In this episode, pastors Derek Brown and Cliff McManis discuss the various reasons why some Christians oppose the idea of multiple elders in the local church.
Transcript
Derek: Welcome to the With All Wisdom podcast where we are applying biblical truth to everyday life. My name is Derek Brown and I’m here today with Cliff McManis. We are both pastors and elders at Creekside Bible Church in Cupertino, California and professors of theology in Vallejo, California at the Cornerstone Bible College and Seminary. And today we are following up on two episodes we’ve already done on a plurality of elders. We’ve been talking about why it’s important, necessary, biblical to have a plurality of elders in your local church and we are following up those two episodes. So we encourage you to listen to those. If you haven’t already, you can check those out at WithAllWisdom.org. We have lots of resources there, written resources, video resources, audio resources like this podcast, all designed and all rooted in God’s Word to help you grow in your walk with the Lord Jesus. And like I mentioned, we wanted you to go back and listen to those previous two episodes on elders and why it’s important to have a plurality of elders in your local church. And today we want to talk about why some people resist this idea. Why do some pastors, Christians, churches, why do they resist the idea of a plurality of elders serving in authority over that church, in leading that church, in serving in that capacity. And we want to address some of those issues and respond to those. And when we come back in our next episode after this one, we also want to discuss qualifications of elders. And so we have a lot we want to continue to talk about. So Cliff, I want to hand it over to you so you can take it away. What are some reasons why people resist this idea of a plurality of elders?
Cliff: Yeah, I have a few. I actually have 10, some of which overlap. But it’s important to keep in mind what we talked about in our last couple episodes. If people listen to those, if they haven’t, then go back and listen to those because listening to those would definitely, this episode would make more sense in light of those. But just basically, we were arguing from Scripture that it’s clear that an elder is the same thing as a pastor and is the same thing as a bishop or overseer. Those are interchangeable terms. The apostles, Peter and Paul and their model in church planning and establishing churches was to establish a plurality of leaders, plurality of pastors in the local church and plurality of elders in every local church. It’s clearly what Paul did, and we read the Scriptures, several passages. So I think our point of view made it clear that Scripture is crystal clear on this issue of the need or necessity of a plurality of elders, qualified elders or pastors in every local church. That’s God’s ideal and even a command modeled in Scripture. So in light of that, it’s surprising that there are churches and pastors who don’t follow this model, and many times it’s purposeful that they don’t follow it. They actually resist what we presented at the biblical model. Some pastors, churches and denominations would say we actually didn’t present the biblical model, or they would say, yeah, that’s what it looks like the Gospels and the book of Acts says in the epistles, but they still disagree with it for whatever reason. So I just wanted to share these common reasons I’ve run across. Probably, Derek, you’ve dealt with these as well in specific instances of what I call reasons for resistance. Why would a pastor or a church leader or a Christian who knows the Bible resist God’s clear model of a plurality of having elders in the church? And my first reason that’s pretty widespread is there’s a lot of church leaders, denominations, pastors who have an allegiance to their own traditional model as opposed to their allegiance to just what the Bible says. And if you just took Episcopal models, they’re called, this would be the Roman Catholic Church. That’s a huge representation because you’re talking a billion professing Roman Catholics around the world. So that’s huge. Roman Catholics, Anglican churches would be the same, Greek Orthodox. Some Lutheran churches would all follow into this what they call an Episcopal model. Bottom line of their philosophy is yes, they believe in the Bible, but they don’t believe the Bible is the only authority. It would be the Bible plus church tradition. And they’re not ashamed of that. They literally articulate that and defend that. And they actually live by it. So at least they’re consistent with what they say. It’s not just the Bible, it’s Bible plus tradition.
Sometimes I’ve heard some of these spokespersons of these different denominations, like Episcopal models. They actually accuse us, guys like me and you, or evangelicals who think like we say sola scriptura, the Bible only. They would accuse us of what they call bibliolatry, bibliolatry that we are making an idol out of the Bible because we depend only on the Bible. So they resist this model that we say is clearly in scripture because they believe we can’t just follow the Bible. We need the Bible plus tradition. And they will point to the first 500 years in particular of church tradition, really that after the apostles died in that second century, guys like Ignatius and other just early church leaders all the way up until the time of Augustine, that church tradition was authoritative, apostolic succession continued after the apostles, so God was still giving revelation or quasi-authoritative revelation in addition to the Bible. And as a result, ecclesiology and church polity kept growing and morphing even beyond what’s recorded in the New Testament. And so they come up with this compound view that you won’t find only in scripture. It’s scripture plus tradition. And so they have an allegiance to their own traditional model, to Roman Catholicism, to the Anglican way, and that is the Bible plus tradition. So we can’t just go by the Bible. So when we present, well, this is what the Bible says, they just reject it. Well, it’s not sufficient. You need more. God Providentially uses church history and church tradition to reveal other things that he wants outside of the Bible. So that’s the first one. So that would make sense why the Catholic Church would resist our sola scriptura model because they don’t believe in Bible only. Another one, and this is common among a lot of Christians who say the greatest Christian virtue is unity or harmony at all costs, even over doctrine. And a lot of times they say that or attach a negative nuance to doctrine as though doctrine is not always a good thing. Literally their phrase is, if they had a bumper sticker, it would be doctrine divides. And the greatest virtue is love. The greatest Christian virtue is unity and harmony. We elevate that above even doctrine. And for us to be so narrow-minded and to say, well, the Bible says there’s only one true model of church polity, and that’s a plurality of elders in the local church. They would say that’s too narrow. It’s not loving. It’s not inclusive enough. And you’re going to ostracize people with different views. And then you’re going to compromise the greatest virtue, which is the preservation of unity among Christians because of your doctrine. And so that’s very common even among Christians who say they love the Bible, know the Bible, even among Christians who say they believe in sola scriptura, where the Bible is sufficient. And they’ll apply that idea that doctrine divides and unity at all costs over church polity and what the Bible actually says.
Derek: What would you say? Because we certainly would affirm that unity is important. Christ desires unity for his church. There’s already a unity that the Spirit has already brought about in the church. That’s Ephesians 4. So how would you respond to that claim that this kind of holding to this particular model that we would argue is biblical? And not only that, but it’s not even an issue that we could agree to disagree on. It’s pretty vital. That’s what we showed in those last two episodes, that this is a very important issue because of how it affects not only the leader himself, but also the church that he’s leading by himself. And so we’re going to take the position that this is biblical and it’s vital, but we also believe in unity. So how would you respond to the person that says this is holding to this model is divisive?
Cliff: Yeah, first I would take issue with their overriding or fundamental commitment to this idea that unity trumps everything else. In other words, they might argue unity at all costs or even unity despite doctrine or in spite of doctrine. It’s clear in the New Testament, it’s unity in the truth. And then a lot of times they disparage the word doctrine as though that’s a bad word.
Derek: It’s a dirty word.
Cliff: Yeah. All it means is teaching. Depending upon your English Bible, Paul uses that word doctrine. And all it means is teaching. And usually it’s in reference to scriptural teaching, biblical teaching, which is God’s truth, which is God’s word. There’s nothing negative about it. It’s actually a priority. So it’s unity in God’s revealed truth in Scripture. That’s really the Christian adage or standard that we need to abide by, not unity at all costs.
Derek: Right.
Cliff: And then if the doctrine or the teaching or the scriptural revelation about church polity is clearly revealed in Scripture, that it is a plurality of elders in every church and that not only it was just a model that Paul did, but it was actually a mandate, then that is what God is speaking through Paul, the apostle. He was an apostle of all the churches, so we need to obey. So what Paul said representing the Lord Jesus Christ as an apostle is really what God says. So we need to abide by it.
Derek: And your point that this idea of separating unity and doctrine and making them oppose to each other, it’s actually, that’s exactly wrong when in fact you’ve already said it, that biblically speaking, unity is only around doctrine. That’s how we have unity is through the truth, through the teaching, through the agreement of what has been taught. And so this idea of separating the two or setting them against each other is exactly wrong. And ultimately you will unify around something. So it’s not as though you’re going to unify around something, whether it’s your ideas or set of ideals or doctrine, it’s going to be something. So the idea that you’re setting unity against doctrine, it’s fundamentally flawed at the very outset.
Cliff: Yeah. And it’s, to be more specific, it’s unity in the truth, and I would say it’s unity in God’s truth. And what I mean by that is it’s unity in God’s truth as revealed in Scripture, to be very specific. And at the same time, it is true that people are going to disagree and be divided over what the Bible teaches. Even real Christians will take issue with a biblical truth, because out of ignorance or it offends their sensibilities and they have to come around and the Spirit has to illuminate their understanding or soften their heart or whatever, and that happens all the time. When I’m preaching through Scripture, and it’s not uncommon, if you’re on a hard doctrine, it’s hard to understand whether it’s eternal hell, election, whatever it is, a lot of times true believers, if they’ve never heard it, they are shocked, they’re alarmed, they’re offended, they’re incensed, they’ll give feedback, they don’t want to accept it, and then you have to show them, no, that’s why the Bible teacher has to be patient with all and walk them through the Scriptures and say, this isn’t just my opinion, this is clearly what Scripture says. And you have to check with them, is your ultimate allegiance to God’s Word? Are you willing to bow the knee to the Bible if you are certain that this is what the Bible says? And every Christian should have that attitude, I’m willing to bow the knee to what the Bible teaches if that is indeed what the Bible teaches. But bottom line, truth always divides. So number three reason that churches and Christian leaders resist God’s model is fear of trusting others. So where I’ve seen this on more than one occasion, I’ve actually worked at churches like that where I was not the lead guy, but I worked as an associate pastor for maybe what’s called a senior pastor, that’s where one guy’s running the show. He might have a bunch of deacons and then other guys on staff, maybe even other guys on staff who are called pastors, but he’s the senior pastor. He has sole authority and autonomy and he’s the boss, the buck stops with him. So I’ve worked at several churches like that and I’ve observed other churches like that. And there are times where that guy in charge doesn’t want a plurality of elders because he loves the power and he doesn’t want people impinging upon his authority. He doesn’t want the accountability from other guys who are on a level playing field with him in terms of being elders and pastors. So he just wants to run the show all the way, like basically as a maverick without accountability. This is very dangerous and a lot of times guys who operate this way could be susceptible to pride or maybe they do have a pride problem or one of the qualifications for elders is it says don’t be self-willed and they’re being self-willed. They want their way, they don’t want other opinions, they don’t want other elders holding them accountable, distracting them or derailing them from them being in charge. It’s very dangerous.
Derek: Yeah. And that’s where we go back to that point that this is not a small issue, an issue where we should just kind of agree to disagree, where no, in fact, this is for the safety and the spiritual health of that man you just described and his congregation. We talked about in that second episode that there’s a real benefit in wisdom you find in the plurality of elders and one of them is the protection of the leaders because they’re not mavericks, they’re not allowed to be outside the realm of accountability. So you’re right to say that it is dangerous and often you do find where there’s financial malfeasance or sexual sin or these kinds of things that it happened where there was just one man in charge. And we said it before that, you know, the plurality of elders doesn’t guarantee that there won’t be those things, but it certainly does help and it is a good to have those checks and balances and I agree with you 100% that it’s dangerous, it’s a dangerous place to be and that if you sense that, I just say, if anybody’s listening, if you sense that in yourself and that’s one of the reasons why you find yourself resisting the idea of a plurality of elders, quite frankly, you need to repent and you need to recognize that this is for your good and it’s for the good of the congregation.
Cliff: Yeah. I’ve noticed that the personality profile of some of these guys is they’re either micromanagers or perfectionists and they can’t trust somebody else to do it. And so you and I, we serve on a team of five elders right now. At one point we had eight elders and it is true that with time, you got to learn to trust the other guys, right? And sometimes that’s not easy to do. It’s like, Lord, you know better of how your church should be run and I got to trust my fellow elders.
Derek: Yeah, that’s right.
Cliff: Reason number four, this model is resisted of a plurality of elders in every local church is just sheer pragmatism. In terms of, if you have just one guy making all the decisions, it is less cumbersome and can be very efficient.
Derek: Sure.
Cliff: And you can get more things done. Actually, Tony Evans wrote a book on the church, Tony Evans, pastor down there in Texas. He’d been there for, I don’t know, 30, 40 years. And he just says point blank that he’s the man. He believes in one guy in charge and he literally says, because the buck’s got to stop with somebody and one guy making the decisions, it’s more efficient. You don’t have bureaucracy. It doesn’t slow things up. You can get things done. And this is just a sheer pragmatic approach.
Derek: Yeah, it is. Because you’re assuming that the slight slowing of things down isn’t good for you. It might be good for you, actually. It might be good for the decision-making process to not be able to just whip off decisions here and there, but actually have to take them through the rigor of discussing them with your elders. I mean, there’s been times where we’ve wished we could just make decisions. I agree that it is more efficient. But then we’ve got to talk to each other.
Cliff: That’s a great point that rushing to or through a decision isn’t always a good thing. That slow process of vetting things out and the amelioration process of taking things out, the process of taking time, having others’ perspective, vetoes and checks and balances. It’s kind of interesting that Tony Evans holds this position because Peter Toon, the Episcopal guy, argues for his bureaucratic model, the Episcopalian model, and he says that was introduced providentially by God to purposely slow down the decision-making process. The exact opposite. He thinks that’s a healthy thing. And there’s some truth there, that slow process with a lot of people giving, or several others giving insight and slowing things down is a good thing and a healthy thing. So that’s pragmatism. Another common reason that churches are not implementing the biblical model of a plurality of pastors and elders is just simply downplaying the biblical model. I found this in a lot of systematic theologies by otherwise very helpful systematic theologians and smart guys. You know some of these guys, Derek, like Miller Erickson. He’s got a really good systematic theology. But in his chapter on church polity, he says, quote, churches are not commanded to adopt a particular form of church order or polity. So he says you can take it or leave it, pick and choose. You’ve got three models. They’re all good. They can all be helpful. A plurality of elders being one of those. And I just think he’s downplaying. It’s hard to say that he’s ignorant because he was such a good scholar and well informed. So I don’t know what this is, but I see this a lot of downplaying. Here’s what the Bible says, and they just kind of minimize it, which is not what we should be doing at all. It’s here. It’s taught in Scripture. We need to follow it, not downplay it, and not claim ignorance over the matter. Another reason that’s very common of why churches don’t follow the biblical model is the confusing of biblical terms regarding church leadership. And that was what we really tackled in our last episode.
Derek: That’s right.
Cliff: What does the Bible say about what a pastor is, an elder and a bishop? And we concluded clearly in Scripture, those are three synonymous interchangeable terms with different nuances emphasizing different things about the role of church leadership. But definitely, and everybody I think would agree on all sides if they study history and also the Bible, that come the second century, the second century deviated away from the biblical model in the book of Acts where a bishop was the same thing as an elder or a pastor in the local church. But come the second century and then beyond into the third century, all of a sudden that role of bishop was changed. So now you’ve got a bishop who’s overseeing more than one church, and a bishop has made somebody who’s distinct and different than a pastor or an elder, which is not the biblical model. And then that kind of reigns supreme all throughout church history, and it reigns even today. The people confuse these terms. They don’t see the word bishop as synonymous with an elder, and they don’t think the word bishop is synonymous with pastor. But they are.
Derek: Yeah. In the second and third century when that did start to develop, it was out of a desire. It seemed to protect doctrine. I mean, who is going to give the authoritative interpretation? Because you had heretics running around saying, we believe the Bible too. Well, who’s going to give the authoritative interpretation? Well, you’ve got to have this one central guy. And almost you could say, kind of say from a pragmatic theological, I don’t know how you, but more of a pragmatic approach, I guess, concern, you have developed what we would say is a flawed model of church government. That wasn’t the design that God had laid out that you’d have this one central bishop controlling these various churches. And so it is interesting that it seems like this issue is addressed historically in a pragmatic, with a pragmatic approach, even today. The changes and flexing of church government is often pragmatic. It’s just an interesting observation.
Cliff: It is, but that’s what humans do. Pragmatic, meaning my way is better than God’s way as stated in Scripture. And the outcome is, as a result of doing that, is biblical terms were abandoned and aren’t being used anymore, or biblical terms have become convoluted and redefined. So now today, bishop doesn’t mean bishop according to the Bible for the most part. Bishop means some higher up who has more power than the local pastor or the local elder, which is not the way the term is used in the Bible. So biblical terms have been redefined, and also as a result of what happened there in that compromise is biblical terms have been jettisoned or just outright thrown out and they’re not even used anymore. So it is not uncommon to go to a community church, Bible church website and you think, oh, this is a good church. And it might be a good church, actually. They’ve got some quality guys there. But you look at the titles of these guys, and the titles are convoluted. They don’t correspond to how the Bible uses those same titles. Like when we were in Ethiopia just recently at a pastor’s conference there, most of the churches of the pastors that we were dealing with, they don’t have elders in their church. They just have pastors. So elder was like a foreign concept. And I’ve served at some Baptist churches here in California where they didn’t have any elders. They didn’t have elders on paper. They didn’t have elders in the church that they called. They had deacons and pastors, and that was it. And you bring up the word elder and it was just a foreign concept. They don’t even know what it is. And so they’ve gotten rid of a biblical term, and that’s because of the compromised history. So we need to recover biblical terminology, which is always the case. We’re always trying to reform back to what Scripture says. Convoluted biblical terms or calling deacons overseers or elders, which is, I’ve served at a Baptist church or two that the deacons refer to themselves literally as the overseers of the church. We as the deacon board, we are the overseers, which means we’re the bishops of the church. And we have authority over the pastor. I’m like, no, you don’t. That’s not a biblical model.
Derek: It’s very confused thinking.
Cliff: Yeah, so that’s pretty typical in Baptist churches. I think Baptist churches aren’t the only ones, but Baptist churches many times don’t embrace the term elder. Some evangelical churches, ones that we know, even Grace Community Church where I used to go, they had elders, maybe 45 of them, and then they had pastors on staff, but the pastors on staff were not elders of the church.
Derek: I was going to say that’s one of the common things that you would find in probably the circles that we know well is that this division between elder and pastor. So that you’ll have pastors on staff, but they’re not elders. And then the elders that oversee the church, they oversee the pastors, but the pastors don’t go to the elder meetings. And I’ve talked to various people from churches in all the various different kinds of scenarios. And it’s this division between elder and pastor that’s pretty common.
Cliff: Yeah. So if there are any pastors out there listening to our podcast and your church doesn’t consider you an elder, I would just like to tell you that if you’re a pastor, you’re even a bishop. Whether you’re qualified or not, that’s a different issue. But if you’re going by the title pastor, biblically, you should be recognized as an elder as well. But if you’re not qualified to be an elder at your church, then you shouldn’t be called pastor. That’s like another problem we have in America is all the youth pastors. Many youth pastors at churches are not recognized as elders. They’re called youth pastors. They should not be called youth pastors. That’s why at our church, we call our youth guy, if he’s not qualified to be an elder, a minister. Youth minister. Our youth pastor could be an elder if he’s qualified, absolutely. So anyway, just convoluted misuse of biblical terms has created a huge problem. Then another one, why your church is not using the biblical model clearly stated in scripture, because of a false theological hierarchy of doctrines. This is very common. Wayne Grudem, systematic theology says regarding church polity, quote, the form of church government is not a major doctrine, end quote. So even if scripture clearly teaches it, church polity is not a major doctrine. He doesn’t define what major doctrines are.
Derek: Right.
Cliff: Many times people who say that, they say, well, of course, soteriology is a major doctrine. Christology is a major doctrine. But ecclesiology, that’s not a major doctrine. Mark Dever says the same thing. He says, “believer’s baptism is not essential to the Christian faith.” And in the same sentence, he says, “it’s tantamount to deciding what the color of the church signs are.”
Derek: Well, I would say, yes, your view of baptism. You can believe that the Lord Jesus died for you and you’re saved by faith alone in him through grace and have a different view on infant baptism than I do. But I would say it’s a pretty important doctrine and it is much more important than what was the example?
Cliff: The color of the church signs.
Derek: I completely disagree. Completely disagree.
Cliff: Well, Jesus, the Great Commission, Jesus clearly commanded the apostles and believers to baptize. That’s clear in Scripture. That is a mandate. In Acts chapter two, they heard the gospel pierced to the heart. What must we do? And Peter said, repent, believe, and be baptized. Here’s the first thing. Baptism is clearly taught, it’s clearly revealed in Scripture. It’s an authoritative, God-given doctrine by Jesus as part of the Great Commission. And the color of church signs is not in the Bible. So one is biblical, one is not. One is a gray area, the other is clearly taught in Scripture. But ecclesiology. I mean, there’s several other theologians I could quote from, but the point is they just say that ecclesiology is maybe second tier, third tier, tertiary, but to this day, as far as I’m concerned, no one has ever come up with that scale, delineating clearly that everybody agrees on what is a major doctrine in the church and then what’s third level or fourth level or what’s not important. Because Paul said in 2 Timothy 3:16, all Scripture is God-braised. All of it. And every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God, Jesus said, is divine revelation. So we can’t make up these fictitious categories of doctrine because when people do that, my question is, are some of God’s commands less important than others? And if so, who’s going to determine that? And how are you going to, what’s the standard by which you determine that? Which of Jesus’ teachings are less important than others? Which of the Bible’s commands don’t matter if God said through the Apostle Paul to put a plurality of elders in every church, that is a command from God. Why is that less authoritative than any other command that God gives?
Derek: Well, and just again, going back to the episode that we did on the benefits, God’s wisdom is on display in this model of church government. When you consider the benefits and then alongside that the dangers of not doing it, to me it’s pretty clear that’s an important doctrine because of how it facilitates good decision-making, good relationship between the elders, safety for the congregation, spiritual health for the leaders, and on and on we could go talking about the benefits and the wisdom that God displays in having it this way. You have to conclude it’s pretty important.
Cliff: Yes, I think church polity is part of fulfilling Jesus’ promise that he gave when he said, I will build my church. It’s his church. And the church didn’t exist when he said that in Matthew 16:18, talking to his apostles as he was about to die, but it was a promise and a prophecy. I will build my church, and we go to the book of Acts and the epistles. He did that through his apostles, and they laid down the apostles’ doctrine. And in that apostles’ doctrine of building the church is church polity, and it is clear. And this is Jesus’ church, it’s not our church.
Derek: Yeah, boy, that’s a really good point when you consider that Jesus is building his church, and we’re talking specifically about leadership structure in that church that he’s building. So it’s an important doctrine.
Cliff: Yes, because do you have the rules of your house, Derek? We have some rules. Like your kids and stuff?
Derek: Yeah, we have a few rules. These are your mom and dad’s rules.
Derek: Yeah.
Cliff: And on some of those rules, they don’t have an option to trump the rules or undermine the rules or change the rules.
Derek: No.
Cliff: And that’s the way it should be. Who’s the established authority in that entity of the house? It’s mom and dad.
Derek: Yeah.
Cliff: Who’s the established authority in the church of God? It’s the Lord Jesus Christ.
Derek: Right. And I don’t, in those specific rules, the kids are not allowed to improvise or to kind of say, I like part of that, and I’ll do that, but these other parts I’m not going to do. Like, they’re not allowed to do that. Not an option. And it’s for their benefit.
Cliff: Yes.
Derek: It’s for the harmony of the home, for their good, their safety.
Cliff: Yep.
Derek: Amen. Well, let’s come back and talk about qualifications for elder pastors. And we’ll do that in the next episode. I encourage you again to check out withallwisdom.org and check out those last two episodes on a plurality of elders that Cliff and I did. And we will see you in a bit. Until next time, keep seeking the Lord in His Word.
