It is often pointed out that every time the term is used, it is in the plural and therefore prohibits a one-man rule. In addition, in this plurality, no one man ever acts independently of the others (Acts 11:30, 14:23, 15:2,4; 20:17; 21:18; Philippians 1:1; 1Tim. 5:1, 17, 19; Tit. 1:5; James 5:14-15, 1 Peter 5:1). Consequently, the use of the word “leadership” is used to convey the leadership of the entire body of elders. However, the lens from which we see the word “elders” is through the lens of a local church organization. If we think of their role and work in the absence of the local church organization, we can immediately envision one man overseeing the souls of brethren.
This plurality is like the word “saints” from the standpoint that both define a class of people, rather than an elect office of authority. If we apply their work to a local congregation, then the use of the plural is emphasized to prohibit one man of influence to act independently of other elders. Here, the balance of power is so very important that the way it can be accomplished is by a plurality of men. In this case, the men act as one so that the church is under the oversight of an eldership rather than being influenced by the voice of one man. The abuse of power is always a concern in this context. It is the reason we have checks and balances in our government.
However, this makes sense when one thinks of the “called-out” in terms of a church that is likened to a school, business, or government. The Bible’s use of the plural is often used to describe a certain classification. For example, the plural “children” is specified concerning a bishop’s qualifications. The argument is sometimes made that since the text speaks of having “believing children,” the qualifications demand more than one child. Rather than thinking of children as a classification, the view demands a plurality of children for a man to qualify. To apply this same logic consistently, Ephesians 6:1 commands “children” to obey their “parents.” Are we to conclude that such a statement does not apply to a single child? According to the logic, a child could argue that since they have no siblings, they are under no obligation to obey their parents because they compose the only “child” in that family. We recognize that a “child” falls under the classification of “children.” In the same way, if a man had one child, he was qualified for having had children. To illustrate the application of this view, if a man fills out a tax form that asks for the number of dependent children in his home, he doesn’t leave it blank because he just has one child. Can you imagine him explaining, “I don’t have any children because I just have one child.” It would be equally ridiculous to conclude that a child is obligated to obey parents but not a parent. Is the child under no obligation to obey a parent if there is only one parent in the home? This is especially difficult when the parents do not agree and since they must be one voice like an eldership is to a church, then, there is no requirement to be submissive to just one.
Following the illustration of one parent, a single mother falls under the classification of “parents.” By the same logic, an “elder” falls under the classification of elders. To suggest that an elder has no business overseeing anyone because the eldership (“elders”, plural) must oversee them is the same as arguing that a “child” is under no obligation to obey a “parent” because every instruction must come from “parents.”
Of course, this confusion is never an issue if there is no church organization. There’s no need to make corporate decisions for what does not exist. Remember, we are applying the New Testament teaching of one elder’s task to equip the saints, not an eldership’s voice in making decisions for a local church organization. This assumption that someone needs to make the final decision is only needed when such an organization exists that requires business decisions for the group.
Furthermore, the tradition that makes this argument about the need for two or more elders is designed to protect the church organization from having one man lift himself above other men to become a one-man rule like the Pope. At least two problems are created. First, no possibility of this kind exists if they are never given such power in the first place. Second, controlling the abuse of power is only a concern when there is an organization over which to rule. Even among those who advocate the view of a plurality of elders will still experience abuse of power when one elder is more dominant due to personality, experience, and/or ability.
Unfortunately, if we envision a local church organization, we envision elders in the local church organization as the bosses. We may not call them bosses. We call them elders but they rule over the organization just the same. Submission in this context means that the membership is under obligation to accept the eldership’s decision and obey them. Remove the local church organization, along with the bosses and what you have remaining are leaders, who shepherd the souls of the called out living among them. They neither wait to teach, and lead by example until another man is doing the same thing, nor do they wait to teach until they are all collected into a coral/church building. A first-century elder exercised his work whenever and wherever he found souls.
To illustrate, a father does not wait until there’s a designated place to teach his children. He teaches them whenever he has the opportunity throughout the day. Like the called out body of Christ, some homes have been institutionalized. Orphan homes are an example of this so-called home. In such a context, there are always pre-set times, schedules, and places of activity that are necessary to conduct business. Calling an orphanage a home does not identify it as such any more than calling a local church organization the body of Christ. Both developments are drawn from man’s wisdom.