1. These people meet in a building, sing songs, have definable leaders, and numerous of Christian programs and partake of the sacraments every quarter.
2. These people also meet in a building, they sing songs, have no definable leaders, but ensure they partake of the sacraments.
3. These people meet in a coffee shop, there is only 5 of them, they have no definable leaders, don’t partake of the sacraments, other than baptism of new converts.
4. These people meet in a house, partake of the sacrements, have no definable leaders.
Now each of these people would affirm the Apostle’s and Nicene Creed, study the scriptures. Which is a church, which is not and why?
My definition of Church is pretty simple.
Church = The People of God + God
That’s it.
Jesus promised that if 2 or more are gathered together in His name, He is in the midst of them. That’s all you need for Church, in my opinion…and also, apparently, Jesus’ opinion.
Jesus abolished the concept of Temple, Priesthood and Sacrifice by becoming the Temple, the Final High Priest and Ultimate Sacrifice Himself, so that you and I could become the Temple of the Holy Spirit, the Royal Priesthood and the daily (living) sacrifice.
“As you come to him, the living Stone…you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” - 1 Peter 2:4-5
-kg
What a great site!!! thanks for dropping past my blog.
Of the 4 groups - I don’t care about the sacraments, I don’t care about the numbers, I don’t care about the place, all I care about is - are they in the business of mission? John Bright states, the church is a missional people, if she is not, she is not a church – I agree.
This is not to say the - sacraments are not important.
Amos puts it well -
21 “I hate, I despise your religious feasts; I cannot stand your assemblies.
22 Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them. Though you bring choice fellowship offerings, I will have no regard for them.
23 Away with the noise of your songs! I will not listen to the music of your harps.
24 But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream
What is meant by ‘partaking of the sacraments’? When Jesus commended us to ‘do this as often as you shall, in remembrance of me’ did he mean the ritual sharing of wine? grape juice? bread, leavened or unleavened? Once a day? Week? Month?
Or did he mean that when we come together in community that we should celebrate each other through him and with him? That we should make every meeting and every meal, the breaking of bread, with brothers and sisters a sacred event.
I think that’s what comes first - the community of believers that allow God to infuse all that they do, not just the occasional ritual. The rest will come.
I know, it didn’t answer your question. Sorry.
I believe our current method is insufficient and really has not fellowship in it. Each takes individually and there is little to no similarities to what we would have seen practiced
if God intended His people to gather without any definable leaders why did Paul then appoint elders in the churches he started (Acts 14:23), then at the end of his life commanded both Timothy and Titus to do the same (1 Tim. 3, Titus 1) and why did Peter outline biblical elder rule and tell those in the fellowship to submit to them (1 Pet. 5:1-5)?
It appears that the N.T. church had ample time to try the ‘elder’ thing out and then decide that it wasn’t a good idea, yet from it’s very beginning (see Acts 15) until the end of the apostolic age elders were considered a necessary role in God’s church.
so sorry to be the 40 something year old pastor who rains on the parade but gatherings 2 through 4 could not be considered churches in the biblical sense of the term
peace
LL
lance@reformingchurches.org
Lance,
I agree that it is good for churches to recognize elders. I wonder, though, in your definition, when did the churches of Acts 14:23 become churches? Were they churches before the elders were appointed? Or, did they only become churches after the elders were appointed?
-Alan
Hey Pastor Lance,
How’s Philly brother? Thanks for the observation. I guess my question would be very similar to Alan’s. Which is
1. Were there churches in Ephesus before their were leaders?
2. If Paul says to Titus:
5 This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— 6 if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. 7 For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, 8 but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. 9 He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.
Were they consider a church in Crete before Elders or only after?
3. How long can someone meet as a church without leaders?
4. If all of the Elders died in a church, would they still be considered a church as they wrestle though appointing more leaders?
5. If you answer yes to number 2, how long today can someone meet without leaders before you would not consider them a church or would you never consider a group of believers meeting together without leadership a church?
6. Finally, I must ask (I don’t know what your answer is but curious) do you believe it is okay for a group of believers to start a church without leadership or should only leaders start churches?
I am wrestling through this in my own studies so curious how you or anyone else would answer these. I appreciate your wisdom and insight. By the way I am loving the Between Two World Posts. Very lovely indeed and full of great insight and wisdom.
yo LW, thanks for clarifying the initial post.
it sounded like the intent of the last three groups was to continue to meet perpetually without elders.
alex: i don’t think Paul and the others appointed and endorsed elders just because they thought it was a good idea. i truly believe they were convinced that this was God’s ordained means for leading His church.
re: Acts 14. it seems that (1) there wasn’t much time between the time Paul and Barnabas began those churches until they appointed elders, (2) there doesn’t seem to be any indication that Paul or the other apostles ever expected Christian gatherings to meet for extended periods of time without elders. A great test case is the church at Antioch. were they a church before Barnabas got there? perhaps. but notice how the apostles sent an elder who took charge of that congregation until other elders emerged.
speaking of Crete, doesn’t there example cry out for elders? look carefully at vss. 10-16 of ch. 1. things were a mess which was why Paul mandated that Titus train and appoint elders.
re: how long can a church or group of God’s people gathering together exist without elders, I’m not sure. however i can’t find any biblical evidence that would support a gathering of God’s people who never intend to have elders. and that seemed to be where the initial post was going. If it wasn’t then it’s my bad my brother.
Can a group of believers start a church? Yes, I believe they can. But if we’re claiming to start a church according to the N.T. pattern then what would go into the thinking of planting one with no intention of having elders some time in its future?
Finally, I’ve noticed some good young reformed brothers such as yourself are struggling with the validity of recognized church leadership. Could you along with others share some of your thought process that would lead you to desire to exist in fellowships without recognized leadership?
thanks for your thought provoking posts brother and by all means please try to stay cool in the furnace that’s Big D
peace
LL
Lance,
“but notice how the apostles sent an elder who took charge of that congregation until other elders emerged.” Wow… that’s a huge jump from what Scripture says. Can you show where the apostles sent Barnabas as an elder to “take charge” of Antioch? Barnabas is never called an elder, and he is never said to have “taken charge”. In fact, I don’t remember anywhere in Scripture where an elder is told to “take charge”. I think, insead, we see just the opposite. Doesn’t Peter warn elders about “taking charge”?
Again, when Paul appointed elders in Acts 14:23, did the churches already exist in those cities or not? It seems like a simple question.
As for length of time… Paul stayed in Ephesus for over a year, yet he still left Timothy there to appoint elders. Perhaps its not about time.
-Alan
Thanks Pastor Lance,
I will keep this short because I can only speak for myself. It may have to do with the type (really denominational) church you are in.
1. I see no biblical evidence for a Senior Pastor. So I struggle when someone says “they have a vision” for the church while that vision doesn’t include the “church’s” input.
2. I see no biblical case for an “elder ruled” church. As rule is in the 21st century church. Meaning the elders are to make all of the decisions for the church while the people who finance the church become helpless bystanders in those decisions.
3. I see no biblical case for elder appointed elders. The people must have identified those capable in both Ephesus and Crete, because it was impossible for Timothy and Titus to know all of the congregations who met in those cities to go and appoint. Unless we appoint like we do today where worldy success=church success. I wonder why at most “elder ruled” churches I have never saw a janitor (unless he owned the business) or a gas attendent or a grocery cart pusher. That is very fishy to me Brothe Lance.
4. I think many are skeptical (at least I am) of the big church/church growth movement. My generation likes it raw and uncut. Or in other words authenticity. It seems that most are more employed to build “a” church than the ‘church” and if you disagree with that then go find another church.
5. Finally I believe most people are concerned with “their” vision (regardless of how often they try to convince me it is from God) than the people of God. Many hurt, broken, and disenfranchised people continue to stay marginalized because of the vision. And I have yet to find a vision that says “lets downsize” all of the visions point to bigger. And once again if it is between the people and the vision…..well… you know how that goes.
So those are my concerns. Rarely do I see someone coming out of seminary and desiring to plant wanting to remain simple and organic. It is always the lights, camera and action, mentality. The stage and the show. Nobody is planting in the toredown project and poverty ridden areas. It is always the other way. Rarely do I see someone saying if God so deems I will work and preach. Everyone has the satelitte church mentality with comfty seats and nice plasma screens. And to be truthful Lance a lot of us don’t want that.
However we see the imperative given for us not to forsake one another, to meet the needs of one another, we don’t want to be lone rangers, we desire the fellowship of the body. We love doctrine, truth, theology, especially us with Calvinistic convictions. We just don’t want all of the baggage that goes with it. And whenever we are talking about submitting to “our leaders” that means we shut up and jump on the vision bus. So we are scared. But we understand the Gospel must be proclaimed and that we have obligations to fulfill the “one anothers” we just don’t want to do that in $25 Million dollar state of the art “churches” while we see the inner city, the poor and the confuse go to hell in a handbasket. Or while we see our brothers and sister in third world countries starve to death while 85 cent on a dollar never makes it out of the door.
So we don’t want to submit to those type of leaders (those who you question) because we don’t want to play the church game we want to be the church. We know if we covenant with those leaders we will be going against our convictions and we will end up not submitting thus breaking a promise to submit which would be sin.
I really hope that answers your question or at least opens a conversation. God bless.
Alex,
thanks for your input and question. re: did those churches exist. Yes they did. Did Paul intend for them to exist without permanent elders? No he did not. If the lack of permanent elders was the ideal for the N.T. church why then did Paul and Barnabas appoint them? Can you please give me a biblical case for a church to start without ever having any intention of having recognized elders?
Re: Barnabas at Antioch. He did take charge of that congregation. He was a recognized leader who assumed the responsibility to lead in the teaching of that church. If Barnabas wasn’t acting as an elder than tell me what was he doing? And if he wasn’t a recognized leader how did he get the authority to go get Saul and then with him take charge of teaching that fledgling church? Why didn’t he just return to Jerusalem when once he saw the evidence of God’s grace with them? (Acts 11:23-26)
trust me brothers. I’m not making a case for unilateral, domineering, ego tripping leadership. But just because we’ve had alot of bad leadership in the church doesn’t mean that the church should function with no leadership at all.
LW. I see your concerns. However I think you’re reaching when you say no one wants to plant in the hood and that everyone just wants a nice large comfortable church. Also recognizing your concerns doesn’t negate the passages I first mentioned. I’m not making the case for bad church leadership. And as a pastor I’ve dealt with many who’ve been deeply hurt by abusive leaders. Yet, that was the case even in the N.T. Isn’t it interesting that though Paul knew that ungodly men would seek to destroy the flock he still maintained that such a flock should have elders? (see Acts 20: 17-3
Granted your generation likes it raw and uncut, but if your generation is seeking to be true to scripture then at some point you’re going to have to wrestle with the biblical, God ordained way He has set up His church of which Christ is the Head.
Peace
LL
Lance,
I appreciate your answers. I agree with you. The churches did exist before Paul appointed elders in Acts 14:23. Is it better for churches to have recognized leaders (i.e. elders)? Yes. Can a church exist without recognized leaders? Yes. Should a church recognized spiritually mature individuals within that group of people? Yes, when there are spiritually mature individuals within that group of people.
I would encourage you to read your comment about Barnabas, and then re-read the scriptural account about Barnabas in Antioch. You used several terms and phrases that are never used by Scripture: “elder”, “take charge”, “assumed the responsibility”, “authority to go get Saul”. However, Scripture is clear about what Barnabas did. Luke uses the following phrases and terms: “exhorted”, “went to Tarsus to get Saul”. Why can’t we stick with the scriptural description? I don’t see any indication that Barnabas acted with authority at all. Instead, I see him serving as God gifted him… just like Paul and the other believers in Antioch. Was there someone with authority at Antioch. Yep. The Spirit. Were there mature believers at Antioch so that other believers could follow their example? Probably.
By the way, I’ve read your other questions about leaders and some who desire to not have leaders. I haven’t responded but I have no such desire. In fact, I am a pastor/elder - whichever term you prefer. But, I am not in authority. I studied this very carefully and could find no instance in Scripture of an elder being given authority. So far, no one has been able to supply evidence either. Do you have such evidence from Scripture?
-Alan
No doubt Pastor Lance. When I say no one I mean majority. It would be like saying all blacks were slaves 300 years ago. Now was everyone a slave? No not at all. But I am speaking in general not in totality.
Next I agree. I think many are wrestling. Some are going to home churches some are starting grass roots ministries. Others are leaving the established church and any hints of it. I don’t think most are sitting passively by (me and many others are wrestling through these issues). My congregation happens not to abusive, but many are and many leaders are Lording over. Thus they cease to be leaders. Matthew 23 makes this clear. Nor do I believe that believers have to submit to leaders they can biblically disagree with. Paul says in Acts 20 that such men are wolves and sheep submitting to wolves is like a deer submitting to a Lion who hasn’t eaten in weeks.
So the issue is wrestling the issue is what to do while wrestling. Which I believe to be your point. I will clearly, with no hesitation (after a thorough investigation) tell such a believer in the body that you are not under any scriptural obligation to sit under another Christian who wants to lord it over you. That relationship is anti-thetical to the scriptures and counterproductive to Christ Transformation. Just as a Christian that doesn’t have to submit to false teachers. So some are on a hiatus as they wrestle through these issues and I think they have liberty in Christ to do it. So that leads to this Lance.
1. Which leaders are Christians to submit to?
2. How are the leaders established?
3. What is a christian to do who sits under unbiblical leadership?
These are the questions that many of my brothers are asking Lance. As you may know this generation again don’t follow blindly. We take the Priesthood of all beleivers, and the Beran Spirit very seriously. With a church on every corner, and many going to seminary, graduating, and planting churches with no real life experience and never sitting under Biblical leaders what are they to do?
Lance, question who gives the a pastor his authority if it’s not given by the congregation ?
The requirements for superintendents are clear, yet strangely I don’t see pastors ever ordained
in scripture, I do see elders chosen from the congregation. A man calling himself Pastor, opening
up a building consisting of his family and friends is not biblical, it seems to me he must be chosen
from the congregation he has fellowship with, the reason would be that they are familiar with him, his family
and his fruit he bears.
I’ll do my best to answer everyone’s questions.
first of all biblical teaching is inherently authoritative. those who refuse to listen to scripture as taught by those authorized (yes the dreaded A word) were rebuked and if they persisted dis-fellowshiped. the very nature of biblical eldership requires that he have a certain manner of authority. Why is that? An elder or overseer is one who carefully watches over the spiritual care and maturation of a local group of God’s people. Part of his responsibility is to teach sound doctrine and to rebuke and stop those who would seek to teach false doctrine. However if he has no authority to do so then those who wish to continue to teach heresy could never be restrained. Let me give an example. Some time after Paul established the churches in Galatia certain brothers came from Judea and taught that they must obey the Mosaic law in order to maintain their salvation. How did the church deal with this? They decided to refer this important doctrinal issue to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem (Acts 15:2). There is absolutely no indication that the apostles and elders who would decide this issue believed that the church would then have the option of accepting or rejecting their decision. In other words the churches in Galatia were subject to the authority of the apostles and elders of the church in Jerusalem.
Biblical writers use terms such as submit and obey (1 Pet. 5; Heb. 13) to indicate how the saints are to respond to the elders of a particular congregation. Does he exhort, encourage and counsel? Yes. Is he an example? Most definitely. But he also corrects, rebukes and at times tells certain people that they cannot teach false doctrine in God’s church. Are elders dominating demi-gods who misuse the flock for their own personal gain? Absolutely not! But they do exercise oversight and must have authority to do so. I know we don’t like the term authority, but despite its negative connotation I believe it is an accurate way to describe one (not the complete) aspect of the elder’s relationship to the church God has ordained him to watch over.
Alan I see what you’re saying about the Spirit’s authority at Antioch. Yet the Spirit exercised that authority through men. Regarding what scripture says about authority I suppose we have to agree to disagree on that one. It just seems to me that if we’re told to submit to and obey our leaders then they must have some kind of authority with regards to us. If that wasn’t the case then why didn’t the Spirit move the biblical authors to choose different words? For example, when we read that the saints are to submit to the government isn’t it implied that the gov’t has at least some kind of God given authority to govern? When wives are told to submit to their husbands doesn’t that imply that husbands have some kind of authority with respect to their wives? But as I said we can agree to disagree.
Paul told Timothy that elders who ruled well were worthy of respect. (1 Tim. 5:17) That is those who took their responsibility seriously and discharged it faithfully were to be respected. The compounded word translated rule has to do with setting something or someone either before or over something else. That is the elders are set before the flock as its recognized leaders to which the flock is to submit and obey.
Look dear ones before we go any further the N.T. clearly makes a case for a group of people called elders who seem to have some kind of recognized function in God’s church. ( Acts 11:30; 14:23; 15; 16:4; 20:17; 21:18; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:1-7; 5:17-19; Titus 1:5-9; 1 Pet. 5:1-). These elders are drawn from the men of each local congregation but don’t consist of all the men in the church. Furthermore these men have some kind of responsibility that involves the spiritual care of God’s people. In light of that I just cannot accept the notion that the church isn’t to have any recognized, set apart (ordained) leadership.
Are we to submit to abusive ungodly leadership? Of course not. But abusive, ungodly leadership is not a biblical argument for the total lack of leadership.
Re: what leaders are believers to submit to? Check out the passages that outline the character qualities and responsibilities of genuine elders such as Acts 20, 1 Tim. 3, Titus 1 and 1 Pet. 5. And once you check them out believe God that He still has godly men today who meet those requirements and probably need all the help they can get.
How are leaders established. I believe that biblical wisdom demonstrates that such leaders are established through evangelism, discipleship which includes a heavy dose of character growth and development, recognition by the local church, mentorship, training and then setting apart or ordination.
What is a christian to do who sits under unbiblical leadership? He or she can either respectfully confront such leadership and highlight the biblical qualifications to them with the hope that they will repent or change. If they don’t then one should leave an abusive situation immediately.
Finally brothers let’s pray for the Head of the church to raise up faithful leaders for His people. And let’s also pray for the many thousands who’ve been wounded and abused by ungodly tyrants masquerading as leaders. Perhaps God will use their bitter experiences to raise them up as the next generation of godly leaders.
peace
LL
Lance,
I agree completely that the word of God has authority in our lives. Therefore, anyone who teaches according to the word of God is teaching in an authoritative manner - not because that person has authority, but because Scripture has authority. There is a huge difference. You made a leap between the one teaching and elders. Should elders teach? Yes. But, so should others. Notice, I am not arguing against authority. I am arguing against any human possessing authority because of their position. Anyone teaching according to Scripture is teaching from the authority of Scripture - which comes from the authority of God. This authority is not based in the person teaching.
I see that you are placing alot of emphasis on the biblical words “submit” and “obey”. We are told to submit to our leaders (not rulers, which is a very unfortunately translation - there was a different Greek word for “ruler” which is NEVER used for leaders in the church). According to your logic, since we are told to submit to our leaders, then our leaders have authority over us. Since wives are told to submit to their husbands, then husbands have authority over their wives. What do you do with the verse that says, “Submit to one another”? Do we then all have authority over one another? Or, could it be that submitting to someone is not the same as the other person exercising authority?
Remember, Jesus specifically said that Christian leaders should NOT exercise authority. How do we get around this clear teaching of Jesus, and why would we ever want to try to get around this clear teaching of Jesus?
By the way, if you look through the biblical passages that actually use the word “authority” (exousia), you will find that it is never used in a positive light for one believers exercising authority over another believer - never.
As to the word “obey” in Hebrews 13:17… I think you will find that almost all commentaries agree that this is one of the most unfortunate translations in the English Bible. There is a word for “obey” in Scripture… it is used of obeying God and obeying God’s word. That is not the word used in Heb 13:17. What word is used? The word for “follow” (as in “follow your leaders”) or “trust” (as in “trust your leaders”). You see, this is much different than obey.
So, where do we find leaders given authority and others told to obey their leaders? In the writings that came after the NT. The church is much more comfortable following nonScriptural writings than scriptural writings.
Yes, it is possible to lead without exercising authority. And, it is possible for any believer - not just elders - to teach from the authoritative Scriptures and to “oversee” one another (Heb 12:15).
-Alan
thanks Alan, perhaps I’m wrong and will certainly look into this a bit more.
just one more question. in light of the fact that others should also teach and we are all called to submit to each other do we then still need a separate category of people who are designated as elders?
peace
LL
BTW,
I am enjoying the dialogue. I am so busy that is all I can write until monday or so.
Lance,
Absoultely! Elders are those among us who are mature believers. Why do we need elders? Because we’re sinful and we tend to think about what’s best for us first. That is why we “submit” to elders… not because they have authority over us, but because we recognize that they are more mature in Christ Jesus. Submission is something that we offer elders, not something that they demand. If you’re interesting in this, I’ve written a blog post about the need for elders given my understanding of Chrisitan leadership. The post is called “Are pastors good for nothing?”
By the way, I certainly don’t think I’m an expert on this. I’ve enjoyed discussing this with you. I’m always open to learn more about how to lead by serving others.
-Alan
thanks alan,
I’ll check out the post and Lord willing we can keep it going.
the Lord’s blessing on you, your family and God’s people.
peace
LL
Lance,
Alan has answered your last questions in a very profound way. Notice that he said, “Elders are those among us who are mature believers.”
AMONG us, not OVER us.
It isn’t about status or position, it’s about maturity in service and function.
Interestingly, the only epistle that we have from Paul which includes the “overseers and deacons” in the salutation is Philippians. If the elders were/are foremost in the church, then why did Paul not address his letters to them instead of the church? Also, consider the Corinthian epistles…with all the mess in that church why didn’t Paul tell the elders to “take charge and straighten things out!”?
I don’t want to minimize our need for those who lead and guide us out of their maturity, but neither do I want to make more of their function than does the scriptures.
Tom
Lance-
I posted a piece on the issues of elders, false laity/clergy distinctions, church structure and the priesthood of believers etc. on my blog:
http://www.ncthouston.blogspot.com
I have compiled some excerpts from Jon Zens and Don Venoits along with some additional commentary regarding reasons why I believe abusives authority is on the rise in the church.
I would be interested in your thoughts if you have the time to check it out.
Blessings in Christ,
Mike Hutchison
hello Tom,
perhaps i wasn’t clear in how i presented the word rule in 1 Tim. 5. if i implied that elders are a separate class of christian that stand apart from the rest of the flock and just give directions pls forgive me.
my intent was to explain that elders were a recognized group of leaders who came from among a specific church and who’ve been given a particular responsibility to to watch over the spiritual care and growth of that flock.
and you’re absolutely right it’s not about status or having a position but functioning as an elder. where we may disagree (forgive me if i’m wrong) is that while there may be many mature believers in a specific church not all of them will necessarily be elders in that church.
i don’t believe i ever wrote that elders foremost in the church but if i did please forgive me because i was wrong. i merely meant to present that elders were and as far as i can understand continue to be a recognize group of leaders in God’s church.
finally, i have no idea why paul didn’t address the elders at the Corinthian church.
thanks for the heads up Hutch, i’ll check it out when i get a chance.
peace
LL
hi alan,
i read your post entitled “are pastors good for nothing” and the other links that went along with it. i agree with the way you define pastor/elder. this top dog, head honcho mentality is so worldly.
the pyramid design of a lot of congregations where one man sits as the head, or senior pastor is so unbiblical and yet many accept this tradition and don’t question it. no wonder there’s such a thing called pastor “burnout”-he’s taken on responsibilities that God didn’t intend for him to have.
Mrs. Maverick,
Thank you for reading my post and for the kind words. By the way, I believe there are many pastors/elders who exercise authority over people who do so because it is what they’ve been taught and because they believe it is healthy for the church. I do not condemn these pastors at all, even though I believe there is a better way. Most pastors - even authoritarian pastors - are godly people trying to follow God as best they can.
-Alan