The Benefits of Multiple Elders, Part 2

God’s plan for the local church is multiple elders. I discussed that here ~~~> A Scriptural Case for the Plurality of Elders. But why? Are there any benefits for a church that has multiple elders over a church that has only one? I believe there are—and I hope to share a few of those benefits in this article.
 
This is the third article in this series. The first is linked above. The second is The Benefits of Multiple Elders, Part 1.
 
The Bible doesn’t specifically offer a list of benefits for multiple elders as opposed to a single elder. Yet Biblically, there is no clear example of a church with only one elder. So, some may say that such an article almost seems pointless. That said, I do believe there are some practical points that can be made regarding this subject. These benefits are things I have personally experienced since the church I pastor made the move to multiple elders.
 
First of all, a church with multiple elders can be certain that they are following the Biblical pattern for a local church. In no way am I suggesting that a church with one elder isn’t a church—do not say I said that. However, as I stressed in my first article on this subject, the goal of every church (and every church leader) should be to conform to the Biblical pattern. And without question, the Biblical pattern for church leadership is a plurality of elders.
 
Secondly, the Bible becomes the focus—not the preacher. This may sound strange at first. In fact, I had not considered this point until another elder and I met with some prospective members one evening over some Mexican food (the Biblical pattern, you know!). Obviously, those who have visited our church since we moved to plurality have a much different perspective than those who were members in years prior. When asked what they thought of multiple elders, both immediately stressed that the Scripture was the center of every service—not the person speaking. Now admittedly, a single-elder-led church can have this same attitude towards God’s Word. However, it is a natural byproduct (if that’s the right term) of multiple men teaching through the Bible together. The focus is taken off the speaker and placed on the text. And that is a good thing.
 
Thirdly, a church has fuller teaching. This may also initially sound odd, but I’ve learned that it is true. Pastoring is too much for one man—especially in the pulpit. I’m in no way suggesting that some men haven’t done an admirable job at it. Three men specifically took me under their wing when I was a young pastor—and all were fine expositors of God’s Word—and all were single elders in their local churches. However, one man simply cannot know it all. One man cannot figure it all out. One man cannot read as widely as, say, three men can. As I have struggled with passages I am preaching, it has been a great help to me personally to lean on two other God-gifted men in our congregation. I have found that the things which stump me don’t always stump them—and occasionally vice-versa. Simply, no human being has the perfect mind. All of us are tainted with the effects of the Fall. Having three Spirit-led minds leading a local assembly is simply better than one.
 
Fourthly, elders become leaders rather than dictators. Baptists (which we are here) are congregationalists. That is, we believe the authority in a local church belongs to the membership (under the headship of Christ, of course). This is where the Baptist model of plurality has historically differed from the Presbyterian model, where elders rule rather than lead. Elders were not given to local churches to dominate them. Peter instructed the elders in the churches he wrote to, “not domineering over those in your charge” (1 Peter 5:3). Some of the best pastors have fallen victim to viewing a local church as “their” church. Don’t misunderstand, none of those men would write that down on paper. I am sure that they would emphatically demand “The church is not mine, but Christ’s!” from the pulpit. However, actions speak loudly—and many men have dominated their congregations and demanded absolute conformity from the membership. And though there are certain beliefs that are absolutely foundational to a Christian church—and non-negotiable (like the Gospel or the Trinity or the deity of Christ), Baptists have historically believed in soul-liberty. A church with multiple leaders—with equal voices—is simply more likely to run to the Scripture than to tradition. I know this is true because even in my own ministry, I’ve had my fellow elders question me on such things—and I am greatly thankful for it. And when it has happened, I am further convinced that God’s ordained plan is good for us.
 
Fifthly, it is quite less likely that a church will become “fringe” under multiple leaders. I have been shocked in recent years to hear some of the ideas being propagated from pulpits—even in churches that have historically been orthodox. For instance, I recently heard of a Baptist pastor encouraging congregants to pray for dead saints. Now, admittedly my history is a bit shaky, but I am quite certain this is something Luther (and others) opposed in Roman Catholicism during the period of the Reformation. In all seriousness, it is a spurious doctrine to promote—without so much as a shred of Biblical evidence. And yet, a church with one pastor can either fire that pastor (which may very well be appropriate in such a case) or put up with such craziness in the pulpit. That said, in no way can I fathom a church with multiple elders along with any comprehension of the sufficiency of Scripture allowing such a thing to be preached (and repeated) in the pulpit. Much like the American constitution, there is a God-ordained system of checks and balances when multiple men are charged with leading a church. And a group of truly God-gifted men with an understanding of the text of Scripture will be far less likely to tolerate such spurious doctrines than one man requires of himself.
 
Lastly, churches aren’t left without leadership—temporarily or permanently. I have personally witnessed churches with a solid history go without a pastor for long periods of time—sometimes many years—after the resignation or death of a long-time pastor. Understand, there is no Biblical example of churches without leaders for long periods of time. The likelihood of a church lacking ordained leadership is greatly reduced if the church has multiple elders. This would even be the case if the lead elder (often called a pastor today) is away for even a short period of time (like a week preaching elsewhere—or weeks after a medical procedure). Simply, the health of a church is more likely to be maintained if church leadership is planned and provided for. When church leaders in the New Testament were arrested, there were still other men in those local churches to teach the people. Again, this is God’s plan—not mine. And this is an obviously important benefit.
 
I could go on—but this seems sufficient. As I said before, I served the church here as a single pastor for some 15 years. I had never observed a sister church with plurality before. Therefore, I didn’t recognize the need for multiple leaders—and I certainly didn’t comprehend all the benefits. I am in no way suggesting that a church cannot be healthy and sound with one pastor. I am, however, saying that God instituted a plurality of elders in local churches for a purpose. And every church needs to strive to follow the New Testament pattern if there are gifted men among them. As I’ve said previously, do not rush into plurality if you don’t have qualified men—that would be a detriment to a church. Sometimes a church must simply examine a man in light of the qualifications and say no to eldership. However, if there are qualified men within the congregation, it is God Who has qualified and gifted those men. Let us all desire to follow the New Testament pattern and ordain those men He has gifted within a church as elders.

The next (and hopefully final) article will be a suggestion on moving towards plurality.