All a fellowship of believers requires to function as church, are suitably qualified elders and deacons.

Elders are primarily responsible for the spiritual well-being of the flock, and facets of the eldership role include the pastoral (or shepherding if you will), teaching, counseling etc, which in a sense all overlap to some degree. The role of deacon is primarily concerned with the physical/material well-being of the flock.

There is no separate role of Pastor/Shepherd, distinct from and senior to that of Elder. All references to the shepherding, pastoring, teaching, counseling, doctrinal and even praying roles in the NT scriptures are always in conjunction with Elders.

Eldership is always to be in plurality and in no way delineated by grades or a ranking hierarchy, i.e. all elders are equal if different in maturity, understanding or experience. Indeed in hindsight, God’s foresight is great. This will stop undue focus on the one person, unbalanced emphasis on one area of scripture and error propagated by one person going unchallenged and possibly becoming entrenched.

The “Sole Authority Pastor” (henceforth to be referred to as “SAP”) concept as used in many “church organizations” in this age is not scripturally mandated and cannot be honestly inferred from sound (and honest) biblical exegesis.

Comments & questions welcomed. Could I ask that we quote scripture to back up our posts and help focus the discussion.

Thanks & God bless

Hi TV01,

I guess you wanted me "outside" where no parental oversight will limit our no-holds-barred approach to this discussion.

I have this question for you as we move on.  What is the origin of the "Eldership" structure imbibed by the early church?  Was it a product of the society in which they lived or was it a commandment of the Lord?  Same for the role of the Deacon.  Please share the origin of the "pastoral" ministry with us as well.

H TayoD,

Yes O! For growing lads space to spar and to roam is required. Too much time indoors gisting (celebrity gossip, fashion etc, etc), with the girls and youngsters is not advised.

I am aware of the “Eldership” tradition in early Jewish culture. It is referred to severally in both the new & old testaments. I think it’s pertinent to note that while a mainstay of the culture, it did not grow out of the religious tradition, but worked in conjunction with it. The lines are further blurred by the fact that Jewish religion, suffused most aspects of everyday life.

Now, as to the “Eldership” structure in the early church, the essential requirements for it are laid out in 1&2 Timothy & Titus. Reading from Acts and most of the letters following, it becomes very clear that lead for most church based activity is by the eldership. The narrative clearly reveals that it was always the elders that where charged with teaching, shepherding etc, etc. This was spoken of by Paul, Peter & James, especially when referencing an already existing and fully functioning church.

In as much as one believes that all scripture is Holy Ghost breathed, yes I do believe it was a commandment of the Lord. Whilst on the face of it they may seem identical or one a precursor for the other, I don’t believe the intention was to replicate the tradition wholesale. Incorporating Jewish traditional elements into Christianity was always a problem and served to hinder (especially Jewish converts), from fully embracing new life in Christ. It was something Paul fought bitterly against and drives much of the narrative in both Galatians & Hebrews.

God bless

@TV01,

I guess my next question is somehow tied to the first one. Is there any place in the NT where the Spirit of God specifically mentioned that the affairs of the church must be manned by Elders and Deacons? This is very important to our discussions because a careful observance of the Book of Acts indicate that sometimes, the Lord gives specific instructions and atimes, the Disciples do what seems "Good to us and the Holy Ghost". In other words, without a specific instruction, they do what wisdom dictates for them to do as long as it does not violate their conscience and is not in contradiction to the will of God. This is what happened in the case of Deacons and I dare say, in the case of Elders.

The Elder concept was adopted from their custom because they noticed that it works well as a means of administration. It's just like the church today adopting some means of administration that we noticed worked in the community we live in. As long as the principle that such administration ensures that the ministry of the Word and Prayer is not hindered, then the Lord will have no problems with it. And besides, the role played by elders in those days are well taken care of by people in the church today. The only difference is that we do not use that nomenclature; and at the same time we have young people, like Timothy who are not qualified to be called Elders but are functioning in that role.

What have you to say to these?

TayoD:

I guess my next question is somehow tied to the first one. Is there any place in the NT where the Spirit of God specifically mentioned that the affairs of the church must be manned by Elders and Deacons?

I believe my earlier reference to the letters to Timothy & Titus, and the Biblical narrative amply demonstrate the relevance of "Eldership".

I am not so much concerned with the deaconate hers, but suffice to say, I do believe that the relative profile of that particular function could wax and wane depending on the corporate or individual welfare requirements of the body. That is not to say that the scriptural outline is any less applicable.

TayoD:

[/i] This is very important to our discussions because a careful observance of the Book of Acts indicate that sometimes, the Lord gives specific instructions and atimes, the Disciples do what seems "Good to us and the Holy Ghost". In other words, without a specific instruction, they do what wisdom dictates for them to do as long as it does not violate their conscience and is not in contradiction to the will of God. This is what happened in the case of Deacons and I dare say, in the case of Elders.

I think a careful reading will delineate between the "structural" and "situational" in this sense.
For instance, someone was required to replace Judas. No blueprint for that. So prayer and leading from God by the Holy Spirit is the logical way to go. But if something is codified (specific instructions) in scripture and played out in the Biblical narrative, any addition sounds like the traditions of men. Believe me most traditions sounded good and reasonable to begin with, but as men we have an inclination to do what is good in our own sight and then co-opt God in or just get His sign-off.

Oft times the Apostles where pressed to travel somewhere by the Holy Spirit, even when previously commited to going elsewhere. That is situational and so we respond we discernment, prayer and Gods leading by the Holy Spirit. It's still God.

Again, an outline is given for the Eldership and the deaconate. A laid down procedure. It would only become situational if the need was there but the requirements were not met.

TayoD:

The Elder concept was adopted from their custom because they noticed that it works well as a means of administration. It's just like the church today adopting some means of administration that we noticed worked in the community we live in. As long as the principle that such administration ensures that the ministry of the Word and Prayer is not hindered, then the Lord will have no problems with it. And besides, the role played by elders in those days are well taken care of by people in the church today. The only difference is that we do not use that nomenclature; and at the same time we have young people, like Timothy who are not qualified to be called Elders but are functioning in that role.

We can agree to disagree about where it came from. The fact remains that it is codified in NT scripture inspired by God. If you want to consider it an appropriation from Judaism, that's fine. But trying to fit the Jewish form of Eldership "wholesale" into Christianity will always cause problems. I don't see how the "fullness" of NT Christianity will be captured.

Again, I don't see from scripture that NT Eldership is about the "administative function". It is about the spiritual welfare of the flock, by the spiritually mature. Neither is it dependent on age, hence Timothy. In fact the reason why his relative youth would have been a problem is because he would not have been qualified for an elder role under traditional Judaism.

The whole body works together, taking their lead from the Eldership, which is essentially a function of maturity/wisdom/experience. Hence the prominence of James in Jerusalem and Peter's respect of the deep insight afforded to Paul.

Not to stray, administration is a trifling concern in faith terms. However it becomes core when mans religious imperative starts to make headway. There are only 2 reasons for believers to come together in fellowship. For growth/edification & to care for each other (coporate worship is great, mass evangelism is commendable, but these are not the prime reasons for assembling). Learning/sharing/teaching (not preaching) the Word and mutual care.

Like I say, doctrine can sound great and be concieved with the noblest of intentions, but it must work itself out on practice and conform to biblically prescribed mores.

And finally, I also have a question for you sir;

TayoD:

I guess my next question is somehow tied to the first one. Is there any place in the NT where the Spirit of God specifically mentioned that the affairs of the church must be manned by Elders and Deacons?

Could you please answer your own question, only replacing the "Elders & Deacons" with "Sole Authority Pastors"

God bless

TV01,

Thanks for opening the thread as I suggested. I appreciate it. Now I hope it's not going to be a two Ts affair (you know, TV01 & TayoD) with the both of you going back and forth like a tennis match and not leaving room for a word in edgewise.

Having said that, I will ask about the early christians who 'went from door to door, breaking bread'? There was none of the structure we see today. I'm throwing this in before I get my bible out and join in on the discussion but until then, can any of you Ts comment?

Cheers

@Enugu,

Thanks for joining in the conversation.  We still go from house to house breaking bread.  I'm sure you've heard of house fellowships and Cell fellowships.  Those are the kind of things that happen there.

@TV01

I believe my earlier reference to the letters to Timothy & Titus, and the Biblical narrative amply demonstrate the relevance of "Eldership".

I never said having elders in the church is not relevant, rather, I mentioned that the Lord never gave a specific instruction as to appointing elders in the church.  The concept of eldership was introduced by the Apostles in the course of greater administrative needs of the church.  In this, you have not answered my question at all.  Did Jesus specifically instructed that Elders be appointed in the church?  As far as the other T's (Timothy and Titus) in this conversation are concerned, there is no direct witness to the notion that the Lord instructed for Elders to be appointed in the church.

But if something is codified (specific instructions) in scripture and played out in the Biblical narrative, any addition sounds like the traditions of men. Believe me most traditions sounded good and reasonable to begin with, but as men we have an inclination to do what is good in our own sight and then co-opt God in or just get His sign-off.

I do not believe anything must pass for "law" in the NT except it comes directly from Jesus.  If there is no direct instruction from Him, He expects us to follow the principles laid down and not violate our conscience and the law of love.  For instance, the early disciples were known to gather on Sunday which is what we do today.  But the fact remains that this was not a direct command from the Lord.  They did what they thought was "good to them and the Holy Ghost" and the Lord has no problems with it.  and everything is prone to abuse including the Eldership thing you are talking about. You feel the nomenclatures we use to day brings undue visibilty to some, but the fact is even the use of the word Elders for some and not all will result in the same problem.  Nomenclature is not the problem, though it should not be used in a way that violates the Spirit of the NT.

Again, I don't see from scripture that NT Eldership is about the "administative function". It is about the spiritual welfare of the flock, by the spiritually mature. Neither is it dependent on age, hence Timothy. In fact the reason why his relative youth would have been a problem is because he would not have been qualified for an elder role under traditional Judaism.

It is clear that their primary role is "ruling" and some that rule might also labour in word and doctrine.  That is what 1 Ti 5:17 is all implies - Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.  Are you implying that Timothy was considered an Elder?  You got to be kidding me.  The word itself implies you have to be advance in years to be one.  Don't stretch it my friend.

Not to stray, administration is a trifling concern in faith terms. However it becomes core when mans religious imperative starts to make headway. There are only 2 reasons for believers to come together in fellowship. For growth/edification & to care for each other (coporate worship is great, mass evangelism is commendable, but these are not the prime reasons for assembling). Learning/sharing/teaching (not preaching) the Word and mutual care.
Like I say, doctrine can sound great and be concieved with the noblest of intentions, but it must work itself out on practice and conform to biblically prescribed mores.

To you, administration may be no big deal, bu to God, He considers it such a BIGGIE that one of the gifts He bestows specially was the gift of government or administration:  [color=#990000]1 Corinthians 12:28  And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. [olor]
Do you want to take that back?

Could you please answer your own question, only replacing the "Elders & Deacons" with "Sole Authority Pastors"

This is very simple.  The Lord has a message for His church in several cities.  He thought it best that He would address the message to ONE person who is called the Messenger of that Local Assembly (See Revelations 1 to 3).  He never addressed the message to a group of people but only to one person.  So tell me, doesn't that tell you that the Lord recognises only one person that is ultimately responsible for the "walk" of that body of believers?  Since He has called Pastors to shepherd and to teach His people, is it not only logical to conclude that the messenger must be the Pastor?

Hi TayoD,

You said;
I never said having elders in the church is not relevant, rather, I mentioned that the Lord never gave a specific instruction as to appointing elders in the church.

My response;
Are you implying that in lieu of specific instructions from the Lord (and regardless of what the Apostles prescribed?) a “What seems good to us and does not violate the conscience” rule applies? Perhaps this will help;
Ephesians 2:20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone

As I have mentioned as various times across threads in this forum, what the Apostles did was foundational and as such, not to be considered as optional extras, which we can change/discard as we see fit. 

I don’t believe you are unfamiliar with the depth of revelation given through Paul. I am not about to give in to the notion that his epistles omitted the weighty matters and focused on the not very important? Where Paul gave guidance on the basis of his own judgment, he was quick to say so.

So, to answer your question, no Jesus did not specifically instruct Eldership directly, He did so through Paul an Apostle.

You said;
I do not believe anything must pass for "law" in the NT except it comes directly from Jesus.  If there is no direct instruction from Him, He expects us to follow the principles laid down and not violate our conscience and the law of love.  For instance, the early disciples were known to gather on Sunday which is what we do today.  But the fact remains that this was not a direct command from the Lord.  They did what they thought was "good to them and the Holy Ghost" and the Lord has no problems with it.

My response;
Of course you make an obvious exception for the erroneous “tithing” notion.

You say “he expects us to follow the principles laid down”. Following on from my immediate previous response, are you saying that the Apostles worked solely on a “what seems good” basis? And that the principles had to be solely from the Lord?

You said;
Everything is prone to abuse including the Eldership thing you are talking about. You feel the nomenclatures we use to day brings undue visibilty to some, but the fact is even the use of the word Elders for some and not all will result in the same problem.  Nomenclature is not the problem, though it should not be used in a way that violates the Spirit of the NT.

My response;
TayoD please, this discussion is about structure (and as a corollary function, and not nomenclature). Eldership in plurality and equality will see a lot of the abuse currently seen disappear. I have noted severally the benefits of this. Please let’s keep it tight.

You said;
It is clear that their primary role is "ruling" and some that rule might also labour in word and doctrine.  That is what 1 Ti 5:17 is all implies - Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.  Are you implying that Timothy was considered an Elder?  You got to be kidding me.  The word itself implies you have to be advance in years to be one.  Don't stretch it my friend.

My response;
Now your “Principals laid down by the Lord” theorem comes back to bite you in the butt.

You over-reliance (and in my view misapplication/misunderstanding) of the word “rule” is also apparent here.

Please hear the Words of THE Lord Himself on this;
Matthew 20:25 But Jesus called them to Himself and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. 26 Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. 27 And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave—(Please also see Mark 10:42 & Luke 22:25)

By your reckoning this totally nullifies anything the Apostles may have said later, as there is a principle laid down directly by the Lord.

A better way would be to accept both as scripture, and applicable, and reconcile the two. The word translated rule can also mean “to go on before” that is to show the way, to model. Which is the essence of eldership in NT Christianity. In a church setting, nobody rules (as in Lords), has authority or provides covering for anyone else.

You are demonstrating an organizational, hierarchical approach to church which you are not willing to submit to question. Instead you are reading your paradigm into the scripture when it should be vice-versa, or better still simply let The Word speak.

As for Timothy being an elder, again you miss the essence of the narrative. Timothy was working in conjunction with the Apostle to establish the church. He was acting under apostolic authority, not as a SAP. Eldership in NT Christianity is a function of maturity, not age/achievement as in Judaism (which is what I was alluding to before when I spoke of adopting OT precepts wholesale as NT mores). He was to source and/or raise men who would be able to function as elders. Timothy more than possessed the requisite qualities, albeit he was somewhat youthful, which would have been a bar in traditional eldership. You even fail to understand that “Shepherding” is not an end in itself. The essence of that is to raise believers to maturity, so they also can help nurture and edify others. It seems that very little of your understanding of roles, functions and aims of the church and fellowship are informed by the bible or scriptural narrative.

Your appear to have missed the whole thrust of “Apostolic Authority”. When he needed to establish his credentials Paul always described himself as an apostle, and one called by God. This because he was charged with foundational work. That’s why when Peter settled into an established church in Jerusalem he described himself as an Elder.

You said
To you, administration may be no big deal, bu to God, He considers it such a BIGGIE that one of the gifts He bestows specially was the gift of government or administration:  [color=#990000]1 Corinthians 12:28  And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. [olor]Do you want to take that back?

My response
Please see for yourself it's relative importance in the list. Maybe I was wrong to call it trifling, but in a maturing body of believers, it is not that important.

You said;
This is very simple.  The Lord has a message for His church in several cities.  He thought it best that He would address the message to ONE person who is called the Messenger of that Local Assembly (See Revelations 1 to 3).  He never addressed the message to a group of people but only to one person.  So tell me, doesn't that tell you that the Lord recognises only one person that is ultimately responsible for the "walk" of that body of believers?  Since He has called Pastors to shepherd and to teach His people, is it not only logical to conclude that the messenger must be the Pastor?

My response;
Again you fail your own “principle laid down by the Lord” test and talk of logical conclusions. Well  the conclusion is not as logical as you attempt to make it seem.

I never said messenger could mean elder, what I said, was it did not mean Pastor. It meant what it said, messenger. No where in scripture is the word translated messenger used to mean elder/pastor or any of the variations, bishop, overseer etc. The word can also mean Angel and that is it. Trying to parley this to mean SAP is totally disingenuous. Neither is it directly or indirectly corroborated by any other verse of scripture.

Just as in the tithing debate your whole position rests on an interpretation of one word/verse which can be described as highly debatable at best. On this foundation (Not on Christ or the Apostles) you then proceed to build a whole superstructure? Brother please!

I'm here.

GOd bless

enugu:

Thanks for opening the thread as I suggested. I appreciate it.

No problem, it's for the discussion and edification of all.

enugu:

Now I hope it's not going to be a two Ts affair (you know, TV01 & TayoD) with the both of you going back and forth like a tennis match and not leaving room for a word in edgewise.

Before  I opened, and in introducing this thread, I welcomed all to participate. You know the T's serve fast and play hard. But that is'nt to exclude anyone. There are no stupid questions and no unquestionable positions. Game's on and all are welcome to play or to watch, to comment or contribute.

God bless

enugu:

Having said that, I will ask about the early christians who 'went from door to door, breaking bread'? There was none of the structure we see today. I'm throwing this in before I get my bible out and join in on the discussion but until then, can any of you Ts comment?

I see a church that works how I believe God intended it too.
The whole essence of the "door to door" theme I believe speaks to community.

Church starts from individuals, then families, then whole communities. It's why the church is always adressed by location and not denomination or anything else. Church is where the body gathers.

There is no real structure required. Church is a living, breathing thing. A family an organism. Religion would force it into organisational mode and effect an unecessary and unscriptural hierarchy over it.

TayoD:

Thanks for joining in the conversation. We still go from house to house breaking bread. I'm sure you've heard of house fellowships and Cell fellowships. Those are the kind of things that happen there.

In contemporary times, House fellowships are effectively subsidiaries of a centralised church organisations. In early Bible times, they were considered as nothing less than churches in their own right. It is really just a way for the central organisation to retain control.

Church today is ghettoised. People are taken out of the community and gathered together in one place. All house fellowships effectively do is mimic the activities of the larger church intra-week.

No fellowship of believers is subject to any other (as so called cell fellowships are). Locals are supposed to minister to one another. It will engender the Christian Spirit right there where you live.

Get your bible out Sister Enugu.

God bless

TV01:

You know the T's serve fast and play hard. 

TayoD served off court 

So where are we?

You're taking a drubbing. So far you haven't managed to hold serve and you've lost all games played to love !

@TV01,

How can you be a Player and the Umpire at the same? I stand no chance with such arrangement.

Okay, em. . . change sides: from henceforth I conduct the game!

Okay, lets play
red or blue, home or away?

Let me kick off with this.

" The contemporary structure much beloved in many churches whereby a "pastor" has sole authority" is without scriptural basis, thoroughly unbiblical, and a man-made contraption"

Game on

Your serve sir.

Red card, TV01!!

I said I conduct the game, and no one else: you hear??

@TV01

Can I join your team?

how can u guys sit and write/read these long winded boring drawn out posts If I wanted to read a book I'd go to ebooks.com.

*** yawn ***

then again, I'm only a woman ,  what do I know of such things ,  right TV?

Teach on brother!

I vote Trini_Girl to be our coach

" The contemporary structure much beloved in many churches whereby a "pastor" has sole authority" is without scriptural basis, thoroughly unbiblical, and a man-made contraption"

May I return the serve with this:

The concept of "eldership" is a carry over of a a system of governance from Judaism into the Church of Christ. No where do we find in the N.T. where the Lord called any one to be an Elder; rather He calls people into various offices such as the so-called five-fold ministry (for the edification of the Body of Christ), and endow others with gifts such as the gift of government, helps etc.

Just like the Deacons, Elders were appointed to meet the needs of a growing community of faith. The needs and peculiarities of the present day church will also necessitate the need for different style of government and administration. While the nomenclature may be different, the purpose essentially remain the same: meeting the needs of the body of Christ.

*** yawn ***

trini_girl:

*** yawn ***

trini_girl, go to your room. And stay there. You are grounded till further notice for unruly behaviour and scatalogical posts! Naughty girl.

Yes daddy    

Let me be the one to spank her for her misconduct if there was any

Hi TayoD,

I am aware of the “Eldership” tradition in early Jewish culture. It is referred to severally in both the new & old testaments. I think it’s pertinent to note that while a mainstay of the culture, it did not grow out of the religious command, but worked in conjunction with it. The lines are further blurred by the fact that Jewish religion, suffused most aspects of everyday life.

Now, as to the “Eldership” structure in the church, the essential requirements for it are laid out in 1&2 Timothy & Titus. Reading from Acts and most of the letters following, it becomes very clear that lead for most church based activity is by the eldership. The narrative clearly reveals that it was always the elders that where charged with teaching, shepherding etc, etc. This was spoken of by Paul, Peter & James, especially when referencing an already existing and fully functioning church.

In as much as one believes that all scripture is Holy Ghost breathed, yes I do believe it was a commandment of the Lord. The Church was established by the Lord and His holy apostles (Ephesians 2:20), so anything spelt out under apostolic authority is as good as if the LORD Himself had spokenit.

Whilst on the face of it, Church eldership may seem identical to Jewish cultural eldership, I don’t believe the intention was to replicate the tradition. Incorporating Jewish traditional elements into Christianity was always a problem and served to hinder (especially Jewish converts), from fully embracing new life in Christ. It was something Paul fought bitterly against and drives much of the narrative in both Galatians & Hebrews.

TayoD:

Just like the Deacons, Elders were appointed to meet the needs of a growing community of faith. The needs and peculiarities of the present day church will also necessitate the need for different style of government and administration. While the nomenclature may be different, the purpose essentially remain the same: meeting the needs of the body of Christ.

On the face of it, a plausible arguement. but one that doesn't align with scripture. Just as God told Moses to see to it that he made all things according to the pattern shown him (Hebrews 8:5), we have our blueprint for orderly family and church life. I see this as obvious attempt to introduce will-worship into proceedings. An open-ended remit such as you suggest means anyone can do anything and leaves the scripture subject to tradition. In my book (& in the Bible ), that's a no-no.

New balls please.

God bless

God bless

Wey dem?

This is very relevant to the whole discourse, on politics, temples, etc. etc. Does anyone have anything to say

Hi TV01,

There has been a little lull here of recent!

Maybe the problem I have with this thread is your use of 'Sole Authority' to qualify pastors, as though they are some overlords of sort.  That is not to say that pastors have not been set over assemblies of believers, to nurture and feed them.

I understand your viewpoint of the role of elders in the church.  However, someone has to be responsible for the care of souls- and that happens to be the pastor (or shepherd).  If you consider the type in the OT, the elders are always accountable to an individual.  This is necessary for direction and focus.

Even if you consider the traditional roles of shepherds, the root word from where pastors come from, an individual is always responsible for a group of sheep, leading them.  If they are many, the flock will scatter.  The shepherd knows the sheep intimately and they in turn know the voice of their shepherd and they listen to him.  Little wonder the same terminologes are used for the flock of Christ.

Or what do you think?

Analytical:

Maybe the problem I have with this thread is your use of 'Sole Authority' to qualify pastors, as though they are some overlords of sort.  That is not to say that pastors have not been set over assemblies of believers, to nurture and feed them.

In quite a few "Nigerian" churches/denominations, Pastors are seen as the apex of a hierarchical authority structure ( guess that makes them overlords of sorts?). My premise is that there is no such pattern in NT Christianity. That it's nowhere to be found or even alluded to in the scrfiptural narrative. Any rejoinders should agree/disagree (with references and illustrations of the practical outworking of thier positions.

Analytical:

I understand your viewpoint of the role of elders in the church.  However, someone has to be responsible for the care of souls- and that happens to be the pastor (or shepherd).  If you consider the type in the OT, the elders are always accountable to an individual.  This is necessary for direction and focus.Or what do you think?

I'm not sure that you do see my viewpoint of the role of Elders, as I have stated quite clearly, it encompasses the "Shepherding" (care of souls) role usually devolved and assigned to "Pastors", who have authority over them. Regardless of the OT type, the NT is clearly spelt out and not at all convoluted in any way.

Maybe you could return serve (we are having this discussion using a sporting metaphor, tennis in this case ~  TayoD has called time out as he is cramping up from dehydration  ) by showing from the NT scripture the "Mandate" for a single/senior/sole authority pastor over and above elders.

Regards

God bless

Walkover  !