Pure Church

There is reason to hope young people can be drawn back. In the 2008 Pew Forum Religious Landscape Survey, 71 percent of black adults under 30 said religion is very important in their lives, compared with 45 percent of all respondents under 30.

Pew Research Center surveys of 3,600 black adults in 2008 found only 14 percent of respondents ages 18 to 29 attended church more than once a week, half the percentage of those 50 and older. In contrast, 43 percent of younger respondents went a few times a year or fewer, compared with a quarter of the respondents 50 and older.

Third, there are cases where a local church only has one qualified teaching elder for a given period of time. That's the case with both Timothy and Titus as the ministries are being developed in Ephesus and Crete. Until the eldership is really established and trained, and in God's kindness other teaching elders are raised up, Titus stands as the sole elder who must "straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town" (Titus 1:5). That could take years; in which case, you would have one senior pastor or teaching elder doing all of the teaching. And even after elders are appointed, there would be grounds for that man to continue as the main teaching elder since he'll be training the others.

Fourth, with the churches in Revelation, the Lord addressed the "angel" or "messenger" of those churches (Rev. 2-3). We know that Ephesus had a plurality of elders in place since the time of the apostle Paul. But the address goes to a single messenger rather than to the elders as a group. Apparently one main shepherd is to communicate the message of God to the people of God.

Fifth, Paul addresses his strongest charge to "preach the word" to a single elder, Timothy (2 Tim. 4:1-2). Anticipating a context where false teachers will abound and the people will want teachers to tell them what they want to hear, Paul calls on this one man to be faithful in the midst of all of that. This is a pragmatic inference, but I think there is much to commend a primary preaching elder when it comes to warding off error and focusing the people on sound teaching.

It's interesting--and I don't know what to finally make of it--but it seems to me that most often when the NT addresses elders as a whole (Acts 20:25-31; 1 Pet. 5:1-4, for example) the main instruction is not a call for all of them to teach (again, 1 Pet. 5:17 assumes that won't be the case) but for them all to shepherd or oversee or care for the flock. This is an inference, but when I compare the direct addresses to a single elder to teach (Rev. 2-3; 2 Tim. 4) with the addresses to the elders as a group to shepherd or oversee (Acts 20; 1 Pet. 5), there does seem to be a working assumption that there is one elder with primary teaching responsibility in the congregation.


4. What do you think of Alexander Strauch's (Biblical Eldership) position on this?

Well, I'm no Alexander Strauch. He's a better scholar and writer than I would ever be. While I'm mentioning him, let me plug his book Leading with Love. An excellent meditation on 1 Cor. 13 and Christian leadership.

In brief, as I understand it, Strauch considers Jesus' relationship with the three (and Peter's leadership among them), Acts 6 and the prominence of Phillip and Stephen among the seven, and Paul's relationship to Barnabas as arguments for primus inter pares (for a free on-line booklet see here). He calls for a primus inter pares based not on official office but based upon a kind of prominence that comes from superior giftedness and dynamism when compared to the others. There are two weaknesses to this view in my opinion.

First, none of the texts in view actually say that "first among equals" status is established according to superior giftedness. It's an inference that Strauch draws in consideration of the unusual giftedness and events involving these individuals. The text is silent on this matter.

Second, if we take this functional basis for primus inter pares we're inevitably left with a debatable subjective criteria for establishing this role. We have no consistent way of determining leadership of the leaders, or "first among equals." For example, in the case of Peter, Peter arguably is not the best leader given his quick tongue and nature. John, perhaps, would be more loving and therefore a "better" subjective choice.

What I do like about Strauch's approach is that it reminds us to not pigeon-hole any one elder as "the" leader on every issue. We should pay attention to gifting and unique suitedness for particular leadership roles and tasks as the elders jointly carry out the leadership of the church. Put your best man forward for the particular issue at hand. That's wise. And it keeps the church from relying too much on one man or imposing unreasonable demands on one man. We should keep this in mind, even if we would suggest a different basis for "first among equals."

What percentage of pulpit time should be occupied by one primary preaching elder? What if several elders are gifted preachers? Is the concept of "senior pastor" biblical? If so, where do we find it? I agree that there are leaders singled out among the elders, but is this one leader? What do you think of Alexander Strauch's (Biblical Eldership) position on this?