Do Evangelical Protestants consider the "Elders" of Philippians 1:1 formalized in the Early Church as those listed in Ephesians 4:11?

Question

Formalized Ministry The constituency of the Early Church was listed as saints, elders, and deacons in Philippians 1:1. And we know that the early Christians were familiar with the Synagogue style of congregating with a leadership of archisynagogos, hazzars, and almoners. So they would have considered some type of formal spiritual leadership necessary in the fledgling Church.

And we see in Ephesians 4:11 a list of ministers given by the Apostle Paul "that were for the edification of the congregations." Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastor/Teachers But were ministries formalized into leadership roles by this time in church history? Or were these, as some contend, just descriptions of ministering done at that time?

If they were "formalized" in New Testament times and functioning in those churches, do Evangelical Protestants consider them as also legitimate ministry with a leadership role in modern Local Congregations? Do they consider the N.T. listing a pattern for modernity? Should the modern local church, or denominations, expect there to be room for all of these ministries to exist and flourish---or just the pastor?

Jesus Christ has abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the Evangel whereunto I am appointed a Herald, an Apostle, and a Teacher to the nations. (2 Timothy 1:10,11)

And He (God) gave some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the Body of Christ. (Ephesians 4:11-12)

Answer 1

Each Protestant denomination may take slightly different perspectives on how the church should be governed and what the role of an ‘elder’ should be. Some formalize their persons by name and some do not. It sounds funny but I often make up my own mind and then forget what my own opinions are. But maybe this is partly the point; it’s not that critical to be organized exactly as the primitive church. Although I do think there is good reason to loosely match that primitive structure because of its simplicity and lack of hierarchy. Otherwise it is disrespectful to the body that Paul says is more important than the eye.

Protestants generally see the Apostles and Prophets to be ceased (not all, some few call new church planters a kind of apostle, though not equal to the twelve at all). The evangelist is simply the person gifted at presenting the gospel to unbelievers like Billy Graham and are not that many.

This really just leaves, practically speaking pastors and teachers. The pastor, or often the head pastor, serves as the overall ‘overseeing’ person of the whole congregation. Some very early protestant churches treated pastors and teachers as the same office and did not want to share teaching with anyone. However typically a bible college teacher would not be considered a pastor and even a woman could be a teacher of other women in the primitive church, or at least children.

In modern churches, many do not follow the primitive structure, as respect the differences between men and women, there are even a few churches that have female head pastors. Something frowned up by most churches - though I do not have statistics. Typically in modern day a woman could be on a ministry team but usually limited to missionary work, or more or less act as a counselor giving pastoral care for women, a kind of ‘pastoral care worker’. I personally think the pastoral care of women for women is highly appreciated by many women in a congregation. The question being answered does not actually bring up the topic of sex but from the scripture all these offices being mentioned are usually presumed male in the primitive church, though their could be some exceptions argued.

Under the pastors and teachers, we have the congregation of saints among who some serve in practical matters, called deacons and some as elders who might share in teaching or voting on more spiritual topics such as which new pastor to hire. Deacons being practical care-takers might even act like bouncers, if physical security is at threat.

Some churches make obvious efforts to keep females and men separate in social events, others show no sign of making any kind of separation at all.

Those elders would be usually more senior in their faith and naturally physical age. Some churches are formal and publish the names of these ‘elders’. Many just organically work with the older bible based natural leaders who effectively work as ‘elders’ without a formal title. As mentioned they might cross-over as teachers unlike deacons. Sometimes the most wealthy in a congregation (those that more-or-less pay the salary of the pastors) are considered effectively elders in their practical role. For example, if the elders are choosing a new pastor, such people would practically have a strong vote being that they could take their money to a different church when strongly disagreeing. (Not sure to what extent this could be improper or on occasion if God has sort of arranged it that way, just commenting on what I have seen, not assigning blame)

I think this basically sketches out the evangelical typical organizational structure. It is more or less like the primitive church and the pastors, deacons and elders are not supposed to Lord it over the congregation because the congregation is considered to be a holy priesthood and kings on their own right by their faith in Christ. Each believer is essentially a holy priest of high rank in their duty to remind each other of their forgiveness in Christ. This means all the other roles are simply to serve this whole church (not to obtain honor) which serves Christ by their faith and love. The greatest is the least. Any church that stresses a need to quickly establish hierarchal relations to new members, is in my mind, missing the glory of the New Testament primitive template that is based fully on faith in the gospel and is a disrespect to the Lord of every congregation Jesus Christ who communicates all his gifts to the believers in order to nourish the entire body by the Spirit.

Answer 2

Legitimate Leadership Ministry Some modern seminary professors teach that the ministry of the Apostles and the vision of the Prophets have ceased. (Although some designate Missionaries as a type of Apostle, since both are sent ones out to establish new church communities.) And an Evangelist is often said to be simply the person gifted at presenting the gospel to unbelievers like Billy Graham and are not that many. Evangelists are considered an also-ran ministry! And it is concluded that this really leaves, practically speaking, pastors and teachers.

In a real sense, pastorism has hijacked the ministry. It is considered the creme de la creme of ministry. On the other hand, modern prophets are oft considered "demon possessed." Those claiming to be Apostles are seen to be deluded. And evangelism is just an adjunct to the pastoral work, who wears many hats. "Pastor-teacher" is a hyphenated word in the Greek of Ephesians 4, so formal "Teachers" offices are melded into just part of the pastor's job description. (Although a seminary professor may be considered a Teacher void of pastoral duties.)

With this modern Protestant outlook on what is considered the Formal Ministerial offices, we must ask, Has the modern Church kept up with the population in discipling, as Jesus instructed? (Matthew 28:18-20) Many scholars---and the statistics---would answer in the negative. Some local churches rejoice in a handful of converts at their morning church services. But at the same time the secular universities and God-rejecting public school establishments produce hundreds of thousands of atheist and agnostics! Hundreds of thousands!

Rejecting four of the five ministries listed in Ephesians has not been a boon to the Christian discipleship program! Pastoring alone, has not in the least kept pace. Should not then, Evangelical Protestants reconsider their attitude---and reexamine their exegesis of the scriptures---concerning the listing of formal ministries in the Early Church, and include them all as a pattern for modern church ministry?

Plenty of Reason There is plenty of scriptural justification for doing this re-examination:

(1) There were men beside the Twelve who were considered Apostles in the N.T. (Romans 11:13, 15:9, 16:7)
(2) Prophets beyond the O.T. men (Acts 13:1, Barnabas, Simeon, Lucius, Manaen, Saul; Acts 11:28, 21:10, Agabus)
(3) Teachers in Antioch (Acts 13:1; Paul, 2 Timothy 1:11)
(4) Evangelist on the move! (Evangelist/Herald, 2 Timothy1:11; Philip, Acts 21:8)
(5) Pastor/Shepherd (Elders in Asia Minor, 1 Peter 5:2-4; Peter, John 21:15-17)

Recruiting and training Evangelists along with Pastors/Teachers, with full-blown evangelism departments in the local church, would greatly enhance the production of new converts and disciples. Showing that ministry the same respect as pastoring would elevate their esteem in the eyes of local congregation, and provide more moral and financial support.

Training and releasing men to move in the anointing of the Prophet would have a great impact on society, confronting it with the dynamic soul-discerning, redemptive Word of God! Accepting this gifting as legitimate by the Church would serve to expand the impact of the Church on a falling civilization.

Proof of Pudding The old adage stated that the proof of the pudding is in the tasting. Have these ministries ceased? Did God intend His Church to be without these gifts that Jesus went to a great deal of trouble to obtain? Is there no evidence of their existence throughout the past 2,000 years?

The answer is obvious. There is evidence of the miraculous gifts in operation throughout the centuries. Spirit-led evangelism, prophecy and prophetic confrontation, healing (the signs of an apostle,2 Corinthians 12:12), miraculous deliverance, sacrificial pastoring, et al.

But in all of this, it is important to first recognize the putting forth of these ministries as a Formal Listing and Practice in the Early Church. And then to accept them as a Pattern for us all today. They become tools in the hands of the Holy Spirit to work the glories and wonders of God in the earth.

It seems that many Evangelical Protestants have recognized all of this...but there is more education that needs to be done. (To answer this posted question.)

Answer 3

It seems that the only formalised roles were saints (all admitted to the Church), elders and deacons. Also apostles, but their names were fixed as the original ones (witness Paul describing himself as an ‘abortive’). There is no evidence that Ep. iv:11 describe anything but informal ministries. So, the NT listing you refer to is the one in i:1. While evangelists would perhaps be appointed formally, the NT does not establish a list of requisites, so it would not be normative to appoint them formally. Prophets are a more interesting case, as I Co seems to imply that they had to be judge of all the church, with no other criteria than those of Deuteronomy.