Plurality of Shepherds

It’s a very brief outline but it is similar to the way the church is governed.

BUT, what about the church you attend?

Flatly, no.

However, though a plurality of leaders makes abuse of leadership less likely, but it certainly does not eliminate the possibility. I've seen extremely unhealthy churches and organizations that have a plurality.

From where in Scripture do you get this idea?

Great post. The church is virtually unrecognizable from the Christian church in the Bible. Can anyone name even one denomination that is accurate?

Scripture does not specify that deacons are to attend to the "temporal affairs". Deacons are servants; that's what the word means. Elders are also, by extension, servants, but their term encompasses leadership. Also, in Scripture, pastors are never identified as elders.

Yes.

FALSE. We know from Acts 6 that temporal affairs are exactly their responsibility. And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.

Thus deacons were first established in the church at Jerusalem. Sure they are servants of the church ensuring that the material needs of church members are looked after.
FALSE. The Greek word poimen means shepherd or pastor, and shepherds feed their flocks. Elders are both overseers and shepherds (pastors), and both Peter and Paul made this crystal clear in Scripture: Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons: Here the elders are called "bishops" (overseers) but in fact they are pastor/elder/bishops, and there was ALWAYS a plurality of pastor/elders/bishops in every city, none being above the others. For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: (Tit 1:5) The apostle John spoke out against an elder who wanted the pre-eminence in his church: I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. (3 John 1:9)

Nowhere in Acts are these seven identified with the title, "Deacon". Nowhere in Scripture are "deacons" assigned the ministry of serving tables.

The cited text does not support your point. Nowhere in Scripture are pastors identified as elders, or vice versa. Leaps of speculation are not biblical foundations.

All church's have leaders/shepherds/elders/bishops, whether there is one or several.
Who selects the leaders in your church?

There is no need for specious arguments. My post is strongly supported by others who are eminently qualified, such as John Gill. Now note carefully that what he says is exactly what I posted (and that was before I even checked his commentary on Phil 1:1):

"The officers of this church were "the bishops and deacons". The "bishops" were the pastors, elders, and overseers of the church, for a bishop and an elder is one and the same; see Acts 20:17; where the elders of the church at Ephesus are called "overseers" or "bishops"; for the same word is used there as here; and the Syriac version here renders the word by "elders": and they design no other than common and ordinary pastors; who have the name of elders from their age, gravity, and seniority; and that of bishops and overseers from the nature of their office, which is to feed, watch, inspect, and take the oversight of the flock, minister sound doctrine to them, and preserve them from error and heresies. It seems by this, and the instance of the church at Ephesus, that there were, and so may be, where there is necessity for it, more pastors or bishops than one in a church; unless it can be thought that there were more churches than one in each of these cities; or that the pastors of adjacent churches are here included; neither of which seem to be a clear case, but the contrary: but then these pastors or bishops were all upon an equal foot; one had not any authority or power over another, or more authority than another; they were not metropolitan or diocesan bishops, but pastors of a particular church; and were neither lords over one another, nor of God's heritage.

The "deacons" were such as served tables, the Lord's table, the minister's table, and the poor's table; took care of the secular affairs of the church, received and disbursed moneys, kept the church's accounts, and provided everything necessary for its temporal good. The one sort of these officers were concerned with the souls and spiritual estate of the members of the church; the others with their bodies and temporal estate, by visiting the sick, relieving the poor, &c. and both these exhibit the true primitive plan of church offices and discipline; there being no other order of offices or officers, in a Christian church of divine institution, but pastors and deacons; whatever else is introduced is without warrant, and comes from the man of sin. These officers are mentioned by the apostle, not only to show his respect to them, but to observe to the members of this church, that they ought to esteem them highly for their works' sake; these being offices of great importance and usefulness to the church, which, by having such, was a truly organized church of Christ.

What you call “ specious”, I call “strict adherence to Scripture”.

Thanks for responding. Do you believe a qualification for being an apostle is to have seen Christ? And are you saying such apostles exist today? And that spiritual people would recognize them as such? Do you know of any such people today? Where are they found?

To have physically seen Christ. No. Except for the 12 Apostles of the Lamb. They were to be witnesses to his life, death, and resurrection to the Jews. I do not count Paul to be among the 12 because he did not count himself.

Apostleship requires being sent. An apostle may be sent by God, confirmed by the Holy Spirit, or he may be sent by another apostle, like Paul did with Timothy and Titus and the 12 did with Silas and Paul. With respect, he will only go to where he is invited by godly overseers.

Of course I know these people, many of them. My spiritual father is an apostle who has traveled the world.

Whether or not people receive them as apostles is not important to the apostles. Sure, typically they are received by those they know but imagine Paul, one who crucified the church, showing up in the meeting. There is no wonder why God gave Paul a gentle heart when in the presence of other saints.

Again, thanks for taking the time to respond.

In principle, I agree with what you say here. There should be a plurality of ministers/leaders for each local church. And all of them should work together so that none has more authority than the rest. The problem is often that if no one is elected or chosen to lead out (that is: call meetings, be sure necessary schedules, etc. get met) then the elder/minister who is the most vivacious, outgoing, or maybe even "power-hungry" takes control. If one of the group of ministers is appointed to "lead out," and he is an even-keeled humble man, this approach works well.

Paul to the Corinthians: "14 I do not write these things to shame you, but as my beloved children I warn you. 15 For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. 16 Therefore I urge you, imitate me. 17 For this reason I have sent Timothy to you, who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord, who will remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church."

Each church in Revelation had a singular angel: a set man, a leader charged with the care of the saints.

If we use the house model of gathering, where "house" is the word for a multi-generational family, we can find it in scripture, first with the Jews, in Joshua:

14 In the morning therefore you shall be brought according to your tribes. And it shall be that the tribe which the Lord takes shall come according to families; and the family which the Lord takes shall come by households; and the household which the Lord takes shall come man by man.

So, the Lord's house is arranged by tribes, families, households, and lastly by the individuals, but the husband is head of the wife. The husband, therefore, may properly represent his wife in all matters.

If we start with one man, he represents all within his natural sphere: wife and children (Eve was the first "son of God, son of man since she came from Adam and was fashioned after his being). Since we are dealing with spiritual families, these would be his wife and his spiritual sons (male and female) over whom he watches for their souls.

If his spiritual sons have spiritual sons, they become a household because the first man represents sons over whom he has no direct oversight.

As the fathers mature, and more sons come in, they represent a family or a "house": a multi-generational family of fathers and sons. They are to see themselves as one "house" or "family" to avoid sectarianism ("I am of Apollos, I am of Cephas, I am of Christ", etc.). A father in Christ will not tolerate such divisions among the sons. When the fathers of the family assemble to one man from whom their faith was imparted, they assemble as a tribe. Together, all the tribes of God make up the nation of God.

It was always God's intent that the natural family represent the spiritual family (1 to1) but, because of sin, spiritual fathers who are not natural fathers became necessary. For example, my spiritual father is a black man. He clearly is not my natural father. He is the man from whom my faith was born and he watches over my soul. This is how God is building his house.

I see what you're saying. To me it's a matter of what kind of system do we want. If the system is set up for one person to be in charge and take the lead you're just asking for problems. If it's more of an egalitarian system with everyone working together, at least it shows we're trying to be what the Lord calls us to be.

Knowing nothing of shepherding the OP can be forgiven.
Jesus was the shepherd.
He trained his disciples to become Apostles and seek and lead flocks of their own.

Sheep are not led by many and different shepherds. The reason being they respond to one voice alone.

Sheep are not highly intelligent by nature. Stampede a flock toward a cliff and every last one will plummet to their death while hearing their companions bleating in terror as they tumble over the edge to certain death.
Unless a shepherd or sheep dog intervenes in time.
Sheep are not independent by nature. They must have guidance to survive.
If no one is there to sheer them ever, they will perish under the weight of their wool.

Many shepherds is man's ideal for man. Not Christ's flock.

Which is why there is that warning in his words. Be careful thinking to be a shepherd of the word, a pastor. Because the responsibility is immense. And that shepherd, pastor, will be held to a more strict judgement than their sheep.

Many a celebrity ''pastor'' on television should fear the day of their judgement.

That's not really true. Scripture does imply, a single overseer for a local church. Which agrees with the fact that Jesus Christ is the single head of the Universal Church.

1Ti 3:1 πιστος ο λογος ει τις επισκοπης ορεγεται καλου εργου επιθυμει
Faithful is the saying, If a man seeks the office of a bishop, he desires a good work.

This office is "singular" in the Greek. One man - not men, as contrasted with those who would be Deacons or Servants of the church.

The Greek word: επισκοπης is literally translated: "episcopate". However, it comes from a Greek word that means "to watch" or "to go see". Therefore, an "Overseer".

In the letter to Timothy, it is always mentioned in the singular... just one man:
v.1 ".. If a man..." - .."he desires..."
v.2 "The Bishop (Overseer) must be a husband of one wife..."
v.4 "one who rules his house..."
v.5 "But if a man knows not how to rule his house, how shall he take care of the house of God?"

Additionally, these same instructions are given to Titus:

Tit 1:5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that were wanting, and appoint elders in every city, as I gave thee charge;

Note here - that Titus was to appoint "elders" in every city, not "elders" (plural) to every church but in every city. After this, the instructions are the same as given in 1 Timothy:

Tit 1:7 For the bishop must be blameless, as God's steward; not self-willed, not soon angry, no brawler, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre;
Tit 1:8 but given to hospitality, a lover of good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled;
Tit 1:9 holding to the faithful word which is according to the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in the sound doctrine, and to convict the gainsayers.