A third view of the local church leadership acknowledges the need for a decision- making body. Instead of a distinct ruling body of men over the churches, there should be a congregational rule where a consensus is the desired aim. Dale Smelser, who advocated consensus in matters of judgment, created a spark of interest in the role of spiritual leadership for me. Since then, I have discovered others from unrelated associations and backgrounds had been saying similar things. After quoting Ephesians 4:11-13, Atkerson writes, “One reason Christ gives the church such leaders is to help the church achieve consensus.” In this approach, the elders only lead in decision-making. Acts 15 would be the proof text for this approach. In explaining why Jesus chose the word ekklesia, Steve Atkerson explains, “He wanted them to make corporate decisions that affected all of them as a group. How did Jesus intend for the church to be governed?”[1] He quotes Thayer and Bauer, two Greek lexicographers, and concludes that the word was used to refer to a “political assembly that regularly convened to make decisions.” Atkerson adheres to the entire ekklesia convening to make regular decisions together with the elders who he likens to Senators who convene in a lawful assembly to facilitate discussion for solutions to problems. “A church elder is just a fellow senator,” he writes, “but one who is on a special senate committee whose purpose is to study issues, make recommendations, teach, inform, or prompt.”[2]
Also, he argues that if Jesus wanted to convey the idea of a mere gathering, he would have used “synagogue thiasos or eranos”. He believes that Jesus’ use of the word, ekklesia, gives it a “political connotation”. He writes, “God’s people have a decision-making mandate. A church is fundamentally a body of Kingdom citizens who are authorized (and expected) to weigh issues, make decisions, and pass judgments. Though decision-making will not occur at most church meetings (there aren’t usually issues to resolve), an understanding that the church corporately has the authority and obligation to settle things is important. Churches whose meetings focus solely on praise music and teaching, never grappling corporately with problems and resolving issues may be failing to fulfill their full purpose as an ekklesia.” [3] Here, we have a decision-making body whose purpose for gathering is to make decisions. For this to make sense, he distinguishes the gathering of Christians for praise, teaching, and music from a “corporate” gathering.
There are other similar views with a few variations, but in making their case, they all have one common thread. They see the church as an institution or corporate body that requires decision-makers to run the business affairs. One proposes a clergy that has been empowered and authorized by God, who is called to the office. The last two recognize a hierarchy of a ruling class to be wrong but they differ on the identity of the decision-makers, the nature of the decisions, and the context. One gives authority to the church elders that make business decisions for the church organization and in the context of a formal church assembly. The other proposes congregational decision-making that is carried out in the context of house churches, led by leading men who seek general consensus. One practice rule in matters of judgment, while the other gathers to discuss the correct application of Scripture, enforce the law within the family, and deal with issues as they arise.
I applaud Atkerson’s view that God does not authorize the kind of leaders wherein one or a few hands down their decrees behind closed doors to the members to follow. Such rule is akin to the rule Jesus condemns among the Gentiles in favor of leadership of service (cf. Mark 10:42-25; Matt. 23:9-12). Jesus taught that service is the true measure of greatness in the kingdom. Atkerson sees a local church organization that is by its very nature a decision-making body convened for that very purpose and that elders cast the final vote when there is gridlock.
Confusion continues to exist over these broad views and the only proposal known to aid us to better understanding is a return to the text. However, let us not go back to the text with the same given set of rules from which we have started our study in the past. In approaching any study of the Scriptures, consider the context. We believe that the overall context of the New Testament describes the first century as a time of fullness (cf. “fullness of time,” Galatians 4:4) in which the exceeding great and precious promises and prophecies of the Old Testament prophets were fulfilled.
Since we have presented a contrast between the church institution and the called out body of Christ, the application of leadership between them will be very different. For this reason, the first publication, Community of Believers, was presented to our readers to introduce the biblical teaching concerning a special class of people termed, “the called out.”
[1] Atkerson
[2] Ibid,
[3] Ibid