A study of Biblical Church Leadership

#1 A Scriptural View Of Church Organization

A study of church leadership necessitates an understanding of church organization. How

should the Lord’s church be organized according to the New Testament? Should it have a hierarchal system culminating in a universal bishop? Should there be bishops who control dioceses? Should there be a centralization of power in synods or conventions? Should congregations be connected in national or international organizations, or should they be selfgoverning?

Should a preacher be in charge of each local church? Almost as many theories of church organization exist as there are different religious groups claiming to follow Christ. Since we are committed to being the church of the New Testament, we need to  understand how the New Testament church was organized, who its leaders were, and what they did.

PRIMARY ORGANIZATION

To begin, we need to consider the primary organization of the church. By “primary” we mean “basic” or “fundamental”—the organization of the church that is relevant to the universal and local use of the word “church” when it applies to the Lord’s people.

What Does the Word “Church” Mean?

The Greek word for “church” is ekklesia. It comes from two words—ek, meaning “out of,” and kaleo, meaning “to call.” Thus the church is often said to mean the “called out.” However, the “called out” is probably not the best definition of the word; it could be better defined as “assembly” or “congregation.”

The word “church” is used in four different ways in the New Testament. In Acts 19:32, 39, 41, it is used for an assembly of citizens—almost a mob. When applied to God’s people, it is used in three ways. It is used for the universal church—all the people of God who have been saved by Christ:

“And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it” (Matthew 16:18).

He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; so that He Himself might come to have first place in everything (Colossians 1:18).

It is used for the local church—for the people of God who are members of a particular congregation in a particular place. Romans 16:16 says, “Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ greet you” (see also Galatians 1:2; Revelation 1:20; 2:1; etc.). It is also used for the assembly of the local church—for the assembly when the church comes together (1 Corinthians 14:19, 23, 26, 28, 35).

What Is the “Primary Organization”?

What then is the “primary organization” of the church? It is the relationship of the individual Christian to Christ—a relationship characteristic of the universal church, but also a relationship which is the basis for the organization of the local church.

What is that relationship? (1) Christ is the vine; each Christian is a branch (John 15:1–11). (2) Christ is the head of the body; Christians are members of the body (1 Corinthians 12:12; Ephesians 1:22, 23; Colossians 1:18). (3) Christians are baptized into Christ, baptized into His death, and have put on Christ in baptism (Romans 6:3; Galatians 3:27). Christ then dwells in Christians (Colossians 1:27). Christians, therefore, are in Christ (Ephesians 1:13). (4) Christians are disciples (Acts 11:26). Thus they are learners or students; that makes Christ their teacher. (5) Christ loves the body (composed of various members, or Christians), died for the body, saves the body, is the head of the body, cleanses the body, and nourishes and cherishes the body. The body, therefore, is subject to Christ (Ephesians 5:23– 30). (6) If Christ is king of His kingdom (John 18:36, 37), then Christians are His subjects, citizens of His kingdom. (7) Christ is the good shepherd; we are His sheep (John 10:1–18). (8) Christians can even say that they no longer live, but Christ lives in them (Galatians 2:20), and that for them “to live is Christ” (Philippians 1:21).

What Are the Implications for Leadership?

What are the implications of this primary organization as it influences the leadership of the local church? First, all Christians have a relationship with Christ; leaders (e.g., elders, deacons, preachers) do not have a closer or an exclusive relationship with Christ unavailable to others.

Knowing this should help church leaders to remain humble. Second, the relationship of Christians with Christ is not altogether dependent on (1) church leaders or (2) the local church. Christians do not have to go through any church leader to get to Christ or to have a relationship with Christ. All Christians are priests (1 Peter 2:5, 9); thus every Christian has the privilege of coming before God, without having to use any human church official as mediator. While Christians are required to be an active part of a local church, the local church cannot itself prevent them from having a satisfactory  relationship with Christ. A good Christian can be found in a bad church. There were faithful Christians at Corinth, even though the church was riddled with problems.

Jesus pronounced the church in Sardis dead, but went on to say, “You have a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their garments; and they will walk with Me in white; for they are worthy” (Revelation 3:4).

THE LOCAL CHURCH

If the relationship of the individual Christian to Christ is primary or fundamental, then what place does the local church have in God’s plan?

Why Have the Local Congregation?

Some religious teachers see no reason for a local church. Even some individual Christians apparently see no need for the local church since they do not place membership with one or refuse to participate actively in one. Nevertheless, it is better for Christians to gather together into local churches than for them to try to “go it alone” as Christians. How do we know that? Because the local church was a part of God’s plan!

Ephesians 3:9–11 says, And to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden

in God, who created all things; in order that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places. This was in accordance with the eternal purpose which He carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord.

If someone says, “I can get along without the church just as well as I can get along with it,” he is really saying that he is smarter than God! Why did God make the local church a part of His plan? In general, to help nurture the relationship between each Christian and Christ, and to help bring more people into that relationship.

To be specific, the local church plays an important role in God’s plan in that: (1) It is easier to be a Christian, to remain a Christian, and to grow spiritually, in a loving, caring group than by oneself. (2) Christians joined together in a local church can accomplish works of edification, evangelism, and benevolence that it would be impossible for them to accomplish individually. (3) God is glorified in a special way by the corporate worship of a group of His children.

How Do Local Churches Relate To One Another?

How do local churches relate to one another? First, there is unity among all local congregations of

Christ. This unity begins with a unity of doctrine. In the Lord’s church each congregation strives to

be united: “Now I exhort you, brethren, . . . that you all agree, and there be no divisions among

you, but you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Corinthians 1:10).

Of course, this unity of doctrine is not the same as unanimity of opinion; there is considerable room for varying opinions in the brotherhood. Neither does unity of doctrine demand a complete uniformity of practice. In matters of expediency, each congregation is free to decide how to carry out the Lord’s will. However, this unity does imply agreement between the various congregations regarding the necessities of the one faith.

Unity is not confined to agreement on matters of doctrine; there is also a unity of love, a recognition that all the congregations make up a “brotherhood” and that every Christian is to love this brotherhood (1 Peter 2:17). One consequence of this love is that congregations do not consider themselves in competition with one another. Another is that, to the extent that it is possible, they encourage one another in the good works that each does.

Second, independence exists among the local congregations. Paradoxically, each congregation is

independent of every other congregation. We use the expression “congregational autonomy” to express this idea. This means that each congregation is self-ruled. However, the idea of “selfrule”

is somewhat misleading. Obviously, every congregation, just as the whole brotherhood, just

as every Christian, has the responsibility to submit to Christ, the King of the kingdom. This is

“independence,” “self-rule,” or “autonomy” under Christ.

Congregational autonomy rightly requires each congregation to make decisions for itself. Larger congregations do not rule over smaller congregations, nor is there any conference, convention,

or organization which can force its will on the local church.

Why do we believe in congregational autonomy? We have at least three reasons:

(1) The New Testament limits the elders’ authority to the congregation with which they

work. Peter wrote to elders: “Feed the flock of God which is among you, . . .” (1 Peter 5:2; KJV).

They were not authorized to act as pastors or shepherds over any flock except the one that was

among them.

(2) No precedent is set in the New Testament for regional, national, or international organizations, or for organizations of churches. These organizations simply did not exist in the firstcentury church.

(3) Although this reason is not derived from Scripture, it can be said that divine wisdom is evident in the arrangement in which local congregations are independent of one another. If one congregation goes wrong, it does not necessarily cause others to do so.

Why do some not believe in congregational autonomy? Some cite the “Jerusalem conference” in Acts

15 as a precedent for interchurch organizations. However, (1) the “Jerusalem conference” was a one-time event, not a continuing conference arrangement; (2) it was requested by brethren who had a question and needed advice; (3) it featured apostles, who had no successors; and (4) it sent out a document which did not sound as if it was intended to be used as “church legislation” handed down from on high.

Others use the apostles’ work with the churches—along with the work of their assistants—as a precedent for an overarching organizationin which individuals like apostles rule churches over a wide area. The apostles, however, had special qualifications and special authority, and they had no successors. Their “authority” cannot set a pattern for anyone today.

Those who believe in using the “missionary society” usually say that since there are works which the local church, acting on its own, cannot do, an organization of churches is necessary. The fact is that mission work can be done without a missionary society, as has been demonstrated many times.

Third, cooperation should occur among local churches. Local churches are free to, and should,

as they have the ability and opportunity, assist one another in good works, whether those works

involve benevolence, evangelism, or edification. Church cooperation, freely entered into by various

congregations, is scriptural. Of course, no congregation can be forced to help another.

LOCAL ORGANIZATION

If each local congregation is self-governing, how should the local church be organized? What

guidance does the New Testament provide on this subject? The New Testament reveals how

local churches at that time were organized by speaking of several “offices,” “works,” or “leadership

roles” in the local church. These determined its organization.

Elders are to lead the church. In New Testament times elders were appointed to lead each local

church. Acts 14:23 says, “And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, having

prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed” (see also

Titus 1:5). These elders were known by several names, each of which reveals something about

the role they were to play in the church. They were elders (Acts 14:23; Acts 20:17; Titus 1:5;

1 Peter 5:1; from the Greek word presbuteros), which suggests that they were older, more experienced, wiser men. They were bishops or overseers (Acts 20:28; Philippians 1:1; Titus 1:7; from the Greek word episkopos), which suggests that they were overseers or superintendents. They were pastors or shepherds (Acts 20:28; Ephesians 4:11; 1 Peter 5:2; from the Greek word poimen), which suggests that they were to act as shepherds towards the flock, the church.

It is evident that all three of these terms apply to the same “office.” For example, according to

Acts 20:17, 18, Paul was speaking to the “elders” of the church at Ephesus when he said, “Be on

guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to

shepherd the church of God. . . .” (Acts 20:28).

“Elders” had been made “overseers,” and the word for “overseers” is the word elsewhere translated, in the singular, “bishop” (episkopos). Thus, “elders” were “bishops.” These “elders” or “bishops” are told to “shepherd” (“feed”; KJV) the flock. The Greek word used is the verb form of “pastor” or “shepherd” (poimen). The elders were to act as shepherds; they were to be “pastors.” Thus “elders,” “bishops,” and “pastors” all refer to the same group of men. (See Titus 1:5, 7 and 1 Peter 5:1, 2 in the KJV and the NRSV.) These men were to have special qualifications for leading the flock of Christ (1 Timothy 3; Titus 1).

Deacons are to serve the church. The word “deacon” is from diakonos and literally means a servant or minister. It does not always apply to a special group of people who were especially appointed to serve. In a sense, all Christians are to be servants. However, that there were deacons, in some special sense, is evident from Philippians 1:1 and 1 Timothy 3. In addition, some think that the men chosen in Acts 6 were deacons, since their role was to “serve” tables.

As with the elders, the work of the deacons is suggested by the word applied to the “office”:

Their job was to serve. There is no authority at all implied in the title “deacon.” Consider the following suggestions concerning deacons: (1) They are not equal to the elders, with the elders having control of one aspect of the work of the church (“the spiritual”) and the deacons having control of another (“the physical”). (2) They are not a separate board of advisors with the job of approving or disapproving of the elders’ program or of making suggestions to the elders. (They can make such suggestions, but so can any Christian.) (3) Although their qualifications are in many respects like those of the elders, men do not move automatically from being deacons to being elders. (4) It is questionable whether a deacon who does not serve should be thought of as a deacon at all.

(5) While there is no authority implied in the title of “deacon,” a deacon, or servant, may be

given responsibility to serve the church in a particular way or to do a particular job. When

that happens, he has authority over that job. The accomplishment of that job may require that he

become a leader—that is, that he guide the actions of others to the accomplishment of a task.

Any such authority is delegated authority. He has it only for as long as the job lasts.

(6) Romans 16:1 refers to Phoebe as a servant.

Some believe that the word “servant” in this verse implies that there were female deacons

(deaconesses) in the first-century church. It says, “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a

servant of the church which is at Cenchrea.” Others believe that the Greek word for “servant”

in Romans 16:1 is not used here in the technical sense in which it is used in Philippians 1:1, but in

the sense in which any member of a church may be a servant, a diakonos, a “deacon.”

Preachers and teachers are to work with local churches. Ephesians 4:11–13 indicates that

preaching and teaching were spiritual gifts in New Testament times given to build up the

church. A number of designations are used in the New Testament for the preacher. Among them

are these: He was a preacher or proclaimer, kerux, a herald (1 Timothy 2:7; 2 Timothy 1:11), and an evangelist, euangelistes, a messenger of good news (Acts 21:8; Ephesians 4:11; 2 Timothy 4:5). These designations involve proclaiming the good news to the unsaved. Preachers also had a responsibility to preach to and work with the church.

New Testament evidence proves these facts: (1) A special work or spiritual gift was connected with preaching in New Testament times (Ephesians 4:11–13). This was a miraculous gift, no doubt. This gift comes today by perspiration, not by miraculous inspiration. Not every man in the church had this gift. (2) Preachers could remain preaching at one place for several years; they were not all, or always, itinerant. (3) Preachers .could, and should, be paid for preaching. Therefore, they could work full-time for the church. (4) Preachers were to instruct the church as well as preach to outsiders. (5) Not all elders labored in preaching and teaching (1 Timothy 5:17). (6) The preacher was given a work to do in a local church. What was that work? For the answer, see the letters to Timothy and Titus. The preacher has a place in the work of the local church. Nevertheless, in New Testament times the preacher did not have authority over the church! The New Testament does not teach the concept of evangelistic authority. The preacher did have authority—but his only authority was to preach the Word of God authoritatively!

The Greek word for “teacher” is didaskalos. That word is used in several places where teaching

is spoken of as a special gift (Ephesians 4:11–13; Romans 12:7; 1 Corinthians 12:29). This also

was most likely a miraculous gift. Elders are to be able to teach, and preachers are to teach. In

some sense, perhaps, every Christian ought to be able to teach. Apparently, some are especially

talented in this area, and they have a special responsibility to teach God’s Word.

Two questions still need to be answered.

Why have organization? Why, if what we have said earlier is true—that is, if every Christian is

equal and equally related to God—why is it necessary to have any organization, any system

of leadership at the local level? The answer is this: There will be leadership! In any group, some

system of organization/leadership will emerge. God simply gives us the best design—for His purposes and for our good—for that organization and leadership.

Can a church exist without this system of organization—in particular, without elders and deacons? Yes. We know that it is possible because churches existed in New Testament times for a period of time without elders. The church should become fully and scripturally organized as soon as possible. Until it does, something is “defective” (RSV) or “wanting” (KJV) about the church, according to Titus 1:5. Paul said, “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee” (KJV).

How should church leaders see themselves? Ephesians 4:11–13 answers that question: They should see themselves as servants who have special talents given by God—talents not better than,but different from, those of other members—and who are required to use those talents to help thechurch.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, let me plead for the New Testament plan for the organization of the Lord’s church. To some people, church organization may seem to be a small matter, a relatively unimportant matter of doctrine and practice. The fact is that great apostasy has often been preceded or accompanied by a change in the organization of the church. It appears that when the New Testament pattern of organization is abandoned, the door is opened for all kinds of other changes in the church.

When God instituted the church with its organizational structure, He knew what He was doing! Leaders will please Him and profit spiritually by functioning within His guidelines. After the death of Robert McCheyne, a letter addressed to him was found among his belongings. It was from one whom he had led to Christ. Speaking of the experience, the writer made this revealing statement: “It was nothing you said that first made me want to be a Christian—it was the beauty of holiness which I saw in your face.”