Here is how one of the actual signers of the 1689 London Baptist Confession understood the term:

Benjamin Keach on mandatory “plurality of elders”, 1697
“an Elder, or Elders, a Deacon, or Deacons, ought to be elected in every Congregation,”.

Benjamin Keach on “non-pastor” elders, 1697
“Query, Are there no ruling Elders besides the Pastor?
Answ. There might be such in the Primitive Apostolical Church, but we see no ground to believe it an abiding Office to continue in the Church, but was only temporary.
1. Because we have none of the Qualifications of such Elders mention’d, or how to be chosen.
2. Because we read not particularly what their Work and Business is, or how distinct from preaching Elders; tho we see not but the Church may (if she sees meet) choose some able and discreet Brethren to be Helps in Government. We have the Qualifications of Bishops and Deacons directly laid down, and how to be chosen, and their Work declared, but of no other Office or Officers in the Church, but these only.”

Benjamin Keach on “non-pastor” elders, 1701:
“others think there were men ordained Elders, that were not gifted to preach, but to be helpful in Discipline, or in the Governement of the Church : but we reading neither of their Qualifications, or how to be chosen (nor of their peculiar Work, distinct from Pastors, nor any such elders chosen in any particular. church in the Apostles days) can see no ground for any such an Office, or Officers in the Church”

Thanks man.

I don’t know anything about Wikipedia, so for now it will have to stay in the archives of Timipedia.

I am not sure what you mean that it boils down to “control.” Rather, I think the issue has to do with the order in which the church should administer itself under the provided guidelines disposed through Scripture. It is not managed through complexity but through the application of divinely laid out principles and the appropriation of such offices as commanded by God. There is a big difference between seeking power and control and shepherding the flock of God as ordained overseers who will give an account for the way they served, led, and gave their lives to God’s people.

When you say,

“Christ spoke most directly and consistently to the humble, undereducated and unsophisticated. His Word grew from a few hundred believers to hundreds of thousands in less than a century…simple works…”

Do you mean to tell me that what “works” is having a church led by undereducated and unsophisticated men who could care less about theological truth but really only want control?

I am struggling to find a coherent point to your comments, so if you don’t mind, please elaborate further. Thanks.

It boils down to this: control.

Control of the convention, control of the association, control of the local church…the laity are not equipped to lead a body of believers, so the clergy must take on that role to save us from ourselves…and to maintain control.

Control is managed through complexity, be it of terms, research and application.

Christ spoke most directly and consistently to the humble, undereducated and unsophisticated. His Word grew from a few hundred believers to hundreds of thousands in less than a century…simple works…