Church Government
What the New Testament teaches on how churches should be governed
Ancient Israel, before the New Testament Church of God began, was called the "church in the wilderness"(Acts 7:38). It was organized from the TOP down. There was God, then Moses, under Moses there were Elders, captains over thousands, and hundreds and so on down the pyramid of the chain of authority. Israel's church - state government - was THEOCRATICAL, from God down to a specific human leader who had total authority and leadership over every other person in the nation. Was Israel's type of government to be carried over into the Church of the New Covenant? If so then we should be able to find ample evidence to support this teaching from the writings of the New Testament. Let us humbly search to find the truth of the matter.
by Keith Hunt
Using a "Harmony of the Gospels" book, we find that the
first recorded person we would classify as one of Jesus'
disciples was Andrew, who spent part of a day with Him(John
1:35-40). Andrew soon introduced Simon his brother to Jesus. When
Jesus saw Simon He instantly diagnosed his basic personality and
said: "So you are Simon the son of John. You shall be called
cephas (which means 'stone')." Harmony of the Gospels by Ralph
Heim.
Now did Jesus by giving Simon a new name establish him as
HEAD apostle? The next day Jesus found Philip and he brought
Nathaniel to Jesus. Again Christ discerned the character of
Nathaniel, "Behold an Israelite indeed in whom is no guile"
(v.47).
Because you were the first to be called as one of Jesus'
disciples, or given another name, or have Christ state your
personality in a miraculous way - does that mean you are head
disciple?
If so, Andrew could claim it as first named or recorded
disciple in the ministry of Jesus. Peter could claim it as being
given a new name. Philip could possibly claim such an office as
he was the first recorded person that Jesus said the words
"follow me" to.The truth is, in none of these passages did Jesus
name anyone as HEAD disciple.
Actually the official calling of Peter and Andrew was some
time later, see a "Harmony of the Gospels" book. And James and
John were also called at the same time. If you study the Harmony
of the Gospels you will see that between these two incidents
in John chapter one and Luke chapter five (also recorded in
Matthew 4 and Mark 1) Jesus had disciples already following Him.
Jesus chose 12 to be His close inner circle (Mark 3:13-19).
In the list of these twelve as given by Mark and Luke, Simon
Peter is put first. Now does this automatically of itself prove
that Peter was the CHIEF apostle? Let's not assume anything but
prove all things from God's own word.
WHO WAS THE CHIEF APOSTLE?
For three and one half years Jesus was in close fellowship
with His chosen twelve disciples. He knew their strengths,
weaknesses, and their personalities. He had ample time to
determine WHO if anyone should be head apostle, who should be
second in command, who third, and so on down the line.
We have recorded for us in the four Gospels three separate
incidents where Jesus could have made it very plain to them who
He had chosen to be chief among them and head of all the
ministers in the Church, the one with final authority and the
power of veto.
The first incident is found in Mark 9:33-35 (the same
account is also given in Mat.18 and Luke 9) where we read: "And
they came to Capernaum; and when He was in the house He asked
them, ' What were you discussing on the way?' but they were
silent; for on the way they had discussed with one another who
was the GREATEST. And He sat down and called the twelve."
Here was Jesus' golden opportunity to tell them the
governmental structure He wanted among themselves, here was His
chance to declare to them, the one, two, three, in the authority
line. But what DID He say? "And He said to them, if anyone would
be first(desired to be, wanted to be) HE MUST BE LAST OF ALL AND
SERVANT OF ALL" (RSV, emphasis mine).
Jesus did not even hint that there was to be a pyramid type
of Church structure. He told them that if anyone in their own
mind desired such a position as being "top dog" that person had
better put himself last and be servant to all the others.
To be the greatest in God's sight is to be humble and put
such a desire of exaltation out of your mind and go about
serving!
Months went by and the disciples, or at least two of them,
forgot what Jesus had taught them. It is human nature to think
that in a group of twelve surely someone must be the greatest,
and maybe that someone is ME!
On a certain day James and John came to Jesus and asked Him
if THEY could be the ones to sit on His right and left hand in
the Kingdom. Jesus said only the Father had the authority to
decide who would be given those positions, it was not for Him or
for them to decide (Mark 10:35-40).
The account in Mark continues to say: "And when the ten
heard it, they began to be indignant at James and John, and Jesus
called them to Him and said to them, 'You know that those who are
supposed to rule over the Gentiles LORD it over them, and their
great men exercise authority over them. BUT IT SHALL NOT BE SO
AMONG YOU."
They were not to exercise rulership over each other, they
were not to be like the governments of this world, having a
system of dictatorial pyramid authority. Continuing:
"But whoever would be great among you must be your SERVANT, and
whoever would be first among you must be SLAVE of all" (verses
43-44).
How this incident must have come to the apostle Peter's mind
when he exhorted the elders: "Likewise you younger(in age and/or
length of service) submit (honor, respect, look to with
appreciation) unto the elder(in age and/or ones who have served
longer in the ministry). Yes, ALL of you be SUBJECT one to
another and be clothed with HUMILITY. For God resists the
PROUD (the self-important ones, those who would rule over others
and put themselves in some great office of authority) and gives
grace to the HUMBLE" (1 Peter 5:5, emphasis and amplified
myself).
What words from a mighty man of God. Mighty in the way the
Lord used him. Think about Acts chapter two, then chapter 10, and
15. Think about the great miracles Peter did even to the point
that when his shadow passed over people they were healed!
Peter was a pillar in the Jerusalem Church of God (Gal.2). Yet he
also made his errors and went away from the path of truth at
times, so that the relative new comer to the apostle function,
the apostle Paul had to correct and rebuke him openly (Gal.2).
But he took it as a true child of God, he did not allow his pride
to get in the way, or allow his "ego" to be hurt and a root of
bitterness to spring up. He was exercised to bring forth the
fruits of righteousness from all the corrections he received from
the Lord. And so could pen those great words above. Peter was a
humble man, he was willing to be subject "one to another."
Oh, how all the ministers of the Church of God need to
exhibit the character of Peter in this matter. I have personally
seen the exact opposite manifested many times by some who call
themselves the ministers of God. I wonder how many times the Lord
has seen this wrong attitude practiced down through the
centuries?
Even after these two separate incidents, there still arose a
third time when: "A dispute also arose among them, which of them
would be regarded as the greatest" (Luke 22:24, RSV).
Jesus again told them they were not to be like the
governments of this world. He gave them HIS EXAMPLE! Be a
servant, do not have the "I'm the greatest" attitude.
He did specifically promise those twelve (Matthias replacing
Judas, Acts 2) a throne each - ruling one tribe of Israel in the
Kingdom(Mat.19:28). But He never said any of those thrones would
be above the others. Just as He never said any one of them would
be above the rest in authority in this physical life within the
function of the Church.
What Jesus taught them over and over again was to have love
and service among themselves. What He inspired Peter to tell all
Elders was that they should be humble and be willing to be
subject to each other.
DID JESUS MAKE PETER HEAD OF THE CHURCH?
Some teach that Christ made Peter chief apostle over the New
Testament (NT) Church. Others teach that the true Church today is
headed by ONE man!
Those who teach this idea often give Matthew 16:18-19 as
proof to the supremacy of one authoritarian man as head of the
Church. The Roman Catholic church claim the Pope is the direct
descendant of Peter who they say was made chief apostle by
Christ. But what is the real truth? Let's examine these verses in
Matthew very carefully.
Jesus said: "And I say unto you, that you are Peter (Greek is
Petros - meaning a 'stone') and upon this rock(Greek is Petra -
meaning a 'ledge' or 'shelf of rock' or 'crag of rock') I will
build my church" (Mat.16:18).
Notice the true meaning as originally written in the Greek
language. The English word "stone" is translated from the Greek
word "Petros" meaning a single stone or loose stone. The Greek
word "Kephas" means such a stone. But when Jesus said, "upon this
rock I will build my church" the Greek word used was not Kephas
or Petros but PETRA, a large massive rock.
Speaking of the Israelites under Moses in the wilderness,
Paul wrote: "For they drank of that spiritual rock that followed
them; and THAT ROCK WAS CHRIST" (1 Cor.10:4).
The CHURCH is described in Ephesians 2:20 as, " being built
upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, JESUS CHRIST
Himself being the CHIEF CORNERSTONE."
Here Christ is said to be the HEAD or chief, the final
authority of the Church of God, not some individual mortal man!
The real foundation of the Church is Jesus. "For other
foundations can no man lay than that is laid, which IS Jesus
Christ" (1 Cor.3:11).
He is shown in Revelation 1:13-18 to be the living head, in
the midst of the Church. Read also these passages - Ephesians
5:23; 4:15; 1:22,23; Colossians 1:18,19; 2:19.
THE DISCIPLES GO FORTH
Mark tells us that Jesus chose 12 special disciples (chapter
3:13,14). Luke says He called them apostles(chapter 6:13). It is
written He sent them "out to preach and have authority to cast
out demons" (Mark 3:14,15).
Notice it! They were sent out to do WHAT? Have dictatorial
power and authority over the members of the Church? Have
authority of each other, over other ministers of Christ? NO! They
were given authority over DEMONS not other ministers. Jesus never
said they were to rule God's children with an iron hand, lording
it over them, acting like some little Hitler cracking the whip.
Later again Christ sent out the twelve. He gave them POWER
and AUTHORITY yes, but over what? Not over each other - no! He
gave them authority over demons and power to heal every disease
and infirmity (see Mat.10:1-4; Mark 6:7; Luke 9:2).
He sent them out TO PREACH! Preach what? Personal authority
over one another, a pecking order of Church organization? God's
word says, "......to PREACH the KINGDOM OF GOD."
Jesus later appointed 70 others. He sent them out "two by
two" to do His work. He did not say that one of the two was chief
of the other. They were obviously a TEAM - two by two - two
standing alongside each other, neither having binding authority
over the other, but both being subject to each other and the
younger respecting the older as we have seen in 1 Peter 5.
Please read carefully this account as given in Luke 10. The
only authority they had was to heal, cast out demons, and preach
the good news of the Kingdom.
Jesus had ample time and opportunities to explain in some
detail to His first disciples how the Church should be structured
along a pyramid authority line if that was what He wanted it to
be like. But we find no such teaching from the lips of Christ in
the gospels. On the contrary, we find the exact opposite
teaching.
His people and ministers were to be organized on two basic
pillars - LOVE to each other and a SERVING SERVANT attitude. Only
those who have some personal gain to follow for the wrong reasons
can fail to see these two pillars taught over and over again in
the four Gospels.
The rest of the NT shows this does not mean ministers and
members are to be "door mats" to each other. Everyone walking
over each other, ignoring one another. It does not mean there is
to be no "correction" within the Church. It does not mean there
is to be no logical organization, for Paul was inspired to say
that things should be done "decently and in order" and that God
was "not the author of confusion" (1 Cor.14).
What it simply means is that everything the Church does, its
ministers (elders/overseers) and members, is to be done with
respect of each other, humility and submissiveness to each other,
and with love and service for one another in all things.
Some of the last words Christ said to His disciples was not
that they should try to dominate and establish authority over
each other in a hierarchy Church structure, but that collectively
they should with team work effort, "Go therefore and make
disciples of all nations, baptizing them.. ....teaching them to
observe all that I have commanded you...." (Mat.28: 19-20).
Here Jesus gives a THREE PART commission to His ministers
and followers: 1) make disciples 2) baptize 3) teach what Jesus
commanded.
This is NEW Testament instruction for the NEW Covenant
Church of God and there is not one word here or anywhere from the
lips of Christ about establishing a "pecking order” of authority
for His ministers and members of His spiritual body.
Take a good look at Jesus' words found in Mark 16:15-18.
Again we have instruction to go and teach and baptize. The sheep
of the fold are to be fed and taught. Disciples are to be made
from all nations - preaching of the gospel. The Bride is to be
prepared for the Bridegroom.
Certain signs (as the Lord gives and directs, see 1 Cor.12)
would follow within the Church. These signs were very evident in
the apostolic Church of the first century. In somewhat of a
lesser degree they are evident today among God's people, but will
be more powerful and more abundant near the return of Christ.
Again you will notice in all this, in all these signs, there
is not one word about some GREAT order of hier-archal Church
structure to prove to the world the Church of God is the true and
only body of Christ.
The largest "Christian'' church in the world today(with over
one billion members) claims that its church structure from one
head man down, is part of the proof that they are the true Church
founded upon the apostle Peter.
As we can see from the four Gospels, NOTHING COULD BE
FARTHER FROM THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER!
Famous King Arthur of British history who fought with his
noble Knights against the invading Anglo-Saxons, is famous in
part because of his establishing the "round table." He and his
top Knights, we would call them today by the name of "generals" -
all gathered round to discuss their plans of attack and defense,
seated at a ROUND table. King Arthur said he wanted it so, so
that there would be no head or no tail. All would feel as
important and as necessary as the next, including himself. In the
center of the table going in a full circle were the words: BY
SERVING EACH OTHER WE ARE FREE.
Christianity had been well established for centuries in the
British Isles before Arthur came on the scene. It had been
brought there by many of the original disciples of Jesus. It was
a much purer Christianity than came later to Britain via the
Roman Catholic church. King Arthur was a God fearing man and his
realm was founded upon the "good book." I'm sure he knew and had
read the words of Christ as found in the gospels, part of those
words being "the Truth shall make you free."
Arthur did not choose those words for his round table, but
took the teachings of Jesus that we have been looking at, and put
the heart of them into a phrase for his famous table -
"By Serving Each Other We Are Free."
If only the Church of God, its branches and its ministers,
down through the centuries, had always taken King Arthur's
attitude of heart, many problems springing from self-important
vanity and ego would have been eliminated, and much hurt and
damage and falsehood would have given way to humble teachableness
and growth.
There are MANY truths in the word of God, one of them is
what King Arthur had come to so clearly see. No organization, no
government, no body of people can survive for long if it is not
founded on some basic godly principles. Arthur knew service was
one of those true foundations to keep a people out of the chains
of bondage and sin, and so he had engraved in the round table: By
Serving Each Other We Are Free.
About 1500 years after King Arthur led his people with those
words, another leader over another part of the same peoples in a
different land, led his people with similar words that history
will etch into stone.
His words were: "Do not say what can my country can do for
me, but say, what can I do for my country."
Those words of President John F. Kennedy are the essence of
what Jesus taught His ministers and disciples.
Please allow me to paraphrase what Christ taught His
followers:
"If any one of you would desire to be the chief minister
with all and final authority. If any one among you would get
close to adopting the attitude of 'How can the other ministers
and people of God, the Church of God, serve me' then that
individual had better humble himself and go about serving
everyone that belongs to me, and for whom I gave my life. For I
did not come to put my feet up and be served by you all, but I
came to serve you. So you go and do likewise to each other. Do
not say,' what can I get from the Church' but ' what can I do
for the Church.' "
It is time for some in the Church of God to REPENT! To
repent of the rotten stinking, filthy, arrogant, conceited, vain,
attitude of mind and actions of words and deeds, that manifests
itself too often and by too many ministers towards other
ministers and members in the Church, an attitude of being a
self-righteous authoritarian dictator over others perceived to be
of lower in "rank" than themselves in the chain of Church
ministry and structure.
It is time for those who have been guilty of such errors to
humble themselves under the mighty hand of the Lord, and to
prayerfully re-study this whole subject of the MINISTRY and
CHURCH GOVERNMENT to see more clearly from the teachings and
examples of the New Testament what the plain truth really is!
THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH IS STARTED
After Jesus had ascended to heaven (Acts 1:6-11) the
disciples were together in Jerusalem (v.5). Peter stood up and
spoke to them. Did that make Peter the head apostle? The account
does not say it did. Those who claim this proves Peter was chief
minister, must read into the account something that is completely
absent, and they do this to try to uphold a teaching that can not
be established with Biblical fact.
In any group of persons you will have dominant leader type
people who will naturally lead out, Peter was one of those
individuals. Many studies today have been done by Business Firms
looking for leaders to prove this human natural phenomenon.
Peter was a"'born leader" as we say.
He told the others that someone had to be chosen to replace
Judas (v.16-22). Now notice verse 23, " And THEY appointed
two...." It does not say that Peter chose two, or James, or some
other "chief/s" among the apostles, but it says "They" the whole
120 of them (v.15) chose the two.
The account does not tell us HOW they chose the two men. So
that indeed does leave room for some administrative variance
within the workings of the Church.
They could not decide which of these two men should take the
place and office of Judas. The teaching is clear, no apostle
standing up here to tell everyone that he and he alone had final
authority to decide the matter.
What did they do? The account tells us they prayed and cast
forth lots (v.24-26). It is not the purpose of this study to
examine what these lots may have been(the readers can avail
themselves with the Bible Commentaries for such inquiries).
Whether this was a voting ballot or pulling of straws makes no
difference to the point we want to make here.
NO ONE MAN DECIDED THE ISSUE! Not even two, or three, or
four, or some board of persons. The matter and decision to be
made was too LARGE and IMPORTANT to be left to one man or a few
men.
Peter certainly did not have sole authority to decide who
would take Judas' place. Not only that, but once that decision
was made, he did not have authority to ANNUAL it either!
Is this an example that some issues are only for God to
decide and an organization may have to resort to casting some
type of "lot"? Well yes it is and then no it isn't. Let me
explain.
Both men were qualified in the eyes of human beings. They
had met certain necessary criterion. Obviously, for whatever
reasons, the Holy Spirit was not giving the brethren any "clear"
or "obvious" mental answer as to which man should take Judas'
place within the twelve disciples.
This was a once in a life time problem, maybe a once in the
life of the New Testament Church. This was not an every year, or
every 10 year occurrence for the Church of God. It was unique!
God had chosen the twelve disciples - it was only fitting He
should choose the man who would become part of that special
company, after all that man would be given one of the thrones to
rule one of the tribes of Israel (Mat.19).
If an issue or situation should arise within a Church of God
organization that could be seen as just as important to the one
here in Acts, then I say this is an example left for us that
could be followed. But then, I must seriously question any
organization that believes it has a problem as important as
choosing one of the twelve apostles.
PETER'S POWER?
After the Holy Spirit had come on the day of Pentecost, the
apostle Peter was very bold in his preaching of Christ. Thousands
were converted by his sermons. Great miracles were done by Peter.
We can read of all the things that Peter did and said in the
first five chapters of the book of Acts.
Indeed it is true that Peter did take a leading role in the
early days of the Church. But is there any word in these first
chapters that Peter was chief or head in authority over the other
eleven apostles or the whole Jerusalem congregation? No! Not one
single word!
Can we find in these chapters or anywhere (we shall come to
Acts 15 later) in the entire book of Acts, where ANY apostle
claimed he was "boss" of the rest of them and they had to comply
with his demands and "jump to his tune"? No!
Does having the ability to speak with authority - preach
powerfully - do miracles - automatically qualify a person to be
chief or head of the Church? If it does, then the apostle Paul
would have been qualified to have dethroned anyone and taken over
the Church.
Look at his record! When some men wanted to boast of their
deeds and talents, and others were looking at these men with
great admiration, Paul said to the Corinthian church, "Seeing
that many glory after the flesh, I will glory also.....are they
ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more, in labors
more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more
frequently, in deaths often" (2 Cor.11:18,23).
Paul continued to list his deeds for the gospel in verses
24-28. He was given visions and revelations of the throne of God,
possibly he was taken up to the throne of the Lord, although he
was unsure if it was reality or in the minds eye vision (chapter
12:1-7). At another time he told the Corinthians he spoke in
tongues more than any of them (1 Cor.14:18). There were times
when Paul did great miracles through the power of God's Spirit
(Acts 19:11-12). God used him to write 14 books of the inspired
New Testament scriptures. The number 14 is the number for
deliverance and salvation as used by God in His word. The number
7 is the number for perfection and completion. The number 2 is
for the Godhead (presently only the Father and the Son). Now 2 x 7
= 14. Paul was used to write not only salvation but DOUBLE
perfection.
With ALL THIS Paul never once wrote that he was the human
head of the Church, nor did he ever state that Peter or any other
man was the head of the Church under Christ. The nearest thing we
can find in Paul's writings is the acknowledgement that some
men were looked upon as leaders and pillars of strength in the
Jerusalem church: "Then fourteen years after I went up again to
Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. And I went
up by revelation....but privately to them which were of
reputation. But of these who seemed to be somewhat...." Notice
what Paul goes on to add to that statement, " whatever they were,
it makes no matter to me: God accepts no man's person, for they
who seemed to be somewhat, in conference added nothing to me, and
when JAMES, CEPHAS (Peter) and JOHN, who seemed to be pillars,
perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave me and
Barnabas the right hand of fellowship (Galatians 2:1,2,6,9).
It is I think more than interesting to note the order of the
names of the individuals Paul stated "seemed to be somewhat" in
the Jerusalem congregation - Peter's name does not appear first
in line. If there is any significance to the order of names(and
that question could be very debatable) and if Peter had been made
head of the Church by Christ, then Paul was doing an injustice to
Peter's authority by placing his name after that of James'.
But the truth is, Paul is not stating in this passage that
any ONE man was head of the Jerusalem church or the Church of God
as a whole. There were leading men in the church at Jerusalem
just as there would be in any other local church where there was
a plurality of ministers. Yet that fact does not prove certain
ministers "lorded it over" other ministers with dictatorial
authority.
While we are on the subject of the order of names as used in
the NT I will take some time to answer the argument put forth by
some concerning Paul and Barnabas. Some have claimed that Paul
was "over" Barnabas - that Paul had authority over Barnabas. They
have given as proof of this, the order of names.
One Church of God organization in a piece of literature on
Church Government admitted that before Acts 13 the name of
Barnabas appeared BEFORE the name of Paul - see Acts 12:25 and
13:1,2. Then they went on to say that AFTER the Holy Spirit
separated Barnabas and Paul (Acts 13:1-3) for a special work, it
was Paul's name that appeared before Barnabas' name. They quoted
certain verses to prove this, thus claiming Paul had authority
over Barnabas. The verses they gave were as,
Acts 13:13,43,44-46,50; 15:2, 35.
Now that looks pretty good IF you believe there is
significance in the order of names, IF you believe the NT teaches
an authority "pecking order" of ministerial structure, and IF YOU
READ THE BIBLE WITH TUNNEL VISION!
It blows my mind that some would try to prove a point of
doctrine by giving you certain verses they claim shows the truth
they preach WHILE WITHIN THE SAME CHAPTERS ARE
VERSES PROVING THE OPPOSITE, if you believe the
order of names has meaning in authority.
Read carefully from Acts 13:4 all the way to chapter 15:35.
Ah, ah, did you spot the verses that some glide right over with
blinkers on their eyes?
There's one in chapter 13:7. The name of Barnabas is put
before the name of Paul, and that is AFTER verses 1-3. Another is
in chapter 14:12. Yes Paul was the chief IN WHAT? He was the
chief in speaking! Not authority! Paul like Peter was a fine
speaker. All ministers are to be able to teach (1 Tim.3:2), they
do not have to be great speakers or preachers. When conducting
evangelistic meetings as Barnabas and Paul were doing it is only
natural and wise to let the man with the gift of preaching do the
speaking most of the time.
Notice verse 14 of chapter 14. The name of Barnabas appears
BEFORE that of Paul's. Then after Paul's name was put before that
of Barnabas' in Acts 15:2 Luke (the writer of Acts) turns right
around and places Barnabas' name BEFORE Paul's in verse 12. In
verse 22 Paul's name is placed before Barnabas' by Luke, then in
verse 25 he again reverses it and puts Barnabas' name first.
Such is the folly of men who want to cling to false
teachings and will not be corrected by the word of the Lord. They
just do not have the "love of the truth" (2 Thes.2:10).
From reading the first few chapters of the book of Galatians
and the rest of the epistles of Paul, together with the book of
Acts, one thing becomes very clear to those who have an honest
heart and will accept the truth of the word. Paul acknowledged
there was a work of the Lord coming from Jerusalem, an
organization with leading men such as James and Peter, a work
that belonged to God, preaching the same basic truths that he
Paul and Barnabas and others were preaching. But not for one
minute or one second did he ever believe God was not also using
him and others to also do the "work of God."
Paul believed with all his might that he was just as much an
apostle as the twelve were. That he had just as much authority in
Christ as any of the rest. It is clear from the writings of Paul
that he did not believe in any hierarchy pyramid, one man down
authoritarian Church of God government, where men ruled over men
with dictatorial power. Paul respected other ministers who were
truly called and faithful to God. Paul had deep love and respect
for all of God's children, especially for those who went the
extra mile in serving the brethren and doing "the work." Paul was
a humble man, and God made sure he would stay that way by giving
him a "thorn in the flesh" (2 Cor.12:7-9).
Paul was a submissive man, he was both submissive to God and
to man. Concerning his submissiveness to other men/brethren, we
can find many examples. A few will suffice. The account in Acts
9:23-25 was no doubt at the request of the disciples who did not
want to see Paul killed. Notice the humility Paul exhibited even
after being personally taught by Christ Jesus, in what he wrote
in Galatians chapter 2:1-2 (with chap.1;12). He was willing to
let other ministers examine his beliefs and teachings so nothing
would be done in vain. He recognized they also had the Spirit of
God and were able to ascertain truth from error.
What an attitude! Think about it! Jesus had personally
appeared to him on the road to Damascus and brought him to
repentance and conversion. He had been personally taught by
Christ. The Lord had given him many of the gifts of the Spirit.
He had performed healings and miracles. Yet, this man was willing
to be examined by some of the leading apostles to make sure he
had not run, or should run, in some useless vain manner that
would save no one.
Now that is some beautiful heart and mind. Every minister
who calls himself a minister of the Lord had better cultivate
that attitude of Paul.
He didn't go around acting like some pompous swell-headed
"know it all" from the number one University of the country. He
didn't proclaim to the world that he was the "only" apostle of
God. He never claimed that it was him who had the final authority
in the Church.
Those who can not be like the apostle Paul are destined to
find themselves wallowing in the mire of their own filthy
vainness with whatever religious empire they established being
taken away and given to others of more noble humility and
character.
How many ministers are willing to have their work and
teachings and writings, examined for possible errors by other
ministers filled with the Spirit of the Lord? In my experience I
am ashamed to say, it is very few. Even when done in the right
spirit of mind, most get their "back up" and think they are being
"attacked" if someone questions their teaching as being correct.
We may not all agree on every last little verse in the word
of God, but we should endeavor to disagree without being
"disagreeable."
Paul was willing for other reputable ministers to examine
the way he ran in the work of the Lord. Paul was willing to
submit to other ministers when it was right and correct to do so.
Another example of that can be found in Acts 21 and verses 17
through to 26.
What was Peter's power and authority? Well, it was no more
than Paul's! If Peter got out of line, if he was in complete
error, if he was in the wrong and committing sin, then Paul had
no hesitation in correcting him, and if need be in front of
others at that (Gal.2:11-21).
THE EARLY CHURCH AND COMMUNISM
There are some people who have put themselves into a
communal type of life. They all dress alike, eat together, work
together and share equally their pooled wealth. Often Acts
4:32-37 and 5:1-11 are quoted to justify this way of living.
Are these verses in Acts teaching this type of communistic
life for Christians? In verse 32 the multitude of disciples said
that their possessions they counted not just belonging to
themselves but to others also. That is an attitude of SHARING!
We must understand and remember that the Church was just
starting - people were being converted by the hundreds and
thousands (3, 000 on the day of Pentecost alone - Acts 2:41). They
had found the truth of God, they would be excited, joyous, and
naturally wanted to stay on in Jerusalem to rejoice with and
fellowship with the disciples who had been with Jesus for three
and one half years.
Imagine the monumental task it would have been just to have
fed and housed all those converts. They had come from all parts
of the known world to observe the feast of Pentecost and were now
converted to Christianity. Some were willing to sell their houses
and lands to give help to those in need. They gave AS every man
HAD NEED (v.45).
Yes, those who had some real-estate were willing to sell
some or all of it and give the money to the apostles who in turn
gave that money to those in need as the situation arose.
Even when they did sell a possession, it, the money, was
still THEIRS to do with as led by the Holy Spirit. "As long as it
remained unsold, was it not still your own? And (even) after it
was sold, was not(the money) at your disposal and under your
control?......" (chapter 5:4, Amplified Bible).
Ananias and Sapphira died because they LIED about the price,
not because they were unwilling to practice communism (see
chapter 5:3).
The NT Church never taught a communistic life style. God's
word teaches no such doctrine. But the word of the Lord does
teach a GIVING and a SHARING. A HELPING your brother as he needs
it (1 John 3:17-18).
There was a need at that time in the Church's early
beginning, an unusually LARGE need, and all who could and wanted
to help, feed, clothe and house the brethren, did so readily.
SEVEN ARE APPOINTED
As the Church grew there would (as with any growing
organization) naturally arise problems that would need resolving.
This is the case as we start into the sixth chapter of Acts.
Certain things were being neglected (v.1). This was brought
to the attention of the apostles. They called the other
disciples (many of them) and asked them to choose seven men, whom
the total 12 apostles would agree to appoint over this matter of
physical duties (v.l-4).
These seven men were chosen from among the "multitude of the
disciples." The apostles you will notice did lay down certain
qualifications that were to be found in choosing the seven. But
the initial choosing of these "diakonein" (today we call them
deacons) was done by the multitude of disciples.
No indication here of some head minister calling or
appointing seven of his personal choosing. Even the twelve
apostles did not do it all by themselves. They were quite
confident that the other disciples were qualified to find men in
whom was the Spirit of God, wisdom, and honesty.
Perhaps in this situation the multitude of disciples were
better qualified than the apostles in finding the right men, as
they were more personally and intimately acquainted with these
local men. Maybe they all lived in the same general area and
attended the local synagogues together.
Whatever the case, for this specific circumstance (which may
or may not arise today) the apostles felt the congregation should
get involved.
There had to be some system for choosing these men, but we
are not told what that system was they used. God merely gave us
the principle - we then have the liberty under the same situation
to work out the details. Perhaps all the disciples were asked to
submit a name either orally or in writing. Maybe it was a
"secret" ballot vote. Maybe some men even volunteered for the
responsibility. Whatever the method, one thing is for sure, it
was not some dictatorial man throwing his weight around who chose
them.
After this mutual search for the seven candidates it is
important to notice that the whole group of 12 apostles appointed
them to that duty. Verse three says: " whom WE MAY appoint over
this business."
I am sure that if the Holy Spirit had spoken to the twelve
that one or more of the seven was not suitable, they would not
have been appointed and the multitude would have had to find new
candidates.
What this means is that the bottom line, is that the
ministers have the last word on those chosen for the duties of
deacons.
This was a special situation, a never before situation in
the early life of the NT Church. It can not be used to claim the
NT Church of God is to be run from the bottom up, the members
picking by democratic vote their deacons and ministers.
Many Protestant churches so operate this way, but not one
verse in the NT can be found to support this view or practice. I
have personally witnessed members of a Protestant church hiring
ministers from a "preaching talent" contest, only they did not
call it that as such, but an "invitation" to preach with respect
to being hired. They chose a certain fellow who declined the
offer to go to another church, and then offered the job to the
runner up, who accepted.
God, through the Holy Spirit did things a certain way at the
start of the NT Church within certain circumstances of context,
because it was not already in place, and something needed to be
done to solve the problem. Acts chapter six and verses one to
seven was one of those contexts.
Later God inspired Paul to set down for the minister Timothy
and the Church of God, what specific qualifications were required
for the Eldership and deaconship (1 Timothy 3:1-15).
The word of God is clear that it is the already ordained
Elders in the Church who have the last word on who they will lay
their hands upon in ordination to Eldership or deaconship. The
members may have some input to ascertain or to help the Elders
ascertain that a man has basically reached the qualifications of
2 Timothy 3, but it is the Elders who must give the final
decision, and it is their hands that are laid on the candidate.
Any group of ministers within a local church or area of
churches would know over a period of time, by "their fruits" the
men whom God was calling to the ordained Eldership. The same
principle would apply to those worthy of ordination to
deaconship.
In a less structured situation more help from the
congregation could be needed to make sure 2 Timothy 3 was
followed and met. And in those circumstances the words of
Paul to Timothy(an already ordained Elder) would apply even more:
"Lay hands suddenly on no man...."(1 Tim.5:22).
To be continued
First written in 1983. Re-written and revised in 1996.
Church Government
What the New Testament teaches on how churches should be governed
STEPHEN'S WORK
One of the seven chosen men was a man called Stephen. It is
written that he did great wonders and miracles (Acts 6:8). He is
not called an Elder, he was one chosen to serve "tables" and the
brethren in physical matters. Yet he did WONDERS and spoke
very boldly.
Stephen was given some of the gifts of God's Spirit that
Paul talked about in 1 Corinthians 12.
In that passage of scripture Paul shows us that God can give
through His Spirit, ANY of the different gifts listed to ANY
member of the body of Christ, whether in the classified "ordained
ministry" or not. Paul in discussing Spiritual gifts is talking
to the whole congregation at Corinth not just the Elders (see
chapters 12:27 and 1:1-10).
We must always be careful not to "hand-cuff" the Lord in
what we think He should or can do through any human being.
At one point in Jesus' ministry the disciples found a man
doing miracles in His name, and because he did not belong to
their Group they asked Christ to give them permission to tell him
to stop! Jesus said: "Do not forbid him to stop, for no one who
does a mighty work in my name, will be able soon after to speak
evil of me. For he that is not against us is for us" (Mark
9:39-40).
How does this square you may ask with Jesus saying that
there would be one shepherd and one fold?
Quite simply this: All that are the children of God, with
the Spirit of God, belong to the ONE spiritual body of Christ.
The one true Church of God, the people of the Lord in whom is the
Spirit of Christ are scattered all over the world, they are
connected together through one spiritual organism called in
scripture "the body of Christ" and this has NOTHING TO DO
WITH MAN MADE CORPORATE ORGANIZATIONS
REGISTERED in some physical BUILDING on some physical
piece of paper, in a physical CITY in some COUNTRY on earth!!
Here in the gospel of Mark is the plain truth that God can
and does work with various persons in various parts of the
country or world, AS HE CHOOSES! And these persons may or
may not KNOW THE OTHERS EXIST!
How vain and arrogant of man to think or proclaim to others
that he and his work is the "only" work of God on the earth. I
can think of only one man who could have claimed correctly to
have been the only work of God on earth - that man was NOAH!
Elijah, from an honest heart, believed he and his disciples
were the only work of God on earth at the time, and in voicing
this to God he was answered with a resounding NO! The Lord told
him he was not the only work of God. The Lord had reserved 7,000
others who had not bowed the knee to Baal! Elijah DID NOT KNOW
THEY EXISTED! How foolish is the heart of man at times. How
deceivable and pompous can the mind of man become, as to think God
is limited to one man and/or one organization at a time, for His work
to be done in the earth.
God is God! Man is not God, we did not make Him, it was He
who made us! He is the POTTER, we are now merely the clay. God
can at ANY TIME He chooses, raise up as many persons and as many
independent corporate organizations to do His work as He wishes.
It is not we humans who tell God WHEN, WHERE, HOW, and with
WHOM, He will work and do things. It is HE WHO TELLS US!
One large Church of God organization in this 20th century,
thought they were the only ones in the world doing the true work
of God. They eventually adopted the Roman Catholic doctrine of
Church Government and their head leader called himself the "only
apostle of God on earth." Back in the 60's before this
"head-master" became so vain with personal glory, the
organization did believe they were the only ones around with all
"these wonderful truths" of God. Then a few of their ministers
went to South America, into the hills and valleys. There to their
amazement they found peoples who believed and practiced all the
same basic doctrines they practiced and taught. These people even
observed the festivals of God and in some ways had more truth
than the USA organization, for they were observing the feast of
Pentecost on a Sunday which the organization in the USA thought
was error, but later came to see was the truth.
When will we ever learn that it is not God who needs us, it
is us who NEED GOD! Why if need be, the Lord could raise up the
stones on the road to preach His word. That being the case He
certainly is able to use different men and different corporate
organizations in different parts of the world to do His work, all
at the SAME TIME!
Peter was used by God to do a work towards the circumcision,
while Paul was used by the Lord to do a work towards the
UNcircumcision - so it is written, so it was done.
Well let me get back to the account in the book of Acts
about Stephen. Certain of the religious leaders and their
followers started to dispute with Stephen. Now he did not
say that he had no authority to discuss religious matters with
them. He did not run off to get permission from the chief apostle
or Church board in Jerusalem. He just disputed with them. And he
did it so effectively they could not withstand his wisdom. He was
brought before the council and defended himself so well answering
them with power and inspiration, it actually ended up costing him
his life (Acts 7:54-60). Stephen did ALL OF THIS and there's not
one word about him being ordained to some set "rank" of authority
in the Church. At best he was appointed to serve "tables."
This account alone (we shall see others later) should blow
away the idea that deacons and lay members are to just "pray and
pay" and leave the teaching and preaching and witnessing to the
truths of God to the ordained Eldership. If the Lord chooses to
use a deacon in a POWERFUL MIGHTY WAY for His truth and
work, He will do so. And who is any man to withstand God?
THE CHURCH IS SCATTERED
One famous preacher of the Church of God in this century
wrote a book before he died, and in it he had a section that he
was going to prove to his readers and followers that the lay
members were not to preach the gospel or go out expounding the
word of God to the world in general. He was trying to prove from
the scriptures that it was only the ordained ministers or elders
of the Church that were given that commission. He used for the
proof of his teaching verses from the beginning chapters of the
book of Acts, some before and some after chapter eight.
But like so many before him(and no doubt there will be
others after him) who wandered off into doctrinal error, he took
out the horse blinkers and wore them as he read the chapters he
would get his so called "proof texts" from. He read right over
and failed to show his readers a text that would have drilled
holes in his doctrine to sink it to the bottom of the sea.
That text friends is found in Acts 8. I want you to mark
this in your Bible and never forget it!
Let's begin with verse one: " And at that time(when Stephen
was put to death) there was a great persecution against the
Church which was at Jerusalem; and THEY(the 'ekkleesia' - called
out ones - the church) were ALL scattered abroad except the
apostles."
The CHURCH is made up of all the collective members in whom
is the Spirit of God and Christ. The Church is not the ministry -
the ministry is PART of the Church. The only part of the Church
that was not scattered abroad were the 12 apostles.
Now notice it, verse four: "Therefore they that were
scattered abroad (all the members of the Church, all but the 12
apostles) went everywhere PREACHING THE WORD!"
I did not put it there friend. It has been in your Bible all
these centuries. It was there when this leader I talked about
above wrote his book in which he tried to prove the exact
opposite. There it is in plain black and white, easy to
understand, no College degree needed.
Under certain circumstances and as He wills, when He wills,
God can use the any members of His Church to PREACH THE
WORD! So it is written, so it was done. God will not be limited
by the wishes or false ideas of men.
PHILIP PREACHES
Among the seven of the "diakonate" of Acts 6, was a man
named Philip. He also was given some mighty gifts of God's
Spirit. He was not of the twelve apostles. He was not an ordained
elder. But notice how the Lord used him: ".....then Philip went
down to the city of Samaria and PREACHED Christ unto them" (Acts
8:5). He also did miracles and healings! (v.6-7). God used Philip
to do a MIGHTY work in Samaria (v.8-12).
This deacon did not have to get the "okay" from some head
apostle before he went to do the work of the Lord. He did not
have to ask his local minister/pastor for permission to be used
by the Spirit of the Lord. The apostles in Jerusalem found out
AFTER the fact what work Philip had done in Samaria, and then
they as a collective decision, sent Peter and John to help
out (v.l4).
There is no indication or evidence in this section of
scripture that Philip was performing spiritual works that were
"out of rank" for his deaconship. That were only to be performed
by some man ordained to some rank of ministry.
This example alone should "blow to pieces" the idea that men
are ordained to a rank ministry and have certain duties or
workings they can not perform because those duties are only for
"higher" ranked ministers. Such false teachings are derived from
one Biblical error and one carnal human error.
The Biblical error is found in ONLY looking to the Old
Covenant and how God arranged things under that disposition,
while ignoring the fact that today we are under a New Covenant
and under that covenant certain changes have been made by God
Himself (i.e. physical circumcision is not required, a change in
the priesthood, no central city to worship God in, animal
sacrifices not necessary). The New Covenant clearly shows
by example and by direct teaching/commands, that the basic form
of Old Church/State Government is not to be the order for the New
Covenant Church of God during this present age.
The carnal human error is that of the heart of man venting
and taking pleasure in having dictatorial authority over other
men, which in turn leads organizations to establish a "rank and
file" system among its leaders. As Jesus said to His disciples,
that is how the unconverted nations rule among themselves, but it
was not to be so for His servants and followers.
The Lord is plainly showing here in Acts chapter 8, that if
He wants to take a deacon, or any man of the Church and use him
to perform miracles or healings or preach the word some-where, He
WILL DO SO! And He will do so without having to answer to any
other human man He ordained to the Eldership or not, and
certainly not answering to any man made rank system.
After the work Philip did in Samaria, God gave him another
assignment (v.26). He sent His angel to tell Philip to go to a
certain place and to meet a man of great authority under the
Queen of Ethiopia. Philip was used to expound the word of God
more clearly to this eunuch and baptize(a deacon baptizing? Yes!
And we shall see later that you did not even have to be a deacon
to baptize people. Now that should blow a hole in more false
doctrines of men) him into the very family of God (v.27-38).
I hope you are seeing the truths of God as never before. Too
many have been spoon fed, have had their thinking done for them,
have allowed men to manipulate the scriptures without "proving
all things and holding fast to that which is good." By reading
the Bible with an open and clear mind, by willing to be
corrected, the word of God and the Spirit of God will guild us
into all truth and as Jesus said: "The truth shall make you
FREE."
Again, the lesson to learn, and God gives that lesson to us
over and over again in the book of Acts, is to NEVER LIMIT the
Lord, especially under the New Covenant. He will work whenever He
wishes and with whosoever He chooses for the preaching of His
gospel and the saving of souls.
Another fine lesson here is that Philip did not become all
puffed up and self sufficient. At this juncture in his converted
life he did not know everything. He did not realize he had to lay
hands upon those he had baptized for the receiving of the Holy
Spirit. Peter and John taught him that when they came (v.14-17).
Philip was humble and worked with other men of God. Do you see
the TEAMWORK going on here in the early NT Church of God?
In passing, and while I'm talking about the "laying on of
hands" after baptism for the receiving of the Holy Spirit. Some
may say that this example of Philip shows that it is only the
ordained Elders(Peter and John) that can perform this duty and
function. The very next example God gives us of Philip in the
same chapter shows this thought to be incorrect!
Philip ALONE, without Peter and John, is taken to meet the
Ethiopian eunuch. He only is used to teach him more clearly the
word of God. It is only Philip that the Lord uses to baptize this
man. No ministers(ordained/appointed) or apostles from Jerusalem
came along with Philip to lay hands on this eunuch after he was
baptized.
From the experience in Samaria concerning the laying on of
hands, Philip would have known now that he should do likewise,
after baptizing someone.
Before leaving this chapter and its examples and lessons,
there is one more thing to meditate on. The eunuch went back to
Ethiopia as a converted Christian, filled with the Spirit of God.
He was in a position of great authority(in the world of the
Ethiopian nation). He would have been very excited about his new
found truth. Do you think he would have been totally silent about
it? Do you believe he would never have shared the truth of God
with anyone in his nation, and others of importance in the
government? I believe he would have been used by God to do a
mighty work in Ethiopia for the spreading, teaching, and
preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit was very
very active in those days within the Church of God, the world was
being turned upside-down. Paul and others were later accused of
that very thing - turning the world upside-down with their
teaching and preaching.
God must never be hand-cuffed in what He can do, when He can
do it, and by whom He can do it!
PAUL IS CONVERTED TO CHRIST
On the way to Damascus to persecute the people of God,
Saul(later known as Paul) is struck down by a blinding light and
hears Jesus speaking to him. Blinded, Paul is brought to Damascus
where he is three days without food or drink (Acts 9:1-9). God
sent a man called Ananias, a disciple(the usual Greek word for
the word 'disciple') not an apostle or elder, to heal Paul and to
baptize him (v.10-18).
Here is a clear example of a disciple or a follower of
Christ, used by God to heal, to baptize, to lay hands upon a new
convert into the family of God and receive the Holy Spirit.
Saul or Paul was converted to Christ. He had a religious
background in Judaism, but now the clear truth of God's word was
revealed to him. The scriptures he had grown up on began to take
on new meaning. Paul did not now run off to some supposed "head
quarters" Church of God to come under their authority. He tells
us in the book of Galatians that Christ personally had him go to
Arabia and there He taught him. Then after returning to Damascus
for some unspecified time(from his conversion to returning to
Damascus was 3 years) he went to Jerusalem for a very short
period and visited only Peter and James the Lord's brother (Gal.1
:11-20).
This whole account shows a somewhat "no rush" no "big
concern" on Paul's part to get "in line" with those in the
Jerusalem congregation. It reminds me of the people I told you
about earlier in South America that the famous USA Church of God
found observing all the same basic doctrines as themselves. I
told you this happened in the late 60's. Well the USA
organization sent ministers back to them asking them to be a part
of their work and organization, and acknowledge their head leader
as God's end time "man of the moment." It was reported to the USA
Church of God headquarters that they were just
laughed at and told: "God we know, Christ we know, and Paul,
Peter, James, but who is....(the leaders name, which I will not
give here)."
I well remember from the publication of this USA
organization's inner magazine to its members (I was a part of
them) the article about discovering the existence of these
people in South America. Then like hot coals of fire nothing was
ever said about them again. It was many years later, when I was
personally talking to one of the very ministers who was sent to
visit them, I found out why the USA organization forgot about
them and went on as if they never existed. The South American
people of God had not only never heard of the Lord's supposed
human "king pin" leader, but they were not about to believe
he was God's only "apostle" for the end time, either.
The South American Church of God were not only correct about
keeping the feast of Pentecost on a Sunday, but they have also
been proved correct that God does not work through one "minister"
or apostle(if you want to use that word) at a time. For that
minister of the USA organization was never alone in what he
taught and preached(other ministers of his day in the Church of
God believed and taught the same truths, but went their separate
way. I now have the facts to prove that is true), is history.
New light and evidence is coming all the time that proves
God has worked with different ministers, in different parts of
the world, often during the same time frame, who did not always
know the others existed, but were teaching, preaching, and
practicing, the same basic doctrines, which often included the
observance of all the festivals of God as recorded in Leviticus
23.
A great deal of historical Church of God Sabbath-keepers and
related history has been done by the late Richard Nickels.
Paul, it is true, was a unique individual, with a unique
calling to conversion and into the ministry of Christ Jesus. His
calling was directly with signs and wonders, and personal
visitations from Jesus. No man was needed to ordain/appoint Paul
as a minister of the Lord. No ceremony of ordination in front of
others wherein men already in the ministry would lay hands on him
and so induct him as an Elder of the Church.
So, yes, God can do it that way IF He so chooses. After all
He is God. He is the potter and we are the clay. But that is not
the way the Lord does it MOST of the time. The book of Acts and
Paul's writings to Timothy and Titus, show that God works through
other ministers to ordain men to the ministry of Jesus
Christ(Acts 14:23), with at times input from the congregation.
As the Church grew spiritually and in literal membership and
appointed ministers/elders, God gave Paul inspired instruction
for the Church about the basic qualifications needed for any one
to be ordained to the pastor/eldership or deaconship (1 Tim.3;
Titus 1).
Such an undertaking is very serious business. So serious in
fact that it is not surprising we have two other very important
scriptures on this matter in the NT. The one is found in - 1
Timothy 5:22. The other in James chapter 3 and verse 1. Please
read this second one in the Amplified Bible translation, and see
some of the Bible Commentaries.
PAUL ARRIVES IN JERUSALEM
"And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he wanted to join
himself to the disciples, but they were afraid of him, and
believed not that he was a disciple" (Acts 9:26).
We have seen from Paul himself in the book of Galatians that
it was three years from the time of his conversion to the FIRST
time he went to Jerusalem. You may like to review this in
Galatians 1:11-20. It was a relatively short visit it would seem,
although we can not be sure of that. Paul says he abode with
Peter for 15 days. He does not tell us the exact length of his
stay in Jerusalem. He stayed with Peter for 15 days but he may
well have stayed with other brethren also, Paul just does not
give us all the details. After that visit to Jerusalem Paul was
in no hurry to return. It was to be 14, yes, fourteen years
later before he went back to that city - Galatians 2:1. And from
the following verse we see that he did not keep in very close
communication with the apostles and/or those in reputation at the
place where it all started, for, he was willing as we have seen
to let them examine his gospel among the Gentiles. That would
strongly indicate a severe lack on his and their part as to what
they and Paul had been doing/teaching and preaching over that
period of 14 years.
Obviously from all this Paul and those who worked with him
such as Barnabas, felt God was working with them just as much as
with those in Jerusalem. They did not feel the necessity or that
it was a doctrine of God, that one human man was in authority
over the Church and that they had to report to him, or get
permission to do this or that in the work of the Lord from some
board of men in a certain city.
Many believe the Jerusalem conference of Acts 15 came after
this second visit of Paul to Jerusalem. We shall look at that
important chapter of the book of Acts later.
So what are some of the lessons we can gain from the
calling, teaching, and preaching of Paul?
First: God is able and free to raise up any man at any time
for the work of the Kingdom and preaching of salvation. God is
able to reveal His truths to any person, at any point in time,
and in any area of the world, regardless of who else God may be
using at the same time. The overwhelming NT examples show that
in this age of the New Covenant, the Lord does not work with just
one dominant leader in His Church, that no one man has
dictatorial authority over the other ministers or members. In
this age God is using various ministers with spiritual gifts and
abilities as the Holy Spirit imparts.
Second: Those that God calls to the work of the ordained
ministry will, as led by the Spirit, work together in small or
large teamwork groups. Peter did not work as a single
self-sufficient minister, neither did the apostle Paul. Their
work was not always in the same area throughout their lives, and
they did not always have exactly the same ministers to work with
in their close immediate circle, but co-operate and work with
other servants of the Lord they most assuredly did do. None of
the apostles or elders believed or taught that any man was an
"island unto themselves." They all knew that "iron
sharpens iron" and the inspired proverb: "In the multitude of
counsellors there is safety" (Prov.11:14).
Third: The Lord directly called and ordained Paul to the
ministry. There is no evidence that he was ordained by other
human men. God is free to so ordain/appoint if He chooses, but
this is clearly by the teaching and examples of the NT, an
exception to the norm. God has established in the New Covenant by
example and direct command that men are appointed to the
Eldership by other Elders and by meeting certain qualifications.
MINISTERS ARE SENT
Acts chapter ten again shows us God directly inspiring and
working with a man, without that man having to give account of
his every move to other men. Peter is sent to the Gentiles to
bring salvation to them. There was within the early Church
freedom to work where the Holy Spirit directed.
God's Spirit should never be hand-cuffed by over
organization. It is written: "Quench not the Spirit........
where the Spirit of the Lord is there is l i b e r t y"
(1 Thes.5:19; 2 Cor.3:17). Then on the other side of the coin
liberty is to be used carefully (James 2:12).
As we have seen, God wants a respectful, loving, servant
attitude within His ministry and Church. He does not want a
minister or group of ministers "bossing about"
with high-handed conceit, another minister/s. Yet, He also does
not want a high-handed "one man show" attitude from any single
minister of His either.
Those that had gone forth from Jerusalem preaching the
word (Acts 8:4) had great fruits to show for it(see Acts 11:21).
So much so that the Church in Jerusalem, "sent forth Barnabas,
that he should go as far as Antioch" (v.22). This shows us that a
Church does have the right to ask a minister to undertake a
special assignment. I say ask, because I do not see where they
can demand - not within the Spirit of the Lord anyway. Notice
verse 25, Barnabas acting within his liberty as a servant of God,
goes to find Paul in Tarsus and brings him back to Antioch, where
they stay for a whole year as teachers of God's word (v.26).
In the 13th chapter of Acts we see the Holy Spirit leading
within a congregation of God's people. A job was to be done - not
a lot of ''red tape'' required - just be guided by the Spirit,
send the men with a special blessing(this was not an ordination
to the ministry - they were already ministers) and get out there
and do the work. For a time they also had John Mark with them
(v.l-13).
The next point we need to note is in chapter 14:23, ''And
when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had
prayed with fasting ." We find that FASTING and PRAYER
accompanied ordination. Fasting and prayer by the minister/s who
were to ordain to the Eldership other men was a serious
undertaking which required serious preparation and meditation.
In keeping with Titus 1:5 and Acts 20:17 we see that a
plurality of Elders were ordained in every church. It would seem
that the Lord is telling us that He wants to safeguard His sheep
by shepherding them with more than one shepherd to each fold.
This would minimize to some extent a wolf in sheep's clothing
coming and devouring the flock. I said minimize, not completely
stop it, as seen by what Paul said in Acts 20:29,30. We must
remember all of these examples can only be applied when there are
many churches, with many converts, and with many qualified men
who could be appointed to the Eldership. Any combination of the
above factors could mean that it may not be possible to have a
plurality of ministers in a single congregation.
Obviously there did not seem to be a large problem for Paul
and Barnabas to ordain elders - plural, in the churches, at that
time.
It will be asked: "Does not this verse contradict what Paul
taught Timothy (1 Tim.3:6; 5:22)?" Remember that in many of these
towns where Paul and Barnabas taught, there were older Jews or
Gentile proselytes who were very well versed in the scriptures
and could not be looked upon as novices by any means. As far as
not being in a hurry to ordain, we need to keep in mind that when
Paul gave that instruction to Timothy, the Christian Church had
to a large extent established itself in growth and structure.
Here they were at the beginning of a new era, different
circumstances do warrant different methods at times within the
liberty of God's law. At the start of the NT Church era it would,
for the sake of stability among the new converts, be very
important to have established leaders. They did not have Radio,
VCR, TV, Conference Call phone lines, or Cassette tapes.
THE JERUSALEM CONFERENCE
This part of Acts - chapter 15 - is of great value to us for
the understanding of how the NT Church of God worked as a team on
difficult issues. There is much in this chapter for our
edification.
1. Important doctrinal issues that effect the individual as
well as the stability of the Church as a whole, will arise from
time to time. Because differences arise which must be "ironed
out" does not mean the Church of God is not the body of Christ.
It is HOW those issues are resolved that proves the true
character and people of God.
2. Ministers from the various parts of the land and earth,
came together in conference at a designated location (verses
1-6).
3. The indications from verses 12, 22, 23, 25, is that the
conference was an open forum with congregational members
present. Certainly the decision reached was approved by the
whole congregation.
4. There was much disputing. Time was given for all to speak
(v.7).
5. It would seem from verse 19 that James played a leading
role - maybe presiding as chairman. It was he that gave the
"judgement" that everyone agreed was the correct one. This by on
means teaches that James was head apostle, like a Pope of the
Church of God. As Paul had written to the Galatians, James was of
reputation and a pillar in the Jerusalem assembly, together with
Peter and John. If James was presiding as chairman, with his
wisdom and leadership abilities, it is only natural he would have
seen the "truth of the matter" and summed it all up as to what
the Holy Spirit was guiding them to do.
6. We notice that there was no voting on doctrinal issues.
It was not a case of the majority wins. God's truths that are
clearly taught by the word are not up for "voting on."
7. The truth was arrived at by two criterion: (a) By what
God had done through the Holy Spirit (b) By what the scriptures
plainly taught (verses 7-12 and 13-18).
PAUL AND BARNABAS SEPARATE
In verses 36-41 of Acts 15 we have recorded the different
opinions of two ministers, differences that could not at that
time be resolved, and which resulted in the two men who had
worked together for some time in the gospel, separating and going
their different ways to do the work of God.
What are the lessons we can learn from this?
1. It was not a difference in doctrine over-which Paul and
Barnabas separated, but what we would call today administration -
who was going with whom to do "the work."
2. Where administration of the work of the Lord is not
defined by or in opposition to the word of the Lord, FREEDOM is
allowed. Yet within that freedom men's ideas and personalities
may on occasion - clash! In most cases it should be able to be
solved, but this was one time it could not.
3. Paul and Barnabas remained servants and apostles of God.
Both continued to do the work of the gospel.
4. Despite the weaknesses and differences of men, God is
able to work with and in them, often turning what may appear to
us as adversity into VICTORY for Him. Truly, the Lord works in
mysterious ways at times His wonders to perform.
5. Neither Paul nor Barnabas took their disagreement to a
higher court of Elders, or some "chief" apostle over them, to try
and get the other "black listed" or kicked out of the ministry or
disfellowshipped.
IN RETROSPECT
What can we see as we look back on our study? I will list 10
points that I see.
1. Jesus calling His ministers and telling them that, no ONE
individual or small "board" of individuals would have total
dictatorial control and authority over the entire Church of God
or other Elders. Jesus taught that he who thought himself more
important and above the rest, had better be the greater humbler
servant to all.
2. A Church and ministry that was filled with the POWER of
the Holy Spirit. A driving zeal to get on with spreading the
gospel of the Kingdom of God.
3. As the Church grew and the physical burden increased, the
establishing of an ordained/appointed " Deacon - servant"
ministry (Acts 6) to help take care of such matters.
4. We see that the gifts of God's Spirit were boundless,
given freely as He saw fit, to the Elders(Acts chapters 2-5), to
the Deacons (Acts chapters 6-8), and to the whole membership of
saints (1 Cor.12 and 14).
5. God directly called others to the apostleship and
ministry (Acts 9). And ministers ordained other men to the
ministry (Acts 14:23).
6. Local churches and elders that had a great deal of
freedom within the law of God (Acts 11:19-26; 13:1-13).
7. Churches raised up with ordained elder S - (plural, Acts
14:23).
8. Brethren, Deacons, and Elders held together with the
common bond of the Holy Spirit, the love of God, and the same
basic fundamental truths of the word.
9. Major doctrinal issues resolved by ministerial
conferences with the members of the host congregation in
attendance, and participating in the decisions (Acts 15).
10. A Church not handcuffed or weighed down with over
organization.
In closing this section of our study I must, because of
recent abuse within certain parts of the Church of God,
re-emphasize the teaching of Jesus about a humble servant
attitude that all His ministers and followers were to have
towards one another and towards the spiritually blinded of the
world.
Satan has devastated parts of the body of Christ in the last
30 years because this humble servant attitude was not maintained
by some Elders, and the sin of vain, authoritarian power and
dictatorial rulership was exhibited by various ministers over
other ministers and the brethren.
The words of Phillip Keller (a one time keeper of sheep) are
fitting at this point in our study. I will quote from chapter 3
of his book: A Shepherd Looks at Psalm 23. We pick it up as he is
talking about the requirements needed for sheep to lie down.
" The second source of fear from which the sheepman delivers
his sheep is that of tension, rivalry, and cruel competition
within the flock itself. In every animal society there is
established an order of dominance or status within the group. In
a penful of chickens it is referred to as the 'pecking order.'
With cattle it is called the 'horning order.' Among sheep we
speak of the 'butting order.' Generally an arrogant, cunning and
domineering old ewe will be boss of any bunch of sheep. She
maintains her position of prestige by butting and driving other
ewes or lambs away from the best grazing or favorite bedgrounds.
Succeeding her in precise order the other sheep all
establish and maintain their exact position in the flock by using
the same tactics of butting and thrusting at those below and
around them..........Because of this rivalry, tension, and
competition for status and self-assertion, there is friction in a
flock. The sheep can not lie down and rest in contentment. Always
they must stand up and defend their rights and contest the
challenge of the intruder..........
This continuous conflict and jealousy within the flock can
be a most detrimental thing. The sheep become edgy, tense,
discontented and restless. They lose weight and become irritable.
But one point that always interested me very much was that
whenever I came into view and my presence attracted their
attention, the sheep quickly forgot their foolish rivalries and
stopped their fighting. The shepherd's presence made all the
difference in their behavior.......
In any business firm, any office, any family, any community,
any church, any human organization or group, be it large or
small, the struggle for self-assertion and self-recognition goes
on. Most of us fight to be 'top sheep.' We butt and quarrel and
compete to 'get ahead.' And in the process people get
hurt.........
In contrast to this, the picture in the Psalm shows us God's
people lying down in quiet contentment.......The endless unrest
generated in the individual who is always trying to 'get ahead'
of the crowd, who is attempting always to be top man or woman on
the totem pole, is pretty formidable to observe. In His own
unique way, Jesus Christ, the Great Shepherd, in His earthly life
pointed out that the last would be first and the first last.
In a sense I am sure He meant first in the area of His own
intimate affection. For any shepherd has great compassion for the
poor, weak sheep that get butted about by the more domineering
ones. More than once I have strongly trounced a belligerent ewe
for abusing a weaker one. Or when they butted lambs not their own
I found it necessary to discipline them severely, and certainly
they were not first in my esteem for their aggressiveness.
Another point that impressed me, too, was that the less
aggressive sheep were often far more contented, quiet and
restful. So that there were definite advantages in being 'bottom
sheep.'
But more important was the fact that it was the Shepherd's
presence that put an end to all rivalry. And in our human
relationships when we become acutely aware of being in the
presence of Christ, our foolish, selfish snobbery and rivalry
will end. It is the humble heart walking quietly and contentedly
in close and intimate companionship of Christ that is at
rest.......When my eyes are on the Master they are not on those
around me. This is the place of peace.
And it is good and proper to remind ourselves that in the
end it is He who will decide and judge what my status really is.
After all, it is His estimation of me that is of consequence. Any
human measurement at best is bound to be pretty unpredictable,
unreliable, and far from final " (A Shepherd Looks at Psalm 23,
pages 31-33).
To be continued.
First written 1983. Re-written and revised 1996.
No comments:
Post a Comment