Achilles Heel of the Eldership Doctrine

[Mike R. Prevost]

OK. Here is my initial Achilles Heel post. I have had some time constratins so It's a little late.  Sorry.

 

But some background is in order. First, I believe and stand firmly behind the multiple elder church structure doctrine. On balance, I believe that this is what the scriptures teach. I say “on balance” because of the issue at hand.

 

I think it wise to try to argue both sides of an issue and see which side has the strongest argument and if there are some arguments that I cannot overcome. E.g., “Where are the chinks in my armor?” In order to “convince the gainsayers” (Tit 1:9), we need not only to explain how our assertions are plausible, but we need to also prove that they are in fact correct. To show that our assertions are merely plausible convinces only ourselves.  If possible, we need to leave the gainsayer with no ground on which to stand – no room to honestly cling to his positions. This is the angle from which I am approaching this topic.

 

I feel that the strongest argument for the single pastor model is the angels of the seven churches found in Revelation. Single pastor advocates interpret these angels as indicating the individual pastors of these seven churches. Of course, we do not believe the single pastor model, so we obviously need to deal with these arguments. You may not think that this would be a very strong argument in light of all our other evidence, but if I can hold my ground here, then I have a crow-bar that I can use to pry open most if not all of the multiple elder passages (e.g., “ordained them elders in every church” could mean one elder in each church).

 

Bro Houston has written an excellent article on the subject. If you have not read it, I suggest reading it in order to get some context for this discussion. His work does a very good job of delivering a plausible explanation of these angels. However, “I have somewhat against it”. ;)

 

So, I am going to argue from the point of view of a single pastor advocate (e.g., some single pastor trying to hold onto his exalted position).  But, at present, I do find the "angels of the churches" arguments of the other side to be stronger than the ones that I can come up with, hence this discussion. I want to be proven wrong, but not without a fight – I want the issue to be soundly resolved.  This seems to be a good place to do it.  There are some very smart folks here and the "Hot Pants" discussion shows that we can all behave ourselves while arguing vigorously.  Hopefully this will be a useful exercise.  Please remember that I'm debating here and intend no disrespect to Bro Houston or anyone else.  Given my time constraints, I will have to do this in a succession of posts.

 

[ENTERING SINGLE PASTOR ADVOCATE MODE]

 

MUAHAHAHAHA!!!! See you in the next post!

 

[EXITING SINGLE PASTOR ADVOCATE MODE]

[Michael V. Frazier]

Mike R. Prevost said:

Well, this is the difference between logic and rhetoric. You are focusing on logic, and I on rhetoric.

LOL! :-) Well, I guess I can always fall back on rhetoric being our way of expressing reasoned arguments, and reasoned arguments are formulated by sound logic.  But I know what you mean.  :-)

 

[Mike R. Prevost]

Michael V. Frazier said:

LOL! :-) Well, I guess I can always fall back on rhetoric being our way of expressing reasoned arguments, and reasoned arguments are formulated by sound logic.  But I know what you mean.  :-)

 

Yeah, yeah.  The concept of rhetoric, as I understand it, includes logic, but with an emphasis on persuasion.  It will likely take more for the red glasses to come off than simply neutralizing their argument.

 

[Michael V. Frazier]

Mike R. Prevost said:

Yeah, yeah. The concept of rhetoric, as I understand it, includes logic, but with an emphasis on persuasion. It will likely take more for the red glasses to come off than simply neutralizing their argument.

Aye! There's the real issue!  I can't even begin to tell you the difficulty I have with evolutionists along those lines.  The situation is the same, though.  What you believe to begin with is ultimately how you will "see" the evidences provided (fossils, scientific research, or in our case Scriptural texts). 

The solution is to change glasses.  We can show how philosophical thoughts are contradictory and/or arbitrary, but they have to be willing to accept those results, and then be willing to change their mind.

But, you know, that's really the essence of what "repentance" is all about.

[Mike R. Prevost]

Michael V. Frazier said:

Mike R. Prevost said:

Yeah, yeah. The concept of rhetoric, as I understand it, includes logic, but with an emphasis on persuasion. It will likely take more for the red glasses to come off than simply neutralizing their argument.

Aye! There's the real issue!  I can't even begin to tell you the difficulty I have with evolutionists along those lines.  The situation is the same, though.  What you believe to begin with is ultimately how you will "see" the evidences provided (fossils, scientific research, or in our case Scriptural texts). 

 

Yes.  Merely neutralizing their argument does not force them to change.  Even if they admit that their interpretation of "the angel" is not necessarily the only reasonable interpretation, they can still view their arguments as being internally consistent.  We have to show them how they are NOT internally consistent.  This may can be done with shifting pronouns (I need to work on that more).  The "one church per city" argument may help somehow.

 

Got to get back to work.

[Mike R. Prevost]

Or, maybe Bro Houston can just chime in and resolve the whole thing!  ;)  He's studied this stuff more than most folks.  He even debated Bernard on it right?  I still need to get a copy of those debates.

 

[Mike R. Prevost]

MICHAEL AND DELLA WINSKIE said:

I have been reading the responses with great interest- and enjoyment. I have another question. If you follow Paul and Peter in the book of Acts, you will sometimes find them going around, as an Apostle, checking on the churches in different areas. Could it possible be, given that the obvious form of church Government in Acts is Elderships, and the information I just listed about the Apostles doing their jobs, that the "Angels" of the 7 churches are the Apostles over those areas (which would include, more than likely, multiple church groups with Elders- plural- leading them) , rather than the pastors/Elders that were left in charge of single churches. This, to me, would seem to solve the singular-plural-singular pattern of each letter to a church AND keep the original Apostolic form of church Government we see in Acts.

It's something to consider.  This would imply, though, that there was some organized super-local leadership structure in place.  While we know that Paul did maintain some level of authority over the churches he established, I don't think we believe that there is any biblical support for a formal, organized authority structure above the local church, i.e., there is no hierarchy of bishops.  The only "hierarchy" that might exist is between bishops and deacons, and that is within the context of the local church.  In Acts 15, Paul and Barnabas brought an issue before the apostles in Jerusalem, but Antioch was merely asking the advice of those who walked with Jesus.  This does not mean that Jerusalem is somehow like the Vatican, or that James was somehow the Pope.

Hope that helps.

 

[Donnie Gillum]

As has been mentioned, the idea of one church per city is pretty sound, at least in Bible days.  If that is the case, we know that there was more than one overseer of the church in Ephesus because Paul called the elders of the church together in Acts 20 and clearly stated that they were appointed of the Holy Ghost to be overseers of the church (singular).  While this does not clear up who the angels are, it does show that, at least before the book of Revelation was written, there was plural elder oversight of at least one of these seven churches in Asia.

[Mike R. Prevost]

 

MICHAEL AND DELLA WINSKIE said:

I'm not condoning a vatican like system, but there does seem to be, from reading the scriptures, that the Apostles did seem to have some authority over the churches in general. After all, their decisions were considered binding, even if they were asked to mediate. Paul sent some rather stern rebukes in some of his writings that probably would not be accepted had he not had SOME authority over the ones he was rebuking. 

Just a thought.

 

Yes.  I didn't mean to imply that you believed in a Vatican like system.  And I agree that Paul did maintain authority over these congregations that he was instrumental in establishing.  I think the difference is that Paul's authority was more loose and informal.  This is getting a little off topic, but it is worth discussing (perhaps in a different thread) whether or not "Apostle" is a "ministerial gift" (ref. Eph 4:8,11 -> 1 Cor 12:8-10,28) or an "office" (ref. Luk 6:13, Rom 11:13) in the same sense of Bishop or Deacon.  I tend to think that the original apostles shared a unique place in that they walked with Jesus and had their understanding opened by the Lord.  So, I tend toward there only being two formally defined offices in the church, Bishop and Deacon, and that the others are more properly called "ministerial gifts", and that there is no formal organization above the local church, at least in the post-apostolic period.

[David Huston]

I have been following this discussion with great interest, and I really appreciate all the participation and good thoughts. My discussion with Bro. Bernard was not exactly on this topic, although it was in response to a paper I presented on "the angels" at the symposium of the Urshan Graduate School of Theology in 2004. I have this on tape and will get it transferred to digital format asap so we can post it on the Glorious Church website. In my paper (which can be found in the Apostolic Free Library at GloriousChurch.com), I suggested that the angels are just that, angels. My intention was not to prove this thesis, only to offer another reasonable view to, as Bro. Frazier says, neutralize the single pastor view. Bro. Bernard did not believe they were angels and, at least back then, believed the elders of a church in a city were the single pastors of all the local assemblies in the city. I think we all agree that this view has no biblical support.

 

I would like to once again propose the possibility that the angels were just that, angels. Is it not possible that every local assembly has an angel assigned to it, similar to the way the angels are assigned to political entities (i.e. Daniel's prince of Greece and prince of Persia). Another possibility that we have not considered is that there were messengers for each church that carried communications from John to the churches. In this case, the angels would simply be mailmen.

 

 

[Mike R. Prevost]

David Huston said:

I would like to once again propose the possibility that the angels were just that, angels. Is it not possible that every local assembly has an angel assigned to it, similar to the way the angels are assigned to political entities (i.e. Daniel's prince of Greece and prince of Persia). Another possibility that we have not considered is that there were messengers for each church that carried communications from John to the churches. In this case, the angels would simply be mailmen.

 

How do you deal with all the human qualities and human situations attributed to these angels?  (See THIS post.)

 

[Mike R. Prevost]

 

David Huston said:

Bro. Bernard did not believe they were angels and, at least back then, believed the elders of a church in a city were the single pastors of all the local assemblies in the city. I think we all agree that this view has no biblical support.

 

It has no Biblical support UNLESS you believe that the singular human "angel" referenced in the letters to the seven churches gives evidence of the single pastor model.  IF you believe that, then you can easily feel good about interpreting "ordained them elders in every church" to mean "ordained them an elder in each church", for example.  Hence, the "Achilles' Heel".

 

But, as we've pointed out, this puts them in a self-contradictory situation because they have to recognize that, in the letters to the seven churches, there was one church per city and thus one pastor per city (the angel).  So EITHER "ordained them elders in every church" means "ordained them an elder in each church", OR the angel of the church of ____ is a reference to the single pastor.  But NOT BOTH.

 

SO, this puts them in the position of having to concede EITHER (A) that there are multiple pastors per church OR (B) that "the angel" is not the pastor (which is the only scriptural evidence for their position that I am aware of).  Either way, it's check mate.  We win.  [ At least logically.  ;) ]

 

So, perhaps we CAN win without defining who the angels are.  But I personally still have trouble with saying they are actual angels because of all the human qualities/situations.  Somehow, to write to the angel = to write to the church.  Seems more likely that the angel is some sort of literary device.  We may can actually prove this given a little more work.

 

[Mike R. Prevost]

Mike R. Prevost said:

But, as we've pointed out, this puts them in a self-contradictory situation because they have to recognize that, in the letters to the seven churches, there was one church per city and thus one pastor per city (the angel).  So EITHER "ordained them elders in every church" means "ordained them an elder in each church", OR the angel of the church of ____ is a reference to the single pastor.  But NOT BOTH.

 

SO, this puts them in the position of having to concede EITHER (A) that there are multiple pastors per church OR (B) that "the angel" is not the pastor (which is the only scriptural evidence for their position that I am aware of).  Either way, it's check mate.  We win.  [ At least logically.  ;) ]

 

Let me state that slightly differently for clarity:

 

[...]

So EITHER "ordained them elders in every church" means multiple single-pastor churches per city, OR "the angel of the church of ____" is a reference to the single pastor of the single church in ____.  But NOT BOTH.  These are mutually exclusive assertions: to assert both (as they do) would be self-contradictory.  Either there is one church per city or there is not.

 

THEREFORE, this puts them in the position of having to concede EITHER that there is one multiple-pastor church per city OR that "the angel of the church of ____" is NOT a reference to the single pastor of the single church in ____ (which is the only scriptural evidence for their position that I am aware of).  Either way, it's check mate.  We win.
[...]