I was speaking recently with somebody about the concept of first amongst equals in the church. I have written about this in a number of places. You can use the search function on this blog to look at a whole host of posts on eldership.
However, I have addressed this particular issue of first amongst equals in the post linked below. If you just want to save yourself the time and energy reading it: I don’t agree with it as a concept at all. I believe it actively undercuts the biblical model of co-equal, plural eldership with full and proper parity between the elders.
For a slightly longer explanation of why I think that, you can read the main post linked below. Further to that, it would also be worth reading the following posts: First, this one, that looks at various ways we might undercut the concept of co-equal eldership with parity through both our nomenclature and practice. Second, this one, which looks more positively at ways we can meaningfully encourage the idea of co-equal eldership with parity both in the terms we might use and in the practice we implement in our churches.
I understand what you’re saying…. And I agree in principle. The problem is… where you have a full-time pastor, someone who has put his life and his family’s life on the line … who has given up secular employment and committed himself to total reliance on God and His church…. It is difficult, in practice, not to accept that his commitment and dedication surpasses that of the other elders, and to be tempted therefore to give preference to his views…
I think it’s really important for a few things to be clear (saying this as one such who has done just that):
1. The setting aside for full-time ministry is not for the purposes of him being more authoritative or having a greater say. It is for the purpose of him being freed up to focus on the reading and preaching of the Word so the flock can be best fed. So the setting aside isn’t a matter of giving a man greater authority; it is a matter of giving him more time so he can be more helpful and effective in Word-ministry.
2. To give a man the kind of preference suggested lays burdens on him that are not good for him. Given he has given up his employment and committed himself to reliance on God and the church, it is not a good position to put him in that says everything then stands or falls on him (or, even just, he carries the can in greater measure). That would be to add to his burden, not to benefit him in his ministry.
3. It is not healthy for the church. Not only is it unbiblical (cf. 3 John) it is dangerous. Plural elderships with co-equal authority are vital for the health of the local church. Such damage can be done by one man being convinced he alone is called by God to drive matters. Recent (and sadly common) public falls have tended to start, and sometimes end, with one man being given a greater degree of power and authority and not nearly enough parity given to his elders (and others) to hold him to account. Not only is it an unbearable burden for one man, as none of us are above and beyond sin, it is deeply dangerous to put any one person in that position.
You’re right… and I agree with you… I was trying to explain the temptation to do otherwise… a temptation into which we too often fall. You’re second point is something I hadn’t thought off… that we will be harming him not helping him. Thanks.
I understand 😊
Definitely a live temptation to try and appoint one man to rule them all.