Excellent post. I completely agree with you.

Les

Yes, I agree, and do believe scripture is clear on that. In fact, that’s why I believe the scriptures teach a plurality of elders, given the large number of people coming to the faith during the first few years of the apostles’ ministry. With all those new converts, the apostles knew that they couldn’t shepherd them all.

But let’s face it, one of the main reasons why some churches amass large congregations is specifically because of the popularity/personality/rhetorical ability of the pastor. People like the pastor: they like his preaching, his personality, his fire, his message, etc., and his popularity spreads like a rock star, bringing people into the church.

Because of this, a plurality of elders is often shunned because, knowing their growth is the result of the pastor, pointing people to learn from someone other than that pastor goes against the very reason they came into the church. Add to that the CEO head-honcho type of pastor whose pride will never stoop to allow others to have equal authority with him (’I built this church-thus I run this church’), and you’ve got a real problem. The result is large churches with more and more compromise of the truth; a leader whose pride becomes the foundational rule of the church; and a large congregations with ‘tickled ears’ in that they love the preaching but are left to rot and die in their spiritual growth.

(sorry for the rant )

If in reality a church is doing business, however, I think that certain things should be taking place. In the great commission sense, disciples should be being prepared to “do” all the things that the teachers were taught to do. Specifically that means raising up elders as over seer of groups and if we follow the template of the tribes of Israel, at some point the land should be sub-divided. By that I mean, we should be missional. A missional church should be one that can establish congregations within congregations for export. I have always thought it a great idea, but that is because it is mine, that at some point a portion of a congregation, having been prepared, would back in the Church Van, pack the newly weds up, and move them out to a new community of their own. Romantic, eh? Of course that would require that people really believed that they needed to leave all and follow Christ as a bride follows her groom, and it would involve the father/mother churches concentrated efforts to help support the dozens of families that would move as a tribe to another location, until they were able to begin a family of their own. This actually would work, even with small churches. The question really is, are we as members in general great commissionally minded?

Seems far fetched, but just think of it. A church of 10, 000 (thousand), prepares a missions church of five hundred (fifty). The mission church goes across town, you know in to the foreign slums or some upscale digs, same thing, and plants a new congregation, buying homes settling in, and generally changing the character of a neighborhood. Or, say the missions church is sent to a foreign country like Michigan from Southern California. They come in and with funding supplied by the remaining 9500 (950), build a new church and establish a new community of believers with core potential. Ahhh, its a pipe dream. Who would want to give up the great facilities that could be paid for with the money it would take to support serious missions?

Got another one, what if we limited the size of churches, and once they got so big, we would persecute them ourselves?

I think Thomas’ idea is sound, multiply and divide…plant….but make sure strong and stable folks are among the leavers.

Plurality is absolutely key in any size of a church not least a big one…if a church has 10 families it is not biblically ordered unless it has at least two pastors.

JP