The Prescriptive Authority of the New Testament Epistles in Determining Local Church Polity (Part Four)

Series Part One       Series Part Two        Series Part Three

The Prescriptive Authority of the New Testament Epistles in Determining Local Church Polity

Part one of this series focused on the passages directly related to the authority or responsibility relegated to or practiced by the local church congregation (the majority of these references were in relation to church discipline issues).  Part two of this series focused on the passages referring to the idea of having multiple pastor/elders within one local church (three from Acts, four from the epistles).  The third article focused on the interpretive struggle between identifying descriptive and prescriptive texts.

Ultimately, these concepts will have to be reconciled with each other.  As to how they are reconciled shows up more practically in our local church polities (which coincidentally appears to fall along denominational lines, but not exclusively). 

Consider the options, church polity can place some, most, or no authority with the local congregation (this option also brings into account other issues such as the priesthood of the believer and the perspicuity of scripture, or all the church discipline passages).  Another option would be to have one primary pastor/elder with no authority given to the local congregation.  Perhaps a third option would be to have some form of relationship entailing both the congregation and the pastor/elder.  But even with a melding of these two ideas, it leaves untouched the idea of how to handle the passages seeming to teach multiple elder/pastors within one congregation.  Even after solving this issue, we still have to address the role and purpose which the New Testament assigns to the elder/pastor.

It is this dilemma (if there is one) which necessitates a focus upon the descriptive and prescriptive texts.  Which texts in relation to church polity merely described what they did in the first century but are no longer binding upon local churches today (the descriptive position)?  Or which texts addressing this issues directly related to us today either by command or by principle/precedent (the prescriptive position)?  Don't forget how you relate these two texts together will shift the weight of authority to one of these two categories.

 

Let's consider the four possible options: (in relations to church polity—this seems to come close to a special pleading)

First, the narrative passages in Acts are prescriptive and the epistles are descriptive.  Second, the narrative passages in Acts are descriptive and the epistles are also descriptive.  Third, the narrative passages in Acts are prescriptive and the epistles are also prescriptive.  Fourth, the narrative passages in Acts are descriptive and the epistles are prescriptive.  A fifth possible option which shows how hard this issue is would be that Acts and the epistle both contain descriptive and prescriptive passages (which is probably the best option).

The title of this post tells you where I personally believe the biblical weight should be placed in understanding these five potential options.  This position enables the epistles themselves to interpret what is applicable for today.  This position also allows for keeping the authority in the text but also reaching different conclusions on this issue.  By way of digression, please understand that as you look at your NT you are not seeing the order in which the books of your NT were written.  A quick glance at the dating of the books will help the reader see that the NT epistles were individually written throughout the narrative of the book of Acts (some even after the events of Acts).

Before directly addressing the texts under debate, consider some of the options (if you were asked directly) as to how they weigh in on related issues:

1.  Should we ordain homosexuals as pastor/elders in the local church?  (I'm not asking you what your position is on this, but on what actual texts do you appeal to on this issue--where are they located?).

2.  Should we ordain both men and women as pastor/elders in the local church? (If you quickly think of 1 Tim 3 or Tit 1, what ramifications might there be if the epistles are only descriptive, or worse case only Paul's opinion on the issue, or only addressing a first century situation)?

3.  Should we financially support every pastor/elder the local church ordains?  If so on what basis do you make a distinction between paid and unpaid pastor/elders?

I would like to offer some thoughts on the key texts related to this issue of a plurality of elders within a local church (not necessarily answers, but contrary thoughts to those dogmatic on this issue):

1 Timothy 3:1-2, 8, 12

    a.  The focus on the the overseer here is for the office identified in the singular and with the article.     b.  Depending on the position you are trying to defend, this will determine the function of the article seen in the text.

    c.   Taking this into account, deacons appears in the plural twice (vv. 8, 12) in contrast to "the overseer" (v. 1).  How does this affect the article appearing before overseer but not before deacons plural?  What article usage will be applied and why?

1 Timothy 5:17 "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine."

This text hinges on the function of the word "especially."  Think of these two primary options:

     a. Does it mean that all elders "rule well" and only some of these "labour in word and doctrine?"  Think as though one group is a sub-set of the whole group.  You could do a word study of how the Greek term translated "especially" occurs in the NT (this might help avoiding theological based options).

     b.  Does it mean that all the elders "rule well" and this same group are the ones "who labour in the word and doctrine?"  Technically think of an appositional relationship, "the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, (that is) they who labour in the word and doctrine."

2,  Tit 1:5 "that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee"

 a.  For this text to bear weight on the plurality position, the understanding would need to be there is only one local church in each city (of which there is no reason to believe there is only one church in each city, especially considering the number of house-church settings mentions in the NT).

  b.  This text only supports the idea that Titus is to ordain elders in each city (there is no reference to whether there should be one or more elders in each local church).  You would have to equate city with the word church to get help for plurality in this text.

3.  Acts, 14, 15, 20

      a.  All these passages in Acts depend on the fact that they are prescriptive and not just descriptive for the plurality of elders in each local church to have weight.

      b.  The plurality of elders position must still wrestle with the house-church model presented in the NT, the potential understanding of "church" as the universal and not local church, or perhaps even if "the church" should be understood collectively for the local churches in that particular city.

These are some general thoughts categorizing what I am seeing in print on these issues.  Some even to the point of calling congregational polity "satanic."  The last articles in this series still need to address that actual biblical function and/or role pastor/elders have in the NT.  Also if the "plurality" texts in Acts are the actual model, what would then be the hierarchy among them?  Who decides?  Unfortunately, wrestling with the prescriptive and descriptive concepts is not always easy, but to think it doesn't exist or doesn't help is not being academically honest.

Just some ideas to consider.

Hope this helps some on this issue.  More to come.

Drop a line and tell me what your thinking.