This post is part of a series of challenges commonly made against shared, plural pastoral leadership. It’s a follow-up to my post Why we don’t have a senior pastor.
It’s not hard to find this claim in discussions on the early church. The idea is that the church in most cities would have grown to the point where they couldn’t all meet in the same place. So, they would have met as smaller house churches, scattered around the city. If this is the case, it’s argued, then it would make sense that they would need one elder or pastor for each house church. That sounds practical. But how well does this idea hold up to closer examination?
We first need to realize this isn’t taught anywhere in Scripture. That doesn’t mean it’s not true, but when something isn’t clearly described in the Bible, we need to proceed cautiously before just assuming its validity. This conjecture may be correct, but it is conjecture nonetheless. Is this speculation convincing enough to cause us to alter our view of pastoral leadership in the New Testament churches?
We also need to be careful of assuming too quickly the need for additional meeting places for the churches in the New Testament. We’ve learned a lot about the early church through historical and archaeological studies. For instance, we know that churches would sometimes meet outdoors to provide adequate space for the church gathering. Interestingly, in some cities the church would meet in the local cemetery! We’ve also learned that wealthy members of the churches would sometimes knock down walls in their homes to make room for the churches to meet. [For a recent post on the size of early house churches, see here.]
Despite these historical insights, it’s certainly possible that some churches would have eventually failed to find sufficient room to meet together and would have been forced to meet in separate locations. But here the distinctive wording of Scripture becomes important. The New Testament speaks many times of the churches (plural) of a larger region, such as Galatia, Judea or Macedonia (see Acts 15:41; 1 Corinthians 16:1, 19; 2 Corinthians 8:1; Galatians 1:2, 22; 1 Thessalonians 2:14; Revelation 1:4, 11). But when it’s speaking of God’s people in a specific city, it always refers to the church (singular) of Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, etc. It never refers to plural churches in any one city.
Why is this important? Because if a church—say the church in Corinth—had to meet in three separate homes each week, these three meetings still would have constituted one church in Scripture, the church in Corinth, not three individual house churches. So even if we were to accept the idea that the elders were divided up, one per house gathering (and this unsupported assumption is itself quite a leap), they still would collectively make up the pastoral leadership of a single church. And the natural way of reading the passages describing the ministry of elders is that they led in concert as a kind of elder council.
For instance, James 5:14 makes little sense in the context of individual house churches. If a believer regularly attended the same house church, which was pastored by their one elder, and this believer became sick, why would they not just call for their elder/pastor to pray for them? Why would they also call for all the other elders of all the other house churches? James seems to assume one church in each town, with a group of elders who collectively pastor the whole church and who are known by the members of the church. Other passages, such as Romans 16:23 and 1 Corinthians 14:23, speak of the ‘whole church’ coming together. This seems to discredit the idea of the churches meeting in multiple house churches, at least in Rome and Corinth.
So, we find the claim that the early church met in multiple house churches in each city to be lacking any biblical support, based entirely on conjecture, and not supported by the historical evidence. And even if we make the leap of assuming such separate meetings, scripturally we still have a team of pastoral leaders in each town leading a single church.
Elders and pastoral leadership series:
Why we don’t have a senior pastor
Challenge 1: Wasn’t each house church led by one elder? [see above]
Challenge 2: What about Peter and James?
Challenge 3: What about Timothy and Titus?
Challenge 4: What about the “Moses Model”?
Challenge 5: What about the angels of the seven churches in Revelation?
9 thoughts on “Challenge 1: Wasn’t each house church led by one elder?”
…… And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple (a larger venue) , and breaking bread from house to house (smaller gatherings) , did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, …..
Jerusalem model: Peter & James ministry to the jews
daily meetings (large venue temple & house to house) ?
Ephesians model: Paul & company ministry to the gentiles/jews
daily meetings at the Hall or Synagogue & smaller gatherings?
……the church is universal in the sense that all lovers of JESUS came together, despite the venue, speaker/teacher or school label?
just my braindump, am I off at all?
Oh, another idea…..
please correct me if I’m wrong but
as they went to these meetings their gifting was spontaneous and orderly in the Holy Spirit. All participated/functioned differently from meeting to meeting.
It sounds as if you’re drawing from some scriptural themes here, but I’m not sure how you’re applying them. Could you elaborate?
I think you might enjoy mine too.
Been housechurching and planting
for 30 years now. My blog is about Jesus,
church, and life in general with a Star Trek
Christopher “Captain” Kirk
A blog on Jesus and the church with a Star Trek theme? How could you go wrong! Thanks, Jim—er, Chris(topher). I’ll have to check that out. And thanks for commenting here.
I am interested to visit again in this website, can you give me more details about why you don’t have senior pastor?
Welcome, Memucan. If you look above at the list of links, there’s an article that directly addresses this question, titled “Why we don’t have a senior pastor.” After reading that, please feel free to ask any questions in the comments section. I’ll do my best to help. Blessings to you!
I am an elder in a reformed/Presbyterian church. I have come to believe that the elder(s) led house church is the New Testament model to follow. But, as a former Jehovah’s Witness elder, I have found little enthusiasm for public witnessing on the part of church members. Where is the place of public witnessing, door to door, etc in all this? It took me several years to get my own leadership to approve our outreach, which I lead each month. Are we not ALL to be JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES?? (jESUS IS JEHOVAH!)
Hi, Ernie. You’re not alone regarding the elder-led house church model. Other Christians share that view.
The question of public witnessing is an interesting one, but it’s a little off-topic. I may explore this issue in a future post. Thanks!
Comments are closed.