Today’s leadership is unquestionably linked to collective churches. You can rarely find a book on leadership without seeing the word “church” attached to it in the title or sub-title. Andrew Clarke explains, “Towards the end of the twentieth century, the designation ‘leadership’ became increasingly widespread in many churches as a collective term to describe the combined team of local church office-bearers, including the pastors, ministers, elders, deacons, or ‘leaders’ of other ministries. Significantly, however, the New Testament in general and Paul’s letters, in particular, suggest that such a generic term was not adopted by the earliest churches.” However, the leadership that is being applied to God’s people today describes a leadership model that Jesus specifically rejects for the apostles. Support for it is usually found in the influence and teaching of the church fathers. It is presumptive to assume that the “church Fathers” continued the work passed on to them from Christ and the apostles. Despite the fact that Paul warns of leaders in his generation rising up to draw disciples after them, we tend to glorify the work of the church fathers because they were closer to the time the apostles lived. Given the warnings of apostasy and distinctive views of leadership roles, it is this author’s opinion that these men promoted an institutional view of the church and a leadership model that fits it.
It is difficult to stand outside the box of our cultural conditioning and talk about this topic in the same way Paul discusses it. After several years of practice, I still catch myself reverting to the vocabulary of my childhood. But, I am appealing to the readers to separate the church institution from the community of believers classified as the “called-out” (ekklesia). The institutional view of the church is an almost exclusive view of the church that ties the majority of professed Christians into the same divisive error — denominationalism. Even among those who are independent autonomous groups, they are still influenced by the traditional view of the “church” structure. Included with each are their names and unique explanations of Scripture used as proof-texts to support their doctrines. The idea of a local institution led by clergy who have more knowledge, answers, and the control of the spiritual direction of that organization is a part of this model of fellowship. Clarke raises the question about whether the failure to use the common leadership terminology expected of a church supports the view that “the early church was, predominantly, a group of egalitarian communities, which had no use for contemporary, generic titles for leadership.” Even if it can be shown that they were, Clarke does not espouse that they need to be the same, today. It appears to me that he is so close to the same conclusions that I have reached in my studies, but is wed to his affiliation with the church. It is precisely this connection that hinders us from a more complete application of the text, which is my agenda.
If we assume the ekklesia is an institution/organization, then, it is inevitable that we also accept the need for authority and order. Most all Biblical commentators recognize this given set of rules. Hobart explains, “There must be organization for this task if the church is to accomplish much. There cannot be any great efficiency in a mere congregation. A mob, no matter how well-meaning, cannot do much but destroy things. It has no constructive force. A church of the best kind of saints will do very little in any unless there is a division of labor and some sort of orderly arrangement of its activities. Those denominations that have failed to organize their forces have lost efficiency.”[2] If, on the other hand, the ekklesia were “saints,” “brothers” who not only had a spiritual connection in common but who lived in the same community, then the word correctly defines people, whom God has set apart, called or collected into one body across all boundaries of time and location (cf. Colossians 1:13). While it is true that a greater opportunity exists between people living in the same area, due to physical proximity, yet the relationship and responsibility to each other are no different when given the opportunity to fulfill it. Paul, Timothy, Titus, Luke and a host of other saints moved from city to city teaching saints. Some had roots in a certain town and perhaps family members that gave them added responsibilities. Still, wherever they were residing, regardless of the amount of time spent there, they met with other Christians as a member of the living body. This did not make it a local church body that was formed into an institution. In fact, the use of the figure is not used in the Bible to describe a local church in the sense that it is used, today. The only distinguishing feature between brethren appears to be the different towns in which they lived. As such, they can be characterized by the strength and weaknesses of the majority of individual saints. Yet, there is nothing in the text that suggests they had formed themselves into an organization. They are the “called out” whether they live in one city or throughout the world. Living in the same city does not change the meaning of the word. It only narrowly defines the same people living in the same city or region, providing the occasion and opportunity to teach, encourage, warn, etc., on a daily basis.
We will explore the question of whether the fellowship and proximity of saints living in the same town is defined by their city residence, or by their affiliation with a local church organization (cf. Titus 1:5, “city”; Acts 14:23, “church”). Of course, if we propose a local authority of leaders for local church organizations on the basis of references to the ekklesia living in specific cities, then you could also support the regional authority of leaders on the basis of references to the ekklesia living in specific regions, like Galatia. To have one is to have the other and some denominational organizations have a hierarchal division of power that is divided by district, region, or state. Authority for one is an authority for the other.
The use of the word “church” has been used today to describe the physical coming together of a class of people. However, the ekklesia of Christ is not formed as a result of a physical gathering (cf. Heb. 13:24). It is the “called out” whether they are physically gathered in one place or not. God has “gathered them” into one body by the cross. It is in this sense that they are the called out (ekklesia). Their living in the same town may give greater occasion for joint activities together than others who live in another town. Still, the stranger and the local residents are on equal standing in the body. If we applied this scenario to a modern application, the stranger does not have local church membership and has limited use in a church service. In Paul’s day, neither the stranger nor the local residents had membership in a local church or ties to its public services because such an organization was non-existent.
[1] Andrew D. Clarke, p.1
[2] ALVAH SABIN HOBART, D. DALVAH SABIN HOBART, D. D, TRANSPLANTED TRUTHS
Or, Expositions of Great Texts in Ephesians (Philadelphia: THE GRIFFITH & ROWLAND PRESS, 1914