Reader and frequent commenter Jerry Starling asked,
I’d love to see your thoughts on these two matters: is a plurality of elders required? and what about the widower elder?
Here goes–
The plurality of elders
Regarding the plurality of elders, you might be interested to know that Thomas and Alexander Campbell were both the only elders of their congregations. Our insistence on a plurality of elders came much later.
My best guess is that it arose in response to the Landmark Baptist movement, centered in Nashville in the mid-19th Century. The Landmark Baptists insisted they were the only ones going to heaven because they had the correct “marks of the church.” The Churches of Christ adopted and adapted their argument, using the Baptist’s single-pastor system as an argument that they violate the true pattern for the church and therefore are damned. Of course, in seeking to damn the Baptists, they also damned the founders of the Restoration Movement! And they were hardly the last among the Churches of Christ to send the Campbells to hell just to win an argument.
The scriptural argument is a bit thin, being that the scriptures always refer to elders in the plural, which is true enough. But they also only address situations where there was more than one man qualified to be an elder!
You see, our constant persistence in division means that we are often lucky to have but one man qualified to be an elder. Were we united as the Bible commands, this would rarely, if ever, be an issue. That is, the problem arises because of our sinful preference for division over unity — which is surely why the Bible never addresses the issue.
I find the answer plainly found in such texts as —
(Rom 12:6-8 ESV) 6 Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; 7 if service, in our serving; the one who teaches, in his teaching; 8 the one who exhorts, in his exhortation; the one who contributes, in generosity; the one who leads, with zeal; the one who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness.
Those with the gift of leadership are commanded to use the gift. God gave the gift to bless his people. Who are we to reject his blessings, as though we might somehow be wiser than God? If God is truly the source of these gifts, then we have all the permission we need by virtue of God’s having given the gift.
Similar is —
(1Co 12:7 ESV) 7 To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. … 11 All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills. …
21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” … 28 And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues.
Clearly, the lesson is that (a) gifts come from the Spirit based on the Spirit’s judgment of what gifts will bless the church, (b) it’s wrong to declare that we don’t need a gift the Spirit gives, and (c) among those gifts is the gift of “administrating.” The NET Bible translated “leadership,” which is think is truer to the Greek and context.
I’m no fan of the Baptist single-pastor system. But neither do I believe the Bible insists on a plurality of elders. Rather, those who are qualified to lead, to teach, etc. should be empowered to do so. If God has chosen to give the appropriate gifts to but one man, then it’s God’s decision, and we cannot replace his wisdom with our own.
We have a fear of empowering elders, largely due to our American sense of individual autonomy and our Postmodern distrust of authority. But these are not Biblical motivations.
On the other hand, we often teach a legalistic gospel that presents a mean-spirited God, and that teaching often producing legalistic, mean-spirited elders. It’s no wonder that elders get such a bad reputation! They’re the men who most precisely reflect our teaching!
The solution is not to all go our own ways as sheep without shepherds; it’s to teach a better gospel and so produce better disciples, some of whom will be gifted by the Spirit to be elders — and with better teaching, we’ll select better men.
The true gospel, the gospel of grace, will produce men of grace, and that will change everything.
The husband of one wife
The notion that a man ceases to be qualified as an elder because his wife dies is beyond absurd. Paul said in 1 Cor 7 that you are better able to serve God if you’re single!
(1Co 7:32-33 ESV) 32 I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. 33 But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife,
The Greek clearly does not mean “currently married.” μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα (from 1 Tim 3:2) reads “one wife man” or “one woman man” or “one wife husband.” The Greek is perfectly ambiguous as between woman/wife and man/husband. Either way, a sensible reading is that an elder must be faithful to his woman.
This become obvious when you compare the text to —
(1Ti 5:9 ESV) Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband,
“Having been” is not in Greek. Rather it says (1Ti 5:9 BGT) μὴ ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα γεγονυῖα, ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή, that is, “not less than years sixty being, one man [or husband] woman [or wife].”
Because the verb is absent, and the immediately preceding phrase is in the present tense (she is not less than 60, NOT she has been not less than 60), the natural reading is that she is a one-man woman, not that she is the wife of one husband. After all, Paul urges younger widows to remarry (1 Tim 5:14), surely not intending that if they are widowed a second time (and so having been the wife of two husbands) they cannot receive the church’s support!
Hence, the idea is one of possessing marital faithfulness as a virtue, not necessarily being presently married. It has nothing to do with having married twice, such as due to a first spouse’s death or a divorce that does not reflect on the Christian character of the person at issue.
