Some
churches are ruled by a single man (pastor, pope, or archbishop);
perhaps such churches could be pigeonholed as benign
“dictatorships.” Other churches are controlled by the ultimate
authority of congregational vote; these could be referred to as
“democracies.” Finally, many churches operate under the guidance
of a plurality of elders. Which system is the one God designed for
his body?
It is an odd fact that the NT does not expressly command any
particular form of government for the church! However, there are
some definite patterns of government evident in the Scriptures.
One’s view of the importance of such patterns obviously comes into play
at this point. For instance, Fee and Stuart in How To Read The
Bible For All It’s Worth assume that “unless Scripture explicitly
tells us we must do something, what is merely narrated or described can
never function in a normative way” (97). The problem with this
assumption is that the Bible explicitly tells us that we must follow
apostolic patterns, examples, and traditions (1 Co 4:16-17; 11:1-2; Php
4:9; 2 Th 2:15). What then is the NT pattern for polity?
All are agreed that the Lord Jesus is the head of the church (Col
1:15-20). Thus, the church ultimately is a dictatorship (or
theocracy) ruled by Christ through His written word and the influence of
the Holy Spirit (Jn 14:25-27; 16:12-15; Ac 2:42; Eph 2:19-22; 1 Ti
3:14-15). Once we follow the organizational flow chart down from
the head, where does the line of authority go?
In speaking to the “elders” of the Ephesian church (Ac 20:17), Paul
said, “Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy
Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God
which He bought with His own blood” (20:28). The presence of the
terms “overseers” and “shepherds” certainly suggests a supervisory
position. When writing to Timothy about the qualifications for an
elder, Paul asked, “If anyone does not know how to manage his own
family, how can he take care of God’s church?” (1 Tm 3:5). This
again implies a management role for elders. Peter asked the elders
to “be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as
overseers” (1 Pe 5:2); once more elders are painted in a leadership
mode. 1 Ti 5:17 refers to elders who “direct the affairs of the
church well.” 1 Th 5:12 asks the brothers to respect those “who are over
you in the Lord and who admonish you.” Heb 13:7 commands,
“Remember your leaders.” Heb 13:17 reads, “Obey your leaders and submit
to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give
an account.” All of this indicates that there are to be human
“leaders” in the church. These leaders are most often referred to
as “elders” or “overseers.”
As to the difference between an elder, overseer (“bishop” in the
KJV), and pastor (shepherd), an examination of Ac 20:17, 28-30; Tit
1:5-7; and 1 Pe 5:1-3 will show the synonymous usage of the words.
All three refer to the same office. Any modern distinction between
them is purely artificial and without Scriptural warrant.
Is there then to be one elder per church, several elders per church,
or several churches per elder? In Ac 14:23, Paul and Barnabas
“appointed elders in each church” (Jas 5:14). The biblical
evidence seems to support a plurality of elders in every church.
However, a bit of confusion arises over the NT pattern of having a
plurality of elders per church. From the NT perspective there is
only one church per city! Ac 8:1 mentions “the church at
Jerusalem,” Paul wrote to “the church of God in Corinth” (1 Co 1:2) and
to “the church of the Thessalonians” (1 Th 1:1). Jesus told John
to write to “the” church of God in Corinth (1 Co 1:2) and to “the”
church in Ephesus, “the” church in Smyrna, “the” church in Pergamum,
etc. (Re 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14). Thus, Scripturally speaking,
there is but one church in Atlanta, one in Chicago, one in Kansas City,
etc.
As a subset of the city-wide church there were the churches that met
in various homes within each city (Ro 16:5; 1 Co 16:19; Phm 2; Col
4:15). In The Normal Christian Church Life, Watchman Nee observed,
“in the Word of God we see no church that extends beyond the area of a
city” (48). When referring to large geographical areas, the Bible
uses the word “church” in the plural. For example, “He went
through Syria and Cilia, strengthening the churches” (Ac 15:41), “the
churches in the provinces of Asia” (1 Co 16:19), “the Macedonian
churches” (1 Co 8:1), “the churches of Galatia” (Ga 1:1), “the churches
of Judea” (Ga 1:22), etc. Thus, there is no such thing in the NT
as a national church, or a regional church; there are simply city
churches and house-churches. The only reason for division among
churches is geographic location. Mention is made, of course,
of the universal church (Eph 1:22-23; 3:10, 21; 5:23-32; Co 1:18) to
which all believers of all time belong, but the universal church is
invisible and spiritual, with no universal earthly organization.
An examination of the NT will reveal that, though all churches were
united under Christ as head, there was no outward ecclesiastical
organization uniting them. Though cooperating voluntarily
together, each church was autonomous. Theirs was a strong inward
bond, a spiritual oneness of life in the Lord. Though independent
of outward government, they were interdependent in responsibility to one
another (see 2 Co 8-9).
So, did the plurality of elders lead the city-wide church as a whole,
or only individual house churches? That elders worked together is
clear from 1 Tm 4:14, but no indication is given as to the geographic
extent of their authority. Php 1:1 and Tit 1:5 hint of a city-wide
presbytery, but this is not conclusive. As Scripture is vague
about this, there seems to be liberty to create the plurality from
whatever combination is necessary (within each house church or
city-wide). Either way, the NT focus is against any “one man show”
and in favor of a body of brothers leading the church, depending upon
one another, accountable to one another, submitting to one another, and
living out a mutuality in ministry.
The above references to rule by a plurality of overseers could, if
taken in isolation, easily lead to a wrong view of how elder rule should
operate. There is more to the equation. Consider the steps
of church discipline in Mt 18:15-17 as it relates to a church’s decision
making process (see also 1 Co 5:1-5; Ga 6:1). Notice that the
whole congregation seems to be involved in the decision to exercise
discipline. Notice also that the leaders are not especially
singled out to screen the cases before they reach the open meeting nor
to carry out the disciplining. It is a corporate decision.
This corporate process is also glimpsed in Ac 1:15-26. The
apostle Peter placed the burden for finding a replacement for Judas upon
the church as a whole. In Ac 6:1-6, the apostles turned to “all
the disciples” (6:2) and asked them to choose administrators for the
church’s welfare system. Both these examples point to
congregational involvement.
Paul wrote to “all” (1:7) the saints in Rome, and made no special
mention of the elders. The letters to the Corinthians were
addressed to the entire “church” (1 Co 1:2, and 2 Co 1:1). Again
there was no emphasis on the overseers. The greeting in Ga 1:2
focuses on the “churches” in Galatia. The message was not first
filtered through the leaders. The “Saints in Ephesus” (1:1) were
the recipients of that letter. In Php 1:1 the saints were given
equal billing with the overseers and deacons. In Col 1:2 the
salutation went to “the holy and faithful brothers in Christ.” All
of this implies that the elders were themselves also sheep. The
elders were a subset of the church as a whole. There was no
clergy/laity distinction.
This lack of emphasis on the leadership is also seen in 1 Th
1:1; 2 Th 1:1; Jas 1:1; 1 Pe 1:1; 2 Pe 1:1; 1 Jn 2:1, 7, and Jude
1:1. In fact, the book of Hebrews was written to a sub-group of
believers and it was not until the very last chapter that the author
asked them to “greet all your leaders” (13:24). He did not even
greet the leaders directly!
In Heb 13:17, believers are encouraged to “obey” church
leaders. Interestingly, the Greek behind “obey” is not the regular
Greek word for “obey.” Instead, peitho is used, which literally
means “to persuade” or “to convince.” Thus, Heb 13:17 should be
rendered “let yourselves be persuaded by.” This same verse also
instructs believers to “submit” to the authority of their church
leaders. As with “obey,” the common Greek word for “submit” is not
used. Instead, hupeiko was chosen by the author, a word meaning
“to give in, to yield.”
Thus, God’s flock is to be open to being “persuaded by”
(peitho) its shepherds. In the course of on-going discussion
and teaching the flock is to be “convinced by” (peitho) its
leaders. Mindless military obedience is not the relationship
pictured in the NT between elders and the church. Of course, there
will be those times when some in the flock can’t be completely persuaded
of something and an impasse will arise. When necessary to break
the gridlock , the congregation is to “give in to, to yield to”
(hupeiko) the wisdom of its leaders.
Much may be gleaned from the way that NT writers made appeals
directly to entire churches. They went to great lengths to
influence ordinary “rank and file” believers. The apostles did not
simply bark orders and issue injunctions (as a military commander might
do). Instead, they treated other believers as equals and appealed
directly to them as such. No doubt local church leaders led in
much the same way. Their primary authority lay in their ability to
influence. The respect they were given was honestly earned.
It was the opposite of military authority wherein soldiers respect the
rank but not necessarily the man.
Heb 13:7 reflects the fact that the leadership “style” employed by
church leaders is primarily one of direction by example: “Remember your
leaders . . . Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate
their faith.” Along this same line, 1 Th 5:12-13 reveals that
leaders are to be respected, not because of automatically inferred
authority of rank, but because of the value of their service–“Hold them
in highest regard in love because of their work.” Jesus said, “You
know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high
officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you.
Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant,
and whoever wants to be first must be your slave” (Mt 20:25-28).
Regarding false teachers, the elders must still “refute” those who
oppose sound doctrine (Tit 1:9), but even this should ultimately follow
the check and balance process of Mt 18:15-35 (Christian
discipline). Elders must not be guilty of “lording it over those
entrusted” to their care, but instead be “examples to the flock” (1 Pe
5:3). Having a plurality of elders (all of whom have equal
authority) also tends to prevent any modern Diotrophes from arising (3
Jn 9-10). However, despite any church’s best efforts, we need to
realize that “even from your own number men will arise and distort the
truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your
guard!” (Ac 20:30-31).
How should elders be appointed? Paul required all potential
overseers to be able to meet a lengthy list of requirements (1 Ti 3:1-7;
Tit 1:5-9). That a man is willing and able to be an elder is
obviously the work of the Holy Spirit (Ac 20:28). Once these
prerequisites are met, the would-be elder is then appointed. In Ac
14:23 Paul and Barnabas apparently did the appointing, and Titus was
left in Crete by Paul to appoint elders (Tit 1:5). As Nee
observed, “they merely established as elders those whom the Holy Spirit
had already made overseers in the church” (41). After the apostles
(missionaries) appointed elders and moved on, there is virtual silence
as to how subsequent elders were chosen. Operating from the
principle of Ac 1:15-26, and 6:1-6, one could be led to conclude that
elders were chosen by the whole congregation (following the requirements
laid out in 1 Ti 3:1-7).
In conclusion, the word “church” in the NT is used to refer to the
universal church, city-wide churches, and house churches. No
organized church is any bigger than a single city, and has no official
jurisdiction or authority over any other church (though there naturally
will be inter-church cooperation and assistance). Each church is
ideally to be guided by a plurality of leaders. Each elder is
equal in authority to all the other elders (there is no “senior”
pastor). Their primary authority is based on their ability to
persuade with the truth. They are to lead by example, not “lording
it over” the church. Church polity is thus a dynamic process of
interaction, persuasion, and right timing between the shepherds and the
sheep.
