I agree with a plurality of elders in each church. I have done extensive studies of this matter of plurality of elders for many years now. And I also agree with the concept of how this arrangement can not only make a strong church help create strong "biblical" families.
I want to briefly address the subject of New Testament “church structure” at this time. The word elder, bishop, presbyter, pastor, shepherd, overseer and teacher are all used interchangeably of the same “office” in the New Testament. In 1 Timothy 4:14 the presbytery is just the plural collection of local elders or presbyters. In Acts 20:28 shepherds (pastors) are referred to as overseers. This term translated “overseers” here is also translated bishop in 1 Timothy 3:2. These local church leaders were the ones who were primarily the teachers in the local church.
When the apostle Paul referred to the local church leadership in his salutation when he wrote to a church - it was to the “elders” or “overseers” (plural). (Philippians 1:1) Not only is that the case but we also see that whenever “pastors” were appointed in a local church by an apostle - it was ALWAYS a plurality of “pastors”. (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5 -9; Acts 20:28; 1 Timothy 5:17; 1 Peter 5:2-3) In Volume one of “The Ante-The Nicene Fathers” by Alexander Roberts we find that the pastoral function as a “one man show” did not even begin until about 100 years after Christ.
THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS: The Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325 Volume I - The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus by Alexander Roberts
Previous to that time the position of “pastor” (spiritual leader) was always a “plural” position in a local church. This was only natural for the new Jewish believers because they were used to there being a biblical “plurality” of elders or “spiritual leaders” in Israel. (Compare Exodus 3:16; 17:5; Leviticus 9:1; Numbers 11:16 & Deuteronomy 21:19-20 for example with Acts 4:5, 8, 23; 6:12 & 11:30)
Yet, in spite of these facts “Christians” still tenaciously hold on to the tradition of the “one man show” (pastor - singular) as well as to the tradition to give unbiblical meanings to the biblical terms that describe local church “pastors”. Why didn’t Paul write to “the” Pastor (singular) or why didn’t the apostles appoint “the” Pastor (singular) at churches? Because there wasn’t just ONE! They were ALWAYS plural. Think about it for a moment. Both John the Baptist and Jesus either sent workers out two by two or in even larger teams.
They NEVER sent out just ONE person by himself! (Matthew 11:2; Mark 6:7; Luke 10:1; Mark 14:13; Matthew 18:19-20; Matthew 21:1; John 8:17) The plurality of leaders mutually and equally submitting to each other provide the necessary accountability and support that is needed for spiritual leaders to function at their best. The “church” is in much of the mess that it is in today because we don’t have that mutual accountability and support for a plurality of local church “pastors” in our churches. Therefore, many so-called “spiritual leaders” are not very accountable to anyone and often get a “God complex”. This in turn leads to “man-worship” and many other grievous sins.
How did this “one man show” start anyway? According to church historians, one of the elders at the church at Rome decided that he was THE pastor (singular). For some reason he was able to get by with it. Then later he also successfully claimed authority over other churches and dubbed himself Bishop. (As if that was actually a different position than “pastor” or “elder”). Finally, this trend succeeded so well that eventually someone who held that same position later on also named himself Pope and proclaimed that this meant that he was the head of the whole church on earth. This movement eventually became known as the Roman Catholic Church.
THE PAGAN HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY
Around 325 AD the Roman Emperor Constantine professed to become a Christian and declared Christianity the “state religion”. To accommodate everyone they allowed pagan temples to become “church buildings” and put “Christian” names on their gods and on many of their pagan practices. If you trace the roots of these pagan religions and their practices you will find that they basically began with Nimrod and they spread worldwide when his people were scattered from the tower of Babel throughout the world.
These various pagan religions are basically just different forms of Satanism and Witchcraft. For more information on that subject I recommend that your read Pagan Christianity and Reimagining Church by Frank Viola. Pagan Christianity exposes the reality that much of our current church practice has little basis in the Bible and Reimagining Church takes the next step to establish what truly biblical church life looks like.
Pagan Christianity?: Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices
by Frank Viola, George Barna
Reimagining Church: Pursuing the Dream of Organic Christianity
by Frank Viola
From approximately 500 AD to 1500 we have a period in history called the “dark ages”. This was when the apostate Roman Catholic Church tried to eradicate true expressions of “Christianity” from the face of the earth. During that time at least 50 million “Christians” were killed. It was also during this period of time when the unspeakable horrors of the “Spanish Inquisition” took place.
Finally the “Protestant Reformation” occurred when a significant number of “Christians” protested the religion of Roman Catholicism being imposed on them. The King of England was convinced to declare this “protestant” version of “Christianity” the official religion of his country. England fought and won their right to have their own church that was independent of the “Roman Catholic Church”.
This became known as the “Anglican Church”. As more truth was restored to seeking “Christians” they broke away from the “Anglican Church” and were also persecuted by that church. Finally, the Pilgrims and Puritans came to America in order to be able to practice their spiritual beliefs in peace. They established a government that would allow to do that. Because they were still considered to be a “colony” of England - they eventually had to fight for their independence from England’s taxation and oppression also.
Even so - many traditions of men and even pagan practices have still ignorantly been passed down from generation to generation in this more traditional version of the “protestant” church. For instance “church buildings” are still primarily built in the same rectangular shape as the pagan temples from which they derived their origin. Not only that but church “steeples” are merely copies of the “obelisk” that represented the male sex organ that stood in front of pagan temples.
That was because sex orgies with “temple prostitutes” were a main part of these pagan religions. Now this “obelisk” has simply been moved atop the front of “Christian” “temples”. This “tradition” is nothing less than an abomination to God! Even the Old Testament forbids that the people of God have anything to do with such obelisks and what they represented. (Exodus 34:13)
GROUNDS FOR CHURCH DIVISION
Furthermore, the only thing that should be the grounds for division in the TRUE church of Jesus Christ is LOCALITY. ALL the believers in any locality ARE the collective church of Jesus Christ in that locality. (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5) But most “Christians” find every other reason that they possibly can for bringing division in the church. (1 Corinthians 1:12; & 3:4)
If a particular leader, doctrine, experience, creed, or organization, becomes a center for drawing together the believers of different places, then the center of such a church organization is something other than the WILL and WAY of God according to His WORD. (This of course is taking for granted that these believers are at least adhering to the very basic concepts of the “gospel“ of the Kingdom of God.) Whenever some sphere of human invention displaces the “foundation” of the WILL and WAY of God according to His WORD - divine approval cannot rest on that work.
Not only that, but we find that the New Testament church normally met in homes rather than specially constructed buildings. (Romans 16:5; 1 Corinthians 16:19; Colossians 4:15 and Philemon 2) Therefore, the meetings were much, more casual, intimate and promoted participation by all – not just a “superstar”. As required, the local house church leaders could also meet together with other house church leaders and in turn their representatives could meet so that all would be in contact and would be in unity. This certainly was a much more economical, efficient and effective arrangement than that which is used by most churches today. If it is feasible the whole church in a particular location could meet together as needed in a borrowed or rented facility. (1 Corinthians 14:23) Also if it was actually deemed necessary and the means were available they might chose to purchase a reasonable and practical facility – where they can meet together DAILY.
WHAT A LOCAL CHURCH IS NOT!
In contrast, most “Christians” today would believe that a “church” does not even exist if they don’t have a professional “pastor”, a traditional “church building” and a traditional “church service”. Yet, the truth is that the TRUE church would still remain WITHOUT any of these! It is quite evident in the gospels that this is how Jesus viewed the matter. Whose opinion on this subject have you adapted? Where did “Christians” got such erroneous ideas from egotistical and deceived pastors who created and perpetuate that system for their own benefit.They are therefore “guilty” of gross misrepresentation of God and His WILL and WAY as they are revealed by His WORD!
The best book that I have ever found on the basics of biblical church "structure" and church "government" is Watchman Nee's “The Normal Christian Church Life”, published by Living Stream Ministry, Anaheim, California.
The Normal Christian Church Life
by Watchman Nee