Church "style"

[Paidion]

Paidion, would you not classify it church when Paul came to talk and the people sat and listened even to the point of a man falling out a window? What about a gathering of early church believers where an epistle is read?

Actually, the word "church" was a later innovation by the religious establishment. The Greek word "εκκληια" meant "assembly" and those who gathered to listen to Paul were certainly a Christian assembly. However, it wasn't a regular assembly meeting such as was normally held on Sundays at the weekly love feast followed by the communion or eucharist (thanksgiving) when body ministry invariably took place. This was a special meeting, and clearly the early church had such special meetings when an apostle was able to visit. The apostles travelled far and wide to visit the churches, and the occasion of these visits were special, and they didn't necessarily take place on Sunday only.

Are these occasions not "church" because all but one person is sitting, listening and learning?

They aren't regular assembly meetings when the ministry of the body normally takes place, but they are gatherings of the Christian assembly (or "church" if you insist).

Is it only church when all people are on equal footing to minister, and there is no audience?

The fact of the regular Sunday ministry of the body does not imply that the people are on "equal footing." The elders or overseers still oversee the assembly. But they don't do all the ministering.

[dwight92070]

Steve, you say there are no examples of a church being led by an individual in the New Testament. I assume you mean an individual that has the final say?? Can you show me any examples in the New Testament of a church that is led by a group of elders who all have the same authority? Personally I don't see any. At least it is not clear to me that there are such examples.

[steve]

In the New Testament, we find no established form of local church leadership other than that of a shepherding eldership. Elders were also called "overseers" (KJV: "bishops"). There is no church mentioned in scripture that had an individual leader above the rest—unless that leader was an apostle, which most churches would not be so fortunate as to have living in their towns.

Paul, Timothy and Titus all exercised singular authority in certain local churches, temporarily. But Paul was an apostle, and Timothy and Titus were apostolic legates—extensions of Paul's own ministry. They were itinerant, temporary "trouble-shooters" for churches which were clearly "led" (KJV: "ruled") by elderships (1 Tim.3:4-5; 5:17; Titus 1:5).

To say that there are no examples of elderships in which all the elders held equal authority is to place the burden of proof upon the wrong side. Rank is generally associated with title. A military general's superior rank is indicated by the title, as is the case with other officers.

When we read that Paul and Barnabas "appointed elders in every church" the men in question all had the same title, which would imply the same bearing and authority. There would be no hint of one man being in authority over another, or the leader of another, when all of them bear identical titles. We needn't seek to prove that there were no differences in rank among the church leaders until we have asked and answered the question: "Have we any examples of churches that did have a pastor above the other elders?" We have none. Our default conclusion, in the absence of contrary evidence, would be that an elder is an elder. One elder is no different rank from another.

It may be that there was an unspoken recognition among them that one man's surpassing maturity or wisdom entitled him to lead or exercise authority over the others, but there is no record of this, and the burden of proof would be upon the side of those wishing to say that this was so. But then, I don't think church leadership's task was to "exercise authority" over the rest of the flock (Mat.20:25-26). Their task was to lead by example and by teaching (1 Tim.3:2; 2 Tim.2:2; Tutus 1:9; 1 Peter 5:3).

When Paul, Peter or James mention the leadership of individual churches, they never mention the pastor (or even the "lead elder"). They only speak to the "elders" (also called "overseers") of each church (Acts 20:17; Phil.1:1; 1 Peter 5:1-4; James 5:14). They never exhibit any awareness of a "pastor" or "senior elder" among them.

[dwight92070]

Timothy 3:1-5 says that an overseer is a fine work for a man to desire and aspire to. Why? Because he will honor God by feeding and nurturing and serving the body of Christ? But Paul lists requirements before one can assume that office. One of those is that he must manage his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity. If he does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?
So Paul says that an overseer in the body of Christ is very much like a father in a family? Note that there is only one father in a family. In fact, if there were two or three fathers in one family, there would be confusion and chaos. Can a father "lord it over" his family? Of course he can. Is is possible for a father to bless, love and nurture his family? Of course it is, with God's help. Is the family supposed to love, submit to, and even obey the father? Yes, they are. Does he have authority over them? Yes, he does, but he does not need to act superior and harsh. He will tell his small children what to do until they get older and wiser and begin to make decisions on their own. A good father wants to see his children mature and become more independent. Will he ever tell them to do something that goes against what the Bible teaches? Not if he loves God and wants the best for his kids. A church that is led by a single pastor is not a problem, if the pastor has the heart of a godly father. In my understanding of scripture, it is NOT AT ALL clear that the church is to be led by a single pastor or multiple pastors. But either way, if they have godly hearts, love God, love their families, and love the body of Christ, all will be well.
Obviously, I have presented my preference, implying that multiple pastors could cause confusion, but we actually attended a church with 6 leading pastor/elders and they all loved God and the people. We left for a different reason but still respect that church. You could have a church led by many elders, with one or more of them having "bad" hearts, and much harm could be done to the body of Christ. Or you can have a church led by a single pastor having a good heart, and much good could be done. Or vice-versa.
God bless you.
Dwight

[steve]

So Paul says that an overseer in the body of Christ is very much like a father in a family? Note that there is only one father in a family. In fact, if there were two or three fathers in one family, there would be confusion and chaos.

What Paul says is that a man who does not manage his house well will probably not manage the church well. This does not mean that there is a one-to-one correspondence between the father of a household and a church leader. In particular, it does not say that the number of church leaders must match the number of fathers in a family. What it suggests is that the kind of wisdom and character that makes a man a good father is likely to make him a good church leader—or at least the opposite is true.

A church that is led by a single pastor is not a problem, if the pastor has the heart of a godly father. In my understanding of scripture, it is NOT AT ALL clear that the church is to be led by a single pastor or multiple pastors. But either way, if they have godly hearts, love God, love their families, and love the body of Christ, all will be well.

This may be true, but has no bearing on what I said above—namely, that there is no biblical example of a church led by an individual pastor.

Obviously, I have presented my preference, implying that multiple pastors could cause confusion, but we actually attended a church with 6 leading pastor/elders and they all loved God and the people. We left for a different reason but still respect that church.

So you know that your first impression (that multiple leaders is a recipe for confusion) is not necessarily reliable.

You could have a church led by many elders, with one or more of them having "bad" hearts, and much harm could be done to the body of Christ. Or you can have a church led by a single pastor having a good heart, and much good could be done. Or vice-versa.

I agree with you completely.

[morbo3000]

Another way to look at this.

What church structure best facilitates what you believe the call of the church is.

If you see the church as an institution designed to promote religion through sermons, and sacraments, then a single clergy can do it.

But I don't think that's what the church's purpose is. We aren't simply trying to imitate the early church structure. We are asking, what were Jesus' and Paul's priorities regarding the inherent value of certain classes of people, the ministering of gifts, the use of money, and relationships among Christians. Did the early church's structure facilitate Jesus' and Paul's priorities? I think so. Better than a single clergy system? Definitely.

Upside down nature of society:
Jesus elevated the poor and outcast. Both materially and spiritually. What institution will entrust the poor with the singular leadership of the church? Or as an elder? None. Because we always trust the people with leadership skills, and believe that success is measured by someone's ability to make money.

Money:
The book of Acts describes the first church has having all things in common. Jesus instructed people to care for the poor, and the prisoner themselves, rather than through their giving to an organization that distributes charity through a budget.

Relationships:
Jesus instructed people to go to each other with their problems, and only secondarily to elders.

Ministry through gifts:
Paul taught the multiplicity of spiritual gifts, and that they should be used in the gatherings of the assembly. Single clergy wind up with the vast majority of ministry.

Summary:
Single clergy systems inevitably lead to one or more of these outcomes:
1. The pastor has increasing power, over individuals, ministry and money.
2. Members increasingly absolve themselves from the utilization and responsibility of their gifts
3. Members increasingly absolve themselves of their responsibilities to each other and to the poor. They give to budgets, and let professionals care for the poor.
4. Congregational relationships deteriorate because "Church" is where the pastor, sermon and sacraments are. No longer the identity of a collective of called out believers.

While multiple elders doesn't ensure Jesus' and Paul's values, single clergy systems are more capable of detracting from them.

Our church has a group of equal elders, with one who has a little more ultimate authority. Sometimes my church drives me bananas. I disagree with a lot. But I know that these guys hash things out. None of them are "yes" men. They have heated meetings about some issues, but always maintain love with each other. And they always point back to the word about how people in the congregation are to relate to each other, to the poor, to their money, etc. The broader picture values of my church represent the values of the gospels and epistles, in my opinion. My primary beef with my church is the worship service. But I trust these men. I've told them that as long as they don't go off the rails, I'm with them. That wouldn't work for me in a single pastor congregation. And I feel like the values of Jesus' and Paul would be deterred.

Jeff

[dwight92070]

What church structure best facilitates what you believe the call of the church is?

Doesn't it really depend on what Jesus tells us the call of the church is, and the information and instruction that He has given us in His word about His church? Isn't The Great Commission our call? Matthew 28:18-20 - "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

1 Corinthians 12:27-28: "Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues."

First ..., second ..., third ..., then ..., then ..., etc., isn't this clearly a structure of authority in the church? In the church, under Jesus as the Head, are His appointed apostles - first, His appointed prophets - second, His appointed teachers - third, etc.

Ephesians 4:11-12 gives us a slightly different list of titles: "And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints, ..." Between prophets and teachers, this list adds evangelists and pastors. Wouldn't evangelists and pastors fit under the title of teachers, since both are said to be equipping the saints? Of course evangelists also often address the lost, but do they not use teaching as well as preaching to do so? So it appears that evangelists, pastors and teachers (all under the title of teachers) are third in line of authority in the church?

So the point is that a pastor appointed by God has authority over the portion of the body of Christ that God gives him. Many have said that the word "pastors" appears only once in the Bible. This is very misleading, implying that the office of a pastor, which is really a shepherd, an elder, an overseer, or a bishop, is hardly mentioned in scripture. In fact, the same Greed word, poimen, which is translated "pastors" here is translated "shepherd" in every other place in the New Testament where it is used - about 20 times.

Even as Jesus was The Good Shepherd and his immediate flock was the 12 apostles, so each local portion of the body of Christ needs a
shepherd or a pastor to lead it. Jesus had compassion on the multitude because they were like sheep without a shepherd (pastor). Yes, we need apostles and prophets, but the pressing need on the heart of the Head of the church is for God appointed pastors or shepherds.

[morbo3000]

What church structure best facilitates what you believe the call of the church is?

Isn't The Great Commission our call? Matthew 28:18-20 - "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." ...s.

Yes.

But what kind of disciples?

And which commandments?

Denominations, and pastors will emphasize some areas, usually doctrines, over others. Their eyes focus on certain characteristics of a disciple, and specific commandments to the exclusion of others.

Is a solitary pastor likely to preach and structure a church around these things? Giving all your possessions to the poor? Having all things in common? Submitting to each other? Putting people living in poverty in leadership positions in the church? Praying for and honoring governmental authorities? Inviting and welcoming outcasts? Allowing members to express their spiritual gifts In the gatherings of the church? Welcoming prophecy in your worship service?

I'd be impressed in the solitary pastor who could manage all that in his congregation. Because it is chaotic, in the best use of the word. A proverb says that where there is a cow, there is a mess in the barn. It's a lot easier to focus on right beliefs, and right actions, and not body life. And when body life is promoted, it de-stabilizes pastoral "authority" who are usually threatened by it

That's what I mean by "what you believe the church looks like."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dwight92070]

First of all, I think we agree on more things than we disagree. Second, my wife and I have attended a home church since 9-11. I believe that church in a home is the Biblical pattern, and that having a building, where you can count how many seats there are, greatly increases the problems that the body of Christ faces. Pastors who crave great authority want large auditoriums and hundreds, if not thousands of people. Put that same "pastor" in a home leading a small church, and all he can think of is when can they start construction on a church building, rather than building up the body of Christ.

It is not always necessary for a pastor to literally give up all his possessions. Steve has given us a good understanding of this. He says that each of us should commit all of our current possessions and money to the Lord for His use, and yes, be ready if He asks us to give up all. Steve notes that even Peter had a wife, possibly children, a house, a boat, fishing equipment, etc. Jesus did not require him to sell it all, but he did require him to use all of that for His service.

It is also not necessary for every church to "have all things in common". Apparently the early church did practice this, but Paul does not direct every church to do this.
Yes, we are all called to submit to each other, even as a Father can, in some ways, submit to his wife and children, but this does not mean that he gives up his authority as the leader of the family.

Paul does not require that a pastor must be poor, nor did Jesus. That is not in his list of requirements for an elder.

Praying for government leaders, welcoming outcasts, allowing each to express his gift - all of these are commanded in scripture.

Focusing on right beliefs? This is critical. The apostle John said that he rejoiced to see the body of Christ walking in the truth. I believe this is one of the major benefits from Steve's teaching, He shows us what the Bible is really saying, and because, as men, we tend to drift away from the truth, we will need to hear truth until we die. As we abide in the truth, then true Biblical body life can and will happen. Truth precedes body life, not the other way around.

Finally, can we all acknowledge that Peter was the appointed leader of the church, and therefore, the leader of the 12 apostles? Jesus singled him out and he, alone, was told to "Shepherd My sheep" and to "Tend My lambs" and to "Tend My sheep". I understand that there were more believers that just these 12, but these men were appointed to lead the entire church and Peter was their leader. Jesus was leaving them, but He appointed a shepherd, in His absence, to lead them. In all four lists of the apostles, Peter is listed first. Matthew actually calls Peter "the first" in Matthew 10:2. This is how the church was founded. Why, then, is it so distasteful for some to think that a single pastor can lead a church today?

[morbo3000]

Some clarifications

1. I was not describing pastoral behavior in talking about poverty, outcasts, common purse, etc. I was describing a radical counter-cultural vision of the makeup of church that I believe is consistent with Jesus' social message. These aren't attributes of the pastor. They are everyone. I also have in mind Steve's talk "Toward a Radically Christian Counter-culture."

2. I am taking a pragmatic approach. I'm being post-modern in my approach to the bible on this subject. Different readers can come up with equal justification for their interpretation of the Bible's model for church, each claiming their own to be the purest. My approach is to ask the question from a different vantage point: "which model best facilitates Jesus' social and counter-cultural agenda." I think plurality of elders, perhaps with a first-among-equals elder is the most capable of leading this type of church.

I believe that church in a home is the Biblical pattern,

Not necessarily. We don't know enough about the first century church to make that a certainty. And just because that was how it was in its fledgling form, does not mean that it would be wrong, as I've said, to grow your model with your growth. Why would the 1st century churches lead their meetings in homes, if they grew beyond the size of the home?

and that having a building, where you can count how many seats there are, greatly increases the problems that the body of Christ faces.

It increases certain problems. Budgets for one thing. And what we call the carpet-color controversies. Churches become divided about the darnedest things. I think I've heard said that pastors rarely survive building projects. I have a pastor friend who says that the worse thing they did was construct a building. They couldn't keep up with the growth. And it wasn't ego. But when they constructed the building, the growth slowed down. People stopped focusing on outreach.

Pastors who crave great authority want ...

Pastors who crave authority don't need auditoriums. The shepherding movement was full of men having authority of others in very small churches. People with authority complexes will get them wherever they are, regardless of congregational size.

And plurality of elders helps avoid this problem. Someone who craves authority, will be met with godly men who will hopefully call him on it.

I don't think that the church has to be small to be faithful. And I don't think counting noses, in the instance of doing church is necessarily evil. If I have a room that seats 100, and we start with 50, and know that the people who we added were genuine new Christians, and we ran out of room, then we should push out a wall. If that room that now seats 200 becomes full, and we have good reason that the growth is through genuine reproduction of the Jesus way, then we need more room. While we could idealistically say that the church should be able to multiply, rather than grow by reproducing leaders, revival-ish growth inevitably overwhelms the ability of the leaders to raise up more. This was true in the Jesus movement.