This essay has been drafted to assist the Elders in my church to further understand their respective roles in the local body and to engage in pro-active discussions as to any changes in those respective roles. It is drafted at the request of those Elders, and not on my own initiative. This essay is not an exhaustive review ofthe concept of Elders or of Elder-led churches, nor is it intended in any way to be a manual of how to manage or lead the Local Body. If the Elders decide to throw this away and do what they want, this in no way will have a negative impact on me. This essay is offered to God and to my Elders, and they alone are responsible for its ultimate use and application, if any. My prayers are that God will use this essay to benefit the Elders of the Local Body, if not here then somewhere.
An administrative note: It would have been impossible to quote from multiple versions of the Bible and keep this essay reasonably short. In addition, to quote from many versions could be misleading. So, unless otherwise noted, all quotes below are from the New International Version of the Bible. I do not claim that the NIV is the most accurate version of the Bible, or even the best available today. Indeed, I am not certain that these types of qualitative judgments can be made by man this side of Heaven. Further, I am uncertain of the value of even engaging in that discussion. But I do believe that the NIV is one of the most understandable versions available, and so I am using it as the text for this essay.
Introduction:
There are a large number of Biblical passages that mention Elders. Most of these passages are Old Testament passages that merely mention the existence or actions of Elders without offering any teaching on the issues. It is not until we get to the New Testament that we find any real teachings on the office or position of Elder. And even the teachings in the New Testament are sketchy, at best. As a result, we have some details in Scripture as to the office and function of Elders, but not enough to state dogmatically the exact model for the office and function of Elders in the Local Body. Let me repeat that. God has given us enough details in the Bible to build a fairly complete idea of the office and function of Elders in the Local Body, but He has chosen to notgive us enough details that we can develop only one clear picture of legitimate and Scriptural Elder rule to the exclusion of all other pictures. Thereare a number of well-developed models for Elder-led church leadership. Not one of these models can be claimed as conclusively biblical to the exclusion of the others. All have some degree of legitimacy to the extent they are based on the biblical record. The measure of the fit to the local Body and its leadership is the extent to which that particular model is the right one for that Body. In other words, if it works, use it.
The conclusion I draw from that lack of details is that God allows some flexibility in exactly how Elders lead and manage the Local Body. I believe this conclusion is supported by the obvious fact that far more space is given to the qualifications of Elders (who and what they are expected to be) than their specific functions and how they are to lead and manage the Local Body. The assumption seems to be that if we can find and appoint the right kind of men as Elders, we can then trust the Spirit of God to communicate with and lead these men to the benefit of the Local Body. God seems to place the emphasis on the type of men these Elders are to be rather than on their job description. This, I believe, means we should focus on the character, nature and godliness of the men and allow God to develop their job descriptions as He wills. Through some good-natured give and take on the part of the Elders, that is.
A Comment on the references to Old Testament Elders:
This having been said, we will go on to examine the Scriptures to see what they say about these men who shall lead us into greater godliness. But before we examine the Scriptures, I must comment on what the Old Testament versus the New Testament seems to say about Elders. There are several major differences between the Old Testament and the New Testament references to Elders that make it difficult or impossible to equate the two. First, in the Old Testament, the Elders were normally leaders of entire peoples — of nations or tribes — and they functioned as both civic and spiritual leaders. [see Exodus 3:16, Ex 17:5, Ex 18:12, Lev 4:15, Deut 21:3, Deut 25:8, Deut 31:28, Josh 20:4, Judges 8:14, Judges 11:5, Ruth 4:2, I Sam 11:3, 1 Sam 16:4,1 Sam 30:26, etc.] They were seldom leaders of small groups and never leaders of local churches. In the New Testament, unless “Elders” is obviously describing the Elders of the Jews, Elders are always mentioned in relationship to a Local Body, and were only spiritual leaders. [see Acts 14:23, Acts 20:17,1 Tim 5:17, Titus 1:5, James 5:14, etc.] So we had an obvious change in the role of Elder from the Old Testament to the New Testament, from the Jewish religion to the Christian Church. It must be noted here that in the early Church there was generally one Church for each city or village and the Elders were over that Church. While there may have been a number of smaller groups, sometimes called “house churches,” in each city, they were all considered to be part of the Church at Ephesus or the Church at Smyrna, etc. So when the New Testament mentions Elders, it generally uses Elders of the city or village and Elders of the Church interchangeably.
The exception to this is the number of references to Elders in the Revelation to John. There the references to Elders seem to be a third type altogether, with little explanation of what these new Elders are. When I get to heaven, I will be sure to make any changes to this essay that seem necessary. Until then, I will make no attempt to explain the Revelation to John in this essay.
There are other differences between the Elders in the Old versus the New Testaments, but most of them are probably not relevant to our discussion. However, we can say with authority that the roles of Elders clearly changed from the Jewish religion to the Christian Church, and that those changes included, but are not limited to, the change from: 1) representing nations or tribes or peoples to representing an individual Church, and 2) being spiritual and civic leaders to just being spiritual leaders. Because of these and other differences, we cannot with any authority claim any parallels or similarities between Elders in the Old and New Testament as biblical mandates in any theological view or position. On the other hand, Scripture does not eliminate this connection as a possibility, tenuous as it may be. My point is that any theology drawn from the roles of Old Testament Elders and applied to the roles of New Testament Elders is merely human conclusions, not teachings from Scripture. This may be allowable within the flexibility discussed above, but cannot be elevated to the position of Truth.
We find in the Old Testament a total of 138 references to the word translated into “elder.” The Old Testament word for elder is the Hebrew word zagen, meaning beard, chin, or bearded one. It literally indicates one of age and wisdom, and is further extended to those who have been selected or chosen to be the older men of godly wisdom to whom others looked for direction and insight. Some of these, perhaps all of them, offered insight into spiritual matters as well as legal matters. It seems to be that way from the beginning, Elders were the leaders of the various tribes or clans. [see Exodus 3 & 4, before Moses was given the Law] When the tribes came together to form the nation of Israel, the Elders naturally assumed more important roles in governing the affairs of the nation. This large collection of “tribal rulers” were further reduced in number to seventy and participated with Moses in the covenant meal at Sinai. [see Exodus 24:9-11] As the nation of Israel grew in number, and the complexity of governing them grew in proportion, this same group of seventy (most likely the same seventy, but it is not stated) assumed from Moses a greater role in the burden of ruling the Jews. [see Numbers 11:16-17] Moving from the time of Moses to the period of the judges, and even on into the period of the kings, the Elders took on a more civic role, as they participated in the political and judicial life of the nation. The Law as given to Moses mandated that the Elders were responsible for administering justice, sifting as judges at the city gates [see Deut. 22:15], deciding cases and issues affecting family life [see Deut. 21:18-21 and Deut. 22:13-21], and executing certain other decisions [see Deut. 19:11-13 and Deut. 21:1-9].
We do not know and cannot say exactly what role the Elders played during the last one thousand years before Jesus except in general terms, because the biblical record is not clear. Historical records, especially the religious traditions of the Jews, suggest a diminished role of the Elders outside Palestine, apparently to that of spiritual leader and not civil judge. We can say, however, that in the time of Jesus, the “council of Elders” was in some way connected with the Sanhedrin, the group of Jewish leaders that had almost total authority over Jews except for anything involving the death penalty. They were not equal to the Sanhedrin and did not seem to be part of it, but they were frequently mentioned with the Sanhedrin or the scribes and Pharisees in the Gospel record. The role of the Elders was obviously diminished at that time since the Sanhedrin handled all the religious, civil and legal issues in the time of Jesus.
The Authority of New Testament “Elders”:
It seems evident from the biblical record that the earliest Christian churches modeled themselves after the Jewish synagogues. Consequently, it is almost certain that the role of the Christian Elders was parallel to the role of Elders in the dispersed Jewish synagogues. In and around Jerusalem, the Jewish Elders were subjected to the rulers, or the Sanhedrin, who made almost all decisions for the Jews. But the historical record seems to indicate that the Jews who spread outside Jerusalem still used their Elders in strong and significant ways. The Elders were apparently still the spiritual and, to some small extent, the civic leaders of the dispersed Jewish synagogues.
The early Christian churches apparently used Elders in the same way. Every church planted by Paul had Elders, usually appointed by Paul or by someone Paul left in charge. Paul himself, or those left in charge when Paul moved on to another village, stayed with the new church long enough to develop leaders and appoint Elders. Then Paul or his lieutenants left the church in the charge of these Elders. [see Titus 1:5] There is no record of Paul or his assistants staying with a church much longer than it was necessary to develop the leadership, officially appoint them as Elders, and then move on. Continued guidance and teaching of those Elders was carried on by letters and visits, but those churches were apparently left under the exclusive leadership of those Elders. And in some cases, these Elders manifested their humanness by straying into error of various types. When word of this reached Paul, he either sent them a letter, visited them or sent another assistant to correct the error and move them back into Paul’s teachings. [see practically every letter written by Paul] Paul’s ministry covered approximately sixteen years, during which he planted at least twenty churches. This did not allow Paul to spend much time in any individual church. In addition, during his three missionary journeys, Paul visited a number of churches several times, further reducing the amount of time Paul had to spend at any particular new church. This required Paul to adopt a pattern which seems clear from the biblical record. Paul would normally visit a city and look up the local synagogue. There he would teach about Jesus on the Sabbath, and he usually caused some significant stir. He would return enough times to the synagogue to gather some sort of following, and then he would start meeting with that group separately, usually on the first day (Sunday), and often in that same synagogue. Paul would teach and disciple the group until some men would show themselves to be strong and sincere in their faith. He would then appoint them as Elders and move on to start another church. Please note that these men could not be considered to be mature in their faith, because that local group was frequently only weeks or months old. But they were perceived by Paul to have the kind of heart and faith that he sought. Over time, Paul would keep tabs on these churches and either return to them or send them letters to continue developing and discipling those Elders. This suggests that the current interpretation by churches and Christians that we must appoint only mature Christians as Elders was not practiced by Paul.
The New Testament references to Elders use the Greek word presbuteros, usually translated as presbyter or elder. We also get the English word priest from that same Greek word. Things get even more confusing from here. In Titus, Paul uses the word presbuteros, and then changes to the word episkopos, usually rendered as bishop or overseer. The fact that he moved from one Greek word to another within the same set of qualifications suggests that Paul used the words interchangeably, as if they meant the same. Some would suggest that the bishop or overseer was the leader of the Elders at the church where they all attended, thereby claiming that the Elders of a Local Church were not all equal in authority or position. But the text does not state that at all. The fact that Paul seemed to use the words interchangeably suggests that the bishop did not oversee the Elders, but that the bishop was an overseer of the Local Body, as were all the Elders. Again, the text is somewhat ambiguous, but we cannot, based on this passage, support the claim that the group of Elders had a bishop overseeing that group of Elders who was part of that local Church. On the other hand, there are many churches and denominations that do use the word episkopos to create the position of district or regional Elders, a sort of overseer of several churches. This has some legitimacy based on Paul’s use of Timothy, Titus, and perhaps others, as a sort of liaison between himself and several local churches. This was especially true when Paul stayed for an extended time in one place and needed to address error in a church he had planted or assisted. Paul sent several of his letters to churches by way of one of his assistants, apparently delegating to them some degree of authority to resolve issues and settle doctrine. (see Romans 16:21, where Paul refers to Timothy as a fellow worker. The Greek word sunergos is also translated co-laborer, suggesting some degree of equality in position or job description. See also I Corinthians, 16:10-11 (where Paul introduces Timothy as carrying on the work of the Lord “just as I am,” using the Greek word kai, which is a strong word indicating “in the same way” rather than the more common weaker word indicating “in addition to”); Philippians 1:1-2 (where Paul introduces himself and Timothy as if they were equals); Colossians 1:1 (where Paul introduces the letter as coming from him and Timothy); Colossians 4:7 (where Paul introduces Tychicus as a fellow servant, using the Greek word sundoulos, which means co-slave of the same master, rather than the more common word indicating another slave of the same master); I Thessolonians 1:1 (where Paul introduces himself, Silas and Timothy in the same phrase, indicating some sort of close association, also suggesting an equal authority for this letter and its contents); and other passages]
It must be noted that each of these passages immediately above do not in any way suggest the concept of one Elder of the local church being higher in rank or authority than the rest of the Elders at that same local church. While it seems clear that these men introduced by Paul had an elevated position of authority above that of local Elders, it is also dear that they were being sent to a local Body for a specific time and for a specific purpose. Not one of them was being sent to any Body where he was to be a permanent “super” Elder. The concept of a traveling “bishop” of elevated authority may be supported by these passages, but the concept of the local Elders having one Elder of elevated authority is simply not in these passages.
In fact, all the New Testament letters seem to have been written by various individuals of clear authority over the local churches to whom those letters were written. Those authors may have had a “bishop” type of authority over the local Elders of that local Body, but not one of them can be documented as being a “super Elder” or even an Elder in that local Body. While the concept of a “super” Elder is relatively common in modern Christianity, it does not appear that the concept is in the New Testament. The New Testament is simply silent on this issue; it neither presents the concept nor does it prohibit the concept. On the other hand, all the passages that discuss Elders of the local Body suggest or teach equal (but quite possibly different) authority among the Elders at that local Church.
There is no record in the New Testament of the Elders being anything other than equal. The qualifications and the functions of Elders were equal. The conclusion of equal Elders is further supported by the principle that anything important for us to know God would have communicated in his Word. The fact that this important concept was not communicated does not suggest that the Elders had a leader, but instead suggests that the Elders were all equal, or else God would have told us. Even in the Old Testament, we have no indication that the Jewish Elders had one Elder who was in charge of or had authority over the rest of the Elders.
We must, at this point, address the issue of Moses leading the Jewish Elders. It has been suggested many times over the years that the model for the Christian Church is Moses as leader and the Elders as a support group being led by Moses. We cannot offer this as a true parallel to New Testament churches. First, because Moses did indeed use Elders as a support group, delegating to some various functions, but those Elders had different local groups or tribes over which they had authority. In other words, each local group or tribe had Elders, and Moses worked with the Elders of the different groups or tribes. These Elders of the various groups or tribes existed before Moses was called by God to lead his Nation out of slavery, and they functioned as Elders of a local group. Moses was not a part of any local group or tribe, but he was the leader of all the local groups and tribes and their respective Elders. The second reason we cannot use Moses as a New Testament parallel is because the New Testament Church did not exist at the time of Moses. Paul was appointed by God to “create” the teachings concerning the Church, its function and its structure. And what Paul taught, being a new concept not existing in the Old Testament, should not be squeezed into some mold created from Old Testament history. The third reason we cannot use Moses as a model for New Testament leadership is the clear absence of teaching this by the New Testament Apostles and church leaders. If Paul and Peter and James did not teach that their role was derived from the leadership model of Moses, then we cannot take that position. We may possibly conclude that the New Testament equivalent to Moses might be for the entire Church to have a leader and the local Bodies have Elders, some of which are chosen by the leader to assist him in certain functions. But we cannot take the text describing Moses as the leader of the entire nation of Israel and apply that to any given Local Body. The parallel simply cannot apply; it is too much of a stretch. Perhaps a more accurate parallel would be Jesus as the leader of the Church in general and Elders would be the leaders of the Local Bodies.
There is one more teaching, and it is relatively common, that must be discussed. For many years, the Church has taken its example and perhaps even its legitimacy from the world. We, as the Church, often see the building rather than the People as the Church. We, as the Church, often deal with our finances based on secular examples. And, all too often, we, as the Church, look to the corporate structure for insight into how we should run our local Bodies. We should never look to the secular for instruction on the spiritual. If we need to know how to do things or run things, Scripture gives us all the input we need to accomplish exactly what God has ordained for us to accomplish.
To apply this to our concept of Elders, many believers look to the management structure of corporations as a model for Elder leadership. The corporate CEO as the “leader” of the company can be pointed to as suggesting that the Elders should have one in authority and the rest in subjection to him. This secular structure is a good model for decision-making in a large organization, although some might challenge its efficiency and effectiveness. But this corporate structure has no parallel in Scripture. Running a company has a totally different purpose than running a local Church. The business has but one purpose: to create a profit. While we may add many conditions to making a profit, like making it honestly, treating people right, taking the long view in our efforts, and so on, the business still has but one purpose. If that purpose is not fulfilled, then the entire company will cease to exist.
The local Church, on the other hand, has no purpose even remotely resembling that of the corporation. The corporate structure is focused on decision-making. The local Church has no such focus. Decision-making is one of the lowest activities of the Church. Making disciples is perhaps the highest function of the Church. There are many activities that are consistent with or parallel to making disciples, but helping believers manifest the character and nature of God, representing him to a lost and dying world, is the primary purpose of the local Church. [Ephesians 1:4 — “For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight." Decision-making plays an insignificant role in this great purpose of the Church. Therefore, the management structure of a decision-making body would most likely be the wrong structure for a discipling body. You manage people in a corporation, you lead people in a Church. As the former vice president of a management consulting firm, I can assure you that there are huge and incompatible differences between the two.
The purpose of Elders within a local Body is related to the purpose of the Local Body. The Elders are to assist others within that local Body in their manifestation of the character and nature of God. All activities and processes of the Elders should facilitate or enhance this purpose. Where they are to make decisions, efficiency is not the issue. The process of making decisions should make better leaders of the Elders. If it takes longer to make that decision than is convenient for some, then it merely means the Elders (and perhaps the Body) increased in their godliness even more during the process. The Elders drawing together in unity of spirit and purpose is far more important to God, and also to the Body, than efficiency of decision-making.
The role of Church Elders is even less clear in Scripture. There is no detailed teaching in the New Testament as to any distinct roles for church Elders. Part of the qualifications of Elders is the ability to teach, lead and give wise counsel to the Local Body. [see I Tim 5:17, Titus 1:6] All believers are each responsible for learning so we can provide a response to others who ask specifics as to what we believe and why we believe it [see I Peter 3:15,16], but the Elders are responsible teaching and leading the believers into a greater understanding of God. [see Titus 1:9] All believers are responsible for following God and living in right relationship with him, but the Elders have a separate and additional responsibility for the spiritual health of the people under them [see I Peter 5:2 and James 3:1].
There is one passage that offers two roles of Elders without explaining exactly how those roles are acted out. “The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching.” [I Timothy 5:17] This passage actually lists preaching and teaching as part of the responsibilities of at least some Elders. Other parts of Scripture, and especially church tradition, suggest that preaching is more topical in nature, while teaching is more oriented toward the biblical text, but that is in some degree of dispute by some authorities. Regardless of exactly what they mean, we do have the preaching and teaching roles as being part of the responsibilities of at least some Elders. Because of the express wording of the text (“...especially those whose work is preaching and teaching.”), we can deduce that not all Elders have those responsibilities. From this and from the historical record, it seems evident that one or more of the Elders are primarily responsible for the spiritual education of the Local Body. Herein is the largest disparity between the views of Elder-led churches and pastor-led churches.
Traditional churches, especially the smaller churches, have historically had one primary leader who makes all or most of the decisions of the church. This seems to have been an American development, stemming from the sparsely-populated country and the scarcity of preachers. America developed the itinerant preacher, who traveled from town to town in a circular fashion. It might be weeks between the preacher’s visits, but the preacher was seen as the single leader of the local church, sometimes with one or more men of the church holding services when the preacher was ministering at another church. As the selection of qualified preachers increased, some of these men began having one Local Body that was his primary or exclusive responsibility. This model of the “preacher" running the local church was a result of scarcity of leadership, not a result of biblical teaching or theology. American denominations grew out of this tradition, and continue to have the “one man show” as their primary method of church leadership.
It must be noted that this model of one man being responsible for nearly every decision relating to the Local Body did not arise out of any biblical example, but resulted from the necessity of stretching each “preacher” as far as possible. There is no biblical teaching or example that gave rise to this model of church leadership. This “one man show” is simply not in the Bible.
On the other hand, the concept of one or more of the Elders as having the primary responsibility of the pulpit ministry is indeed a biblical concept. Church history, especially during the first 200 years of Christianity, showed a trend toward specialization in the roles of Elders. Until the time of Constantine, it was becoming more common for one of the Elders who showed a gift in the pulpit ministries to take over and be the “preacher” for that Local Body. Some of the churches divided that area of ministry between all the Elders, and some of them developed the preacher role as being that of only one or two of the Elders. While one or more of the Elders may have assumed the primary responsibilities of the pulpit ministries, it must also be noted that no where in Scripture or in church history was the “preaching” responsibilities considered one and the same as the “pastoring” responsibilities. While “preaching” as such is only mentioned twice in Scripture, there is significant historical record as to its role and importance. But the traditional preaching role is primarily an oratorical activity, and has little or nothing to do with the “pastoring” of the flock. The pastoring, or the care and feeding of the flock, has always been a role of the Elders, both in Scripture and in church history. In other words, preachers may or may not have been Elders, but pastors were always Elders.
I believe it is important to repeat that the Bible no where requires that each Local Body be a mirror image of all other Bodies. Further, there is significant Scriptural basis for one or more Elders in each Local Body specializing in pulpit ministries, versus the other ministries of the church. [see Ephesians 4] It seems only wise and efficient to allow those with clear gifts to function in the area(s) of their gifts. [see I Cor 12] It seems a clear and allowable structure for a specific Local Body to appoint one Elder to have the authority and responsibility of the pulpit ministry, while other Elders were appointed to have the responsibilities for other ministry efforts, as their gifting would suggest. In other words, specialization is not an ungodly concept, and indeed is supported by Scripture with reference to spiritual gifts as well as in other contexts.
However, I believe it would controvert the Scriptural teaching and biblical model to abandon the clear practice of Paul and Peter as relates to the Elder model, and establish instead a church run by one individual, even if that individual uses a group of men referred to as “elders” who must submit to that individual.
And here is where things get difficult. Is there room for having Elders in a Local Body with one Elder being both the "overseer" of the Elders and the primary preacher of the Local Body? Does the traditional “one man show” of American denominationalism have a biblical marriage with the Elder model of Scripture such that we can have an Elder-run Local Body whose decisions are primarily or exclusively made by one man? This is probably the toughest question relating to Elders facing churches today, and definitely the question facing our Local Body.
I would suggest that one cannot mix the “one man show” of denominationalism with the biblical model for Elders and have that structure last for very long. I believe it will cause dissention among the Elders and disunity among the Body. Please allow me to explain.
Scripture makes it plain that one of the functions of Elders is that of overseer, or shepherd of the flock. Several passages seem to indicate that shepherding the flock is part of the responsibilities of each and every Elder. Further, teaching and discipling is also implied to be part of the responsibility of each and every Elder. The problem is that the full-time “pastor” tends to take over those responsibilities, thereby leaving the "junior" Elders with only part of a job description. The more sincere the Elder is in following the biblical mandates for Elders, the more that Elder will want to minister to the Body. This will normally result in the sincere Elder feeling limited and unfulfilled in his attempt to perform his job description and minister to the needs of the Local Body to which he sees Scripture calls him. Further, one man cannot get to all the members of the Local Body, and this will result in the members feeling like they are not being ministered to. When some of the Elders feel limited and the Body feels left out, the ministry will be perceived by all involved as failing in its biblical mandate to shepherd the flock. This is the norm for pastor-led churches.
The bottom line is simple: the preaching functions are separate from the pastoring functions in Scripture. The typical “pastor-led” structure tries to equate the two separate sets of functions into a hybrid attempt to be all things to all members of the local Body. This church structure is simply not found in Scripture.
We have spent quite some time examining the biblical issues as they relate to the position and function of Elder. Now we will move out of the realm of position and function and more into the realm of concept and purpose. What I am about to express are my views of Scripture as they relate to the purpose of church leadership. These views are based on my 28 years in church leadership in various Local Bodies and in my years of management consulting, observing the different effects of various leadership styles in both the context of church ministry and in business. There are certain normal results of leadership style that are going to occur in almost every situation, beit a church or a business. I believe we must examine these results of leadership style if we are to get the whole picture of what God wants us to see in the biblical model of church leadership, and especially the purpose of having Elders in the Local Body.
The primary reasons for having the traditional denominational model of the “one man show” are two-fold: 1) we’ve always done it that way before, and 2) having decisions made by a board of men will inhibit the decision-making process when compared to the efficiency of one man making the decisions. The second reason often parades in several different forms (I want freedom to follow the leadership of the Holy Spirit, I want to decide who speaks from the pulpit, I don’t want others to tell me what to preach on, etc.), but are really all the same issue. I suggest that these reasons show a fundamental misunderstanding of the real purpose of having an Elder-led Local Body. I do not believe the real purpose of Paul appointing Elders had anything to do with tradition or with decision-making. I believe that God intended the Local Body to have Elders as a means to develop godliness in the Elders and, through that, in the Local Body.
Specifically, Paul (or his associates) picked men with godly hearts as Elders. He didn’t so much tell them what to do, but how to do, their jobs. They were expected to do their jobs with a true desire to develop God’s character and nature in that Local Body. With only one man making all (or even most) of the decisions for a Local Body, the chance of that individual developing a ministry reflecting his personality and perspective is fairly high. It only makes sense that the individual will tend to do things in the way that comes naturally. The explanation is usually that “God has given me a vision for this (or for my) ministry, and I must be true to that vision." There is great legitimacy for this perspective, and the down-side of this view is usually somewhat benign. For instance, if the “pastor” has a real heart for missions, then that Local Body will almost always show a strong emphasis on missions. If the “pastor” has a real heart for evangelism, the church will almost always demonstrate an emphasis on evangelism. And there is nothing wrong with missions or evangelism. But I believe the purpose for gifts and ministries within the Local Body is the manifestation, not of the strengths of the “pastor”, but of the whole ministry of God. . [see I Corinthians 12 & Ephesians 4:11-16]
If one man makes all or most of the decisions, then that Local Body will tend to manifest the strengths (and weaknesses) of that man. If a group of Elders make most or all of the decisions for a Local Body, then that Local Body will tend to manifest more of the whole character and nature of God. It is just that simple.
Those of us who believe in spiritual gifts usually teach that all of the gifts should be manifest in a mature Body. We should therefore also teach that all of the strengths and motivations of God should be manifest in that same Body. The Local Body is not intended to reflect its earthly leader, but its heavenly Leader. The chance of this increases in a direct correlation to the number of leaders in that Body.
In other words, there will generally be a greater balance in the Local Body that is truly led by a number of Elders than in the Local Body that is led by one man. This balance reflects the whole person of God more accurately and effectively than the lack of balance that generally results from one man leading that Local Body. While it is not bad for a Local Church to manifest any one character trait of God, it is obviously better for it to manifest all the character of God. This, I believe, is the purpose of having Elders, and not just one man, lead the Local Body.
Having said that, I must point out that this can be accomplished in a Local Body whose Elders have specialized into their respective giftings. One man can be the primary pulpit minister, with all decisions as to pulpit content resting with him. Another Elder can hold the primary responsibilities of pastoring the flock. Still another Elder can hold the primary responsibilities of home study groups. A fourth Elder can hold the primary responsibilities of missions. And on and on, depending on the number of Elders. The overall direction and leadership rests with all the Elders, but certain specific areas of responsibility rest with different Elders. This, I believe, is the biblical model for the Local Body.
The benefits of this Elder-led ministry are obvious. As has already been pointed out, Elders can specialize according to their giftings, making their respective ministries more effective. Another benefit is the spreading of responsibility for the overall growth and godliness of the Local Body, so no one man has the responsibility for everything. Also, most or all of the gifts and ministries of the Holy Spirit can and will be manifest through a number of godly men as Elders, whereas no one man will manifest all the gifts and ministries of God. And perhaps the most important benefit of all is the general spiritual growth of the Elders and the Body. Specifically, as the Elders work side by side with each other, the Holy Spirit will guide all into a more balanced walk with God. The purpose of the gifts and ministries of the Holy Spirit is for the whole Body, Elders and people, to grow in our relationships with God and to more completely manifest him to a dying world. [see Eph 4:11-16 and I Cor 12] In other words, gifts and ministries are not given to individuals so he or she can manifest gifts and ministries. Gifts and ministries are given to individuals so all of us, the entire Body of Christ, can grow in our individual manifestations of God, and to more completely represent him to the world. For example, as I have said several times in the past, God did not give me the gift of teaching so I can teach others. He gave me the gift of teaching so I can teach individuals to the point where they no longer need me to teach them. This is the purpose of having gifts and ministries within the Body of Christ on earth, and an Elder-led Body will accomplish this purpose more effectively and with more balance than any version of “one-man-show” we can have.
I believe any vision given by God for ministry within a Local Body is compatible with this Elder-led model for church leadership. I do not believe that God gives a vision to one man so he can lead that Local Body by himself, with or without a support group of godly men who may or may not be called “elders.” I believe God does give and has given a real burden for shepherding a Local Body or for preaching and teaching a group. But I do not believe that God gives a vision or burden for ministry to any man that controverts the biblical model for Elder-led Local Bodies. The Holy Spirit is not ever in contradiction with the Word of God.
Instead, I believe that what usually happens is God gives a vision or burden for a ministry, usually a pulpit ministry. Along with that burden, God usually gives that man a real gift for that ministry. Over time, the man develops an understanding of that vision which incorporates his background and experiences as a foundation for that ministry. If that individual has a traditional background, then the vision is almost always interpreted to mean the man is to be a “pastor” as his experience dictates: a “one man show” or a leader running all aspects of the local church. I do not believe that God gives that “one man show” vision. I believe it develops from the man taking the vision God gave and incorporating his experiences into the vision. In other words, I believe God gave the vision of what to accomplish, but the individual’s background dictated how to accomplish it. As an example, if God tells me to go to a nearby city to minister to a particular man, I am usually going to assume he means for me to drive there. Not because that is what God told me, but because that is what is “normal” according to my experience.
It is this kind of situation that develops within most pastors whom God has called to full-time ministry. Because their background and experiences come from a typical denominational church with a typical church pastor trying to be everything that church needs, their natural assumption is going to be that God wants to fulfill that vision through the typical church model. But I do not believe the typical church structure is based on the Biblical model set out by Paul in the New Testament. And I believe the man with a vision to minister needs to look beyond his denominational experiences for input on how to accomplish the vision God gave him.
So the real question behind the question usually faced by those considering the model of Elders for a particular Local Body is what purpose for the Elders do they choose to embrace. Is the purpose for Elders to make decisions concerning the Local Body? If so, the model of a “pastor-led” church or a leader among the Elders would seem to make the most sense. Decisions are always easier if there is a leader who has final authority in decision-making. In addition, all great companies do it that way, don’t they? On the other hand, if the purpose for the Elders is to develop godliness among the Elders and in the Body, then equal Elders may be the best solution. Believe me, when only a majority of Elders lean in one direction, it requires true godliness from all Elders to work through the issue and come to a consensus. If that godliness is not there, it will develop over time or the Elders, and posibly the church, will break up. It is much easier to have a majority rule or to have a leader make the final decision. And if the model of Elder-led governance chosen by a Local Body is that of the Pastor leading the Elders, then the “support group for the pastor” role of the Elders will result in one or more of the Elders being perceived as being non-supportive, as we have seen in our church. Over time, you can count on a regular turnover among the Elders, or else a divided Elder board will be the norm.
But is expediency a requirement of the Elders? In Principles of Spiritual Growth, author Miles J. Stanford declares, “God takes a hundred years to develop an oak tree, and six weeks to grow a turnip.” I believe Scripture shows that expediency seldom plays a role in God’s plans.
The problem before our Local Body, and in particular, the Elders, is to decide two separate questions. First, are we an Elder-led Body? Second, if so, exactly what does that mean?
Many within our Body, and indeed at least one Elder, believe the first question was answered years ago in the affirmative. But because of the informal nature of our Body and its members, no one asked the Elders for any definitions. Yet at least one Elder believes that the decision to be Elder-led was never made, and has been functioning as the quasi-leader for a number of years. Because our Elders tend to not confront, no one ever really resolved anything, and instead everyone was assuming one or the other answer. Without realizing it, our Local Body has been functioning in the “no man’s land” of non-resolution for several years. Because of the informal nature of our Elders and our Body, this was not an issue until recently. In January, however, the structure of our Sunday morning services was disbanded by the “pastor” without the Elders ever discussing it and deciding on it. This precipitated the two questions above all over again, and revealed the disparity in perceived answers among the “Elders.”
The problem we face now is relatively simple to describe, but much more difficult to resolve. If we were an Elder-led Body, then one man disbanded the Elders and took over the church this past January. If we were not an Elder-led Body, then that one man merely made another change in his attempt to fulfill the vision for ministry that God gave him years ago. However, if we were not an Elder-led Body, then we need to inform the members, since many of them were told we are an Elder-led Body. Only part of the difficulty is in the resolution of the vision for the church held by the man which many of us see as pastor, on the one hand, and on the other hand, the vision for our Body held by the rest of the Elders. Did God give our “pastor’ a vision for ministry that resulted in this Local Body? Most of us would answer in the affirmative. Does that vision given to our pastor require him to be the leader to the exclusion of Elders? Or at least to the exclusion of equal Elders? The “Elders” and the Body are divided on that one.
More specifically, and more to the point, is the following question. Can our “pastor” take his understanding of the vision God gave him years ago and flesh out that vision within the context of an Elder-led Local Body, and specifically within the context of equal Elders? If not, then I believe we are headed for a church split.
I have had the privilege of being part of a number of different churches using several types of leadership models. I shall do my best to represent several in as clear and accurate a manner as I can, and offer them as examples of different church leadership models.
***** Community Church — This is a small church near the campus of the University of South Florida in Tampa. It developed from a holiness background and became independent when it obtained a new pastor who (naturally) came from the traditional denominational perspective. Ron was an excellent pulpit minister, one of the best I have ever known. His was a vision for church growth with him as the church leader. He set about performing all the normal leadership functions, and within 3 years, burned out. He ran off with one of the women of the church, leaving no church leadership behind. The man who ran the children’s ministries became the new pastor by default. He was probably the most gifted man I have ever known with children's ministries, but had no real experience with adult ministries, and soon he was preaching on Sundays and still running the children’s ministries. As a result, the church (after first dropping to about 50) increased to about 90, but most of them (about 60) were children from the surrounding neighborhoods. This large proportion of children reflected his giftings and ministry. As he prayed about the church and its future, he concluded that he was on his way toward burnout like his predecessor. Since I was leading the adult Sunday School class and the Sunday evening Bible Study, he and I spent several months searching the Scriptures about the concept of Elders. He asked three of us to be equal Elders to share in the burden and responsibilities of the church. Over the next 12 months, we grew to almost 200 on Sunday morning with a normal proportion of adults and children. More importantly, the adults were growing in their spiritual lives by leaps and bounds. It was an extremely exciting church to be part of. The last I heard from them, the church was still growing.
**** Community Church — Situated in a northern suburb of Orlando, this church was begun by 12 people in a school library. In its first eight years, it had grown to about 300 and had to meet in the school cafeteria. I joined it and stayed for about 12 years. The church had six equal Elders who each had different areas of responsibilities. One was the full-time paid pastor, and the rest were non-staff. The Elders made no decisions that were not unanimous because they believed that it was more important that God moved each of them in the same direction than it was for decisions to be made quickly. As a result, we missed a number of apparently excellent opportunities. But, also as a result, our Elders were excellent and godly men who lived supernatural lives. We spun off three additional churches over the first 8 years I was a member. During that time I was asked to be a Sunday School teacher (for 6 years) and a deacon (for 3 years). Over time, more and more of our members began to want a traditional church where we had a building and a pastor that did everything. Finally, four of the Elders including the pastor left to plant another church, thereby allowing the remaining members to change the church structure. We found a great pulpit minister, who appointed a board of eight Elders, with the pastor as the leader of the Elders. I was a part of the pastoral search committee, and we had surveyed the Body extensively as to what type of pastor and leadership model the church wanted. We gave them exactly what they wanted. The church grew from about 500 to about 3,000 over the next 6 years. One of the pastor’s greatest strengths was his ability to build consensus. As a result, neither he nor any of the other Elders developed the ability to confront. Over the first three years of the new church structure, two major problems hit the church and were never dealt with effectively. One member joined with another member in business. The new partner then took over the other member’s business, stealing his partner's share. The partner took the member to the Elders rather than to court, and the Elders could not make a decision as to how to handle things. As a result, everyone involved lost and the business went under, costing the ex-partners more than $100,000. Another member left his wife for his secretary. He then began to come back to church, not having divorced his wife or married his new partner. The Elders let this man attend church with his live-in lover for more than a year, all the while the wife was asking the Elders to do something. After a year, the Elders tried to confront the man, but were totally ineffectual. The Elders never learned to confront sin because its leader could never confront. From all outward signs, the church is doing well, having six Sunday services each week and more than 4,000 members. But from within, members still tell me that the Elders cannot confront serious problems.
***** Community Church — An independent church in central Orlando, this is a textbook example of an Elder-led body. The Elder Board is made up of eight men, each with their own areas of responsibilities. The pastor, an Elder, is totally responsible for the pulpit ministry, and one of two full-time paid Elders. Another Elder is responsible for missions. Four Elders are responsible for home study groups, or house churches. Another Elder is responsible for discipleship, including the Sunday School ministry. The last Elder is responsible for finances and administration, and is full-time paid staff. All Elders are equal, and all Elder decisions are unanimous. Elders get away for a Friday and Saturday each month to minister to each other and pray with each other. These men are revered around Orlando for their spiritual insight and wisdom. The men of the church seem to be abnormally involved in the church, showing a high degree of godly character. (The women don’t bring the kids to church — the men bring their families to church!) The services show great creativity and include wonderful worship. Every member of the church gets a call from an Elder, over the phone or in person, at least once each and every month, to get input from the family and to be prayed for by the Elder. More than twenty of their members have gone into full-time ministry over the years, several of them as pastors in central Florida. And they serve donuts and coffee between the services every Sunday morning! (The donuts and coffee show great spiritual discernment by the Elders.)
The above descriptions of churches are not meant to be critical of them in any way. Nor are they presented here to show specific spiritual leaders as having fallen short or manifesting completely the character and nature of God. The Body of Christ is made up of people, and people are totally human. The strengths and weaknesses of individuals and churches are lessons for all the Body of Christ, and should be used as such in the search for the full and complete Local Church ministry. I present them as nothing more than that – lessons to be used in our search for a full and complete church ministry.