leadership), and those who had failed….all faithful elders have “earned their pay,” but, especially in the context of a battle with heresy, those equipped to preach and teach, who have persisted in teaching the apostolic faith, receive even more recognition.17
Strauch: “Although all elders must be “able to teach” and do teach (1 Tim. 3:2), some elders “labor in preaching and teaching” and are “worthy of double honor.” What is the difference between these two types of elders? Part of the answer is found in the phrase “those who labor”. The reason the elders who rule well “labor” in preaching and teaching is because they are Spirit-gifted and Spirit-driven to work hard at long hours of concentrated study, reading, sermon preparation, and demanding teaching situations….Not all elders can or want to labor arduously at study and teaching.”18
“The eldership is the church’s governing body (1 Tim. 3:1; 4:14). Together all elders govern, shepherd, oversee, and lead the local church. All elders are worthy of respect and honor….Within the council of elders, some distinguish themselves for their exceptional leadership / management ability. Thus, they are to be considered worthy of double honor, respect, and material compensation….Within the council of elders, some distinguish themselves for their labor in preaching and teaching. They especially are considered worthy of double honor, respect, and material compensation….It is noteworthy that the elders who lead well are treated like the elders who labor in preaching and teaching. Moreover, they too are considered worthy of double honor, that is, financially aided by the church.”19
To paraphrase Murray, the position put forward by the Scots commissioners at the Westminster Assembly was that 1 Timothy 5:17 distinguished ‘preaching elders’ from ‘ruling elders’. He goes on to elaborate, “For clarity I shall call this the ‘presbyter / elder theory’. According to this understanding, the office of the New Testament presbyteros has two parts to it: all presbyters are to oversee (rule) the church but, in addition, some have the added calling of being preachers of the Word…and to indicate the difference between them the Scottish tradition gave the title ‘elder’ to those who ‘rule’, while ‘minister’ designated those who preached as well as ruled.”20
Murray testifies how his own ‘traditional’ position on this was deeply challenged by a book he read called The Theory of Ruling Eldership, by Peter Colin Campbell. Summarising Campbell’s work, Murray says, “in no instance, apart from the alleged reference in 1 Timothy 5:17, is there any indication of there being two sorts of presbyters – one restricted to ‘ruling’ and the other with the additional calling to preach. On the contrary, all the other Pauline references to the work of elders join teaching with ruling….If the words of 1 Timothy 5:17 distinguish between two groups of presbyters, then it is the only text to do so; and, this being so, it follows that the meaning attributed to it by the presbyter / elder theory needs re-examination.” 21
In conclusion, Murray is surely correct when he says, “…the difference is not between elders who only rule and others who preach, it simply gives special commendation to those who are outstanding in their efforts in the preacher’s calling.”22
According to the afore mentioned Peter Campbell, the position held by the Scots Presbyterians was “deliberately repudiated” at the Westminster Assembly. “Instead of endorsing the theory that the office of presbyters ought to exist in two forms, they wished it to be understood that all presbyters are set apart as servants or ‘ministers’ of the word.”23
So, 1 Timothy 5:17 does not actually address the principle of the parity of elders, and it certainly does not undermine it.
- Waldron, S. (2004). A Plural-Elder Congregationalist’s Response. In S. B. Cowan, Who Runs The Church? 4 Views on Church Government (p. 175). Grand Rapids: Zondervan. p175 ↩︎
- Murray, J. (1991). The Form of Government. In I. (. Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray, vol 2: Select Lectures in Systematic Theology (p. 346). Edinburgh: Banner of Truth. p346 ↩︎
- Prime, D. a. (2004). On Being A Pastor. Chicago: Moody Publishers. pp218-219 ↩︎
- Bannerman, D. (1887). Scripture Doctrine of the Church. Edinburgh: T & T Clark. p550 ↩︎
- Prime, D. a. (2004). On Being A Pastor. Chicago: Moody Publishers. pp218-219 ↩︎
- Murray, I. H. (2006). A Scottish Christian Heritage. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth. p358 ↩︎
- Harvey, D. T. (2021). The Plurality Principle: How to Build and Maintain a Thriving Church Leaderhip Team. Wheaton: Crossway. p65 ↩︎
- Bannerman, D. (1887). Scripture Doctrine of the Church. Edinburgh: T & T Clark. p548 ↩︎
- Waldron, S. (2004). A Plural-Elder Congregationalist’s Response. In S. B. Cowan, Who Runs The Church? 4 Views on Church Government (p. 175). Grand Rapids: Zondervan. p175 ↩︎
- Bannerman, D. (1887). Scripture Doctrine of the Church. Edinburgh: T & T Clark. p546 ↩︎
- Capill, M. (2024). The Elder-Led Church. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing. p37 ↩︎
- Murray, I. H. (2006). A Scottish Christian Heritage. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth. p358 ↩︎
- Calvin, J. (1959-1961). The Gospel according to St John, 2 vols., tr. Parker, T H C. Oliver and Boyd. pp218-221 ↩︎
- Murray, I. H. (2006). A Scottish Christian Heritage. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth. p341-366 ↩︎
- Murray, I. H. (2006). A Scottish Christian Heritage. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth. p344 ↩︎
- Hendriksen, W. (1957). 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth. pp179-181 ↩︎
- Towner, P. H. (2006). The Letters to Timothy and Titus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. pp361-363 ↩︎
- Strauch, A. (2023). Biblical Eldership. Colorado: Biblical Eldership Resources. p35 ↩︎
- Strauch, A. (2023). Biblical Eldership. Colorado: Biblical Eldership Resources. pp169-170 ↩︎
- Murray, I. H. (2006). A Scottish Christian Heritage. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth. p343 ↩︎
- Murray, I. H. (2006). A Scottish Christian Heritage. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth. p343 ↩︎
- Murray, I. H. (2006). A Scottish Christian Heritage. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth. p344 ↩︎
- Murray, I. H. (2006). A Scottish Christian Heritage. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth. p346 ↩︎