Plurality of Elders-- Testmonies Please

At my church we have been in much discussion regarding an open service, and the place of a presbtyery (college/group of elders) who are given charge with overseeing the congregation and the local church. I have been in great discussion with my pastor on the subject in particular, and last night we were talking about the position of sr pastor, of which I affirm strongly that the New Testament knows of no such office bearer save Jesus Christ. I'm convinced he believes such in regard to the Scripture, however, at a practical level, he fails to see how such could ever work out. He seems to believe that it opens up too much possibility for a coupt taking place, and elders (e.g. him) easily being taken out of comission by the rest of the congregation simply because they might not like his preaching. He cites how, for example, this happens in congregationalist style churches, e.g. Southern Baptists.So I am asking any of you out there who have experience in this area, in regard to a Church that follows the practice of the early Church as closely as possible, with in regard to a plurality of elders, to provide testimonies of how this has worked in your own church. Please don't shy away from stating the hardships that have occured as well. If you can, act as if you were speaking to my pastor in regard to the situation, as I plan on printing off the .PDF file that this thread will generate, and passing it along to him for his consideration. Just a little background on my Church that I attend... we are affiliated with the Church of God (Cleveland, TN) which is a Pentecostal church. Currently at the Church, we have a Sr. Pastor as well as a group of elders who oversee the affairs of our Church. My pastor fully considers himself one of the elders, and the denomination considers him our Church's senior pastor. It is my personal conviction that of the elders, he is surely the most "senior" of them, in regard to maturity, experience, and charismatic gifting. So, please write with these things in mind.

While I do not have any experience in an open service setting, I do have some sources that you could look into.One of them is the book, Megashift by James Rutz.The other is his website. www.megashift.orgFrom what I read in the book, elders do have a place in maintaining order and ensuring that the participants are not leading the flock astray with incorrect teaching. Also they provide discipline by preventing people from getting out of hand and resolve disputes in the congregation. I hope this helps.

He seems to believe that it opens up too much possibility for a coupt taking place, and elders (e.g. him) easily being taken out of comission by the rest of the congregation simply because they might not like his preaching.It is interesting that this possibility should be in view. This would appear to be what happened to the Corinthian church at the end of the first century. They would not have been able to do it under a denominational setting. I am not advocating or encouraging such but I am just pointing out that the condition that make this possible seem more in line with the 1st century church.

I am not advocating or encouraging such but I am just pointing out that the condition that make this possible seem more in line with the 1st century church.Indeed, within the denominational structure, our pastor could not be removed unless the state overseer removed him.

I am not sure if this is what you are looking for.I think very much in terms of 'the oversight' as a body of men rather than 'the elders' as a group of individuals with individual authority. In the church in which I am part the original 'elders' were recognised unanimously over 20 years ago, since that time the process has operated like this...When others are to be added to the oversight the pattern is usually one in which the current 'oversight'; the whole group become aware that there is another in the assembly to whom God is giving 'oversight'. They talk this over and pray until they are sure that it is the right time for such to be 'added' to the oversight. Can you see that in this context the current 'oversight' is always the starting point; the initiative always begins within the current oversight. There could not really be a coup as you may see later.The current oversight then share their convictions with the brother/s in question and ask him to be sure in his heart that this is God's will for him. This takes as long as it takes. There may be several meetings but not in order to persuade someone who is reluctant. When the current oversight and the prospective addition are of one heart the matter is presented to the church.The church meeting is then called and the elders share their conviction. The church are then asked if they are of one heart in this. If they are we pray for the man there and then and from that moment he is regarded as part of the oversight. If there are those who are uncertain we do not ask them publicly for their reasons but convene another meeting after an interval of a few weeks. We do not try to persuade the unsure; we wait for unanimity. If after a few weeks there are still those who are lacking in personal conviction one of the current oversight would probably spend some private time with them to ascertain their current feelings. Sometimes the unsure might say 'well, I am not comfortable to go ahead with this'. In which case we would wait for a while longer.If the person remains unsure we might say 'would you be willing to submit to the consensus of the church, or do you feel a 'check' about this in your spirit. Sometimes there remains a 'check'; in which case we wait...The consequence of this long process is that new constituent members of the oversight are subjected to three separate filters;a) the initiation of the current oversightb) the personal conviction of the prospective elderc) the full consent of the whole church.We have had a split in the church some 10 years or so ago, but the centre held in the assurance that the whole church had believed that God had established the oversight and any change at the heart would need to go through the same 3 filters. We always wait for unanimity on directional decisions which affect the church. It can be very frustrating for some; but then frustration is only a call to prayer.This process emerged and is maintained in 'faith' rather than as a policy. We have the faith to believe that God can guide us in this way and bring us to unanimity.

I am not on Eldership, but how I've seen and heard it done. The Eldership team lead the church, with one man a little in front of the team. Not above, below or behind but in front. Accountability is maintained through relationships within that grouping. However as a church we relate to an apostolic/prophetic team which speaks into the life of the church.It is important to point out that the input of the team in regards to setting the salaries of elders and the lead guy is by invitation not decree. So in regards to the accountability of the lead man its forward and backward. Forward to the team and backwards to the local team. As far as discipline is concerned, no church is owned by the leading man so discipline and rebuke take the form which is laid out in the bible. In such situations the input from the Apostolic team as to the working out of that decision is sought. All this has to work first and foremost in that of friendship before function. The functioning of a translocal apostolic authourity can only maintain biblical outworking if that exercise of authourity is based on relationship.It is searching for a medium where the elsdership prefer one another in love and seek the good of the whole as to direction, doctrine and discipline. I think there has to be a trust that those that are bought onto eldership have the best interests of the church at heart. It is helpful that there is plurality where it is feesible because not only are decisions made together but there is a certain level of accountability between the members of the eldership.Quick thoughts,

I think very much in terms of 'the oversight' as a body of men rather than 'the elders' as a group of individuals with individual authority.Most interesting concept. We have had a split in the church some 10 years or so ago, but the centre held in the assurance that the whole church had believed that God had established the oversight and any change at the heart would need to go through the same 3 filters.Did this split occur in the eldership... or did just a part of the church break away from them in disagreement with something?

The Eldership team lead the church, with one man a little in front of the team. Not above, below or behind but in front.In what way is he a "little in front of the team"? Does he just get stuck being the one that ultimately signs any legal documents or something? However as a church we relate to an apostolic/prophetic team which speaks into the life of the church.Interesting to hear of such. Such is only something I've read about in the Bible, but I can't say I've known any churches that have apostolic oversight by a team of apostles. Usually, if there is any oversight these days, it is in a centralized, hierarchical denominational structure with a district/state overseer/bishop of some sort. Please feel free to comment more on this relationship as you can.

Did this split occur in the eldership... or did just a part of the church break away from them in disagreement with something?At the time there were 6 men in the oversight. The main spokesman for the division was a highly regarded brother who was not part of the oversight. Two of the elders supported him in his contentions and when he withdrew from the church they also withdrew with him.Please forgive me but it would be unfair and too painful (even now) to go into any more details of the actual cause of this division. I believe our 'walls had been breached' and the enemy took advantage of this.