Decisions of local churches are often thought to be in the hands of its leadership – some board or eldership. From our text in Ephesians 4, the leadership of first-century saints was placed in the hands of apostles, prophets, evangelists, and shepherds. The shepherds of the cities would extend their watchful eye to the entire life of the flock and because they were divinely appointed of the Holy Spirit, saints would submit to their watchful care. No one questioned their qualifications because they were led by the Spirit. To allow uninspired men today, many of whom are unqualified to teach and all of whom are not guided by the gifts of the Spirit would result in the refusal of saints to submit. Such rejection, however, would be justified because “church elders” cannot find authority from the first- century shepherds. The unfortunate overwhelming problem is that the majority of men, who are appointed to fill some hierarchy of rule, are not as much qualified to lead as they are to make demands, hand down their decisions, and keep things running as smoothly as one would expect in operating a business. When problems occur, many of them know their limitations. Many know they can’t lead in teaching, convicting the gainsayers, restoring the wayward, or stopping the mouths of false teachers. Among those who do have an ability to do so restrict their work primarily to their assemblies of the local church or have chosen not to be actively involved in teaching. Among those of the latter group, they have chosen to hire it done. “The preacher will do what we can’t do or do not want to do and we will run the business,” they reason. In other words, the elders will get the professionals hired like a sub-contractor would, decide how much salary they will provide along with other uses of the church’s money. In other church traditions, the pastors are hired to come to a church to minister to that church by occupying the pulpit, while the decision-makers sit on the sideline as supporters. Either way, there is a hireling who is assigned the task of teaching.
The denominational model of church organizations establishes such leaders to rule over the local churches to control belief, practice, and fellowship of the membership. The decision-makers control who preaches in the pulpit and teaches classes and what is taught to a lesser degree. This model was adopted by Catholicism, the mother of institutionalism. Every denominational child born from its seed seeks to control their unique beliefs and practices that set them apart from the rest of their sister churches. If anyone who is granted a teaching position goes outside the boundaries of their tradition, the decision-makers will exercise their right of rule and have him or her removed.
The logic for the practice of local church “rule” is because the infamous King James version speaks of “rule.” Therefore, they must rule something. Because Christ is the head of the church, it is assumed that their rule must not be in the Word. They have no authority there because there is only one law-giver, Jesus Christ. So, they must rule in making judgments and decisions as administrators do in an organization. The descriptive term used to support this role is the use of the word “overseer”. What is overseen is not individual souls, however. Matters that are overseen are attendance charts, visits and calls to the slackers, finance, maintenance of church facilities, order of services, structure, schedules, and who does what? We find no such pattern in the Word! Woe to the so-called shepherds of Israel who support a sectarian view of an organization and seize all decision-making for the benefit of their own peace of mind.
We have answered the unjustified use of the word “rule” and explained the meaning and use of the word “peitho” in earlier chapters. New Testament shepherds led, and gave guidance and oversight of souls. We are still searching for the New Testament pattern for a ruling body of men who make decisions for a local church. Undoubtedly, decisions must be made by leaders concerning their personal work but the same decisions must be made in everyone else’s work, too. Notice the following comparisons between the rulers of a church organization and that of the called-out in a given city.
(1) Without the existence of an organization, any decision that affects all the Christians in a city would be discussed and determined by all. This is exactly what we see in the Scriptures (cf. Acts 15:22). The shepherds are not a body of rulers who make decisions apart from the church. In selecting men to help the widows, Acts 6:5 states, “And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen a man full of the Holy Spirit…” The decision in Acts 11:26-30 was made by “every man”. In Acts 13:1-3 and 14:26-28 we observe the whole ekklesia gathered together for a work or endeavor. According to Acts 15, the “whole ekklesia” was allowed to have a part in the making of a decision as is seen in verses 4, 22, 23, and 25. The whole church was invited to that meeting and “it seemed good to the whole church” to send the letters by chosen men to the called out in other cities. When those chosen men went to Antioch to deliver the letter, the “multitude gathered together” (Acts 15:31). The apostle Peter placed the burden for finding a replacement for Judas upon the entire group as a whole. In Acts 6:1-6, the apostles turned to “all the disciples” (6:2) and asked them to choose men to administer care for the Grecian widows.
(2) Mathew 18:17 reads, “tell it to the church (ekklesia)” not just the leaders from among the saints. Today’s leaders of churches make the final call in church discipline. Yet, they would only represent the church if they were ruling administrators of an organization. Yet, biblically, any matter that may impact the welfare of others, all saints would be involved to discuss it among themselves and pray to the Father.
For example, consider the matter of discipline (some call “church discipline”). In the absence of an organization, it is clear that every individual Christian must decide to withdraw from the impenitent brother. The withdrawal is not a withdrawal from the local church organization of which the impenitent were members. The withdrawal of fellowship was the action of every saint among them. The decision doesn’t go before a board or an eldership that judges the case before it reaches the attention of others (cf. 1 Cor. 5:1-5). In this way, there is no “church action” as in a corporate church decision made by the leading decision-makers. It becomes the responsibility of every saint that is represented in the word, “ekklesia”.
(3) Only leaders of a corporate institution would collect from individual financial supporters to do what seems right to them on behalf of the people. The examples of giving to provide for the physical needs of the poor or of those who had committed themselves to the work of spreading the gospel have been swallowed up by the organization to which individuals are required to become members. Invariably, this work “of the church” is considered the work of the local church organization through which individuals must work. Phrases like, “the called-out at …. with its elders and deacons” (Phil. 1:1) or “ no called-out had fellowship but ye only” (Phil. 4:15) are proof texts to support the view that Philippi was such an organization. It proves no such thing as the church is referred to by the second person plural pronoun in verses 15 and 16. The called out at Philippi were individuals in Christ who lived at Philippi. Galatians 6 illustrates the identity of the called out, also. While verse 1 addresses “brethren,” Paul applies the instruction to individual Christians who are accountable to one another. When he writes, “ye which are spiritual, restore such a one in the spirit of meekness,” no one would think that this describes a local church organization or the clergy of such an organization. Why is Philippians 4:15-16 different? These individuals sent once and again to Paul’s necessities just as Paul instructs the Christians of Galatia, “Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teaches in all good things (Gal. 6:6). Other examples describing the saints at Philippi are as follows:
1) Philippians 1:7 ye all are partakers of my grace
2) Philippians 2:12 – Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
3) Philippians 2:15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;
4) Philippians 4:9 Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you.
These are addressed to saints in the plural but are all applied individually. The one body into which individuals at Ephesus were called (Eph. 4:4, cf. Col. 1:18, 3:15) was not a local church organization. These individuals trusted, heard, believed (Eph. 1:13, cf. 4:21, Col. 1:23, and Colossians 2:6, “received Christ”), and walked (2:2, cf. Col. 2:6). They were saved through faith (2:8), buried and risen with him (Col. 2:12), sealed (1:13, 4:30), made near by the blood of Christ (2:13), fellow-citizens and of the household of God (2:19), called in one hope of their calling (4:4), rooted and grounded in love (3:17), followers of God (5:1), and light in the Lord (5:8). They could read (3:2) understand (3:2, cf. 5:17), walk worthily (4:1, cf. 17, Col.1:10), put off the old man (4:22, cf. Col. 3:8), put on the new man (4:24), walk circumspectly as wise (5:15), stand against the wiles of the Devil (Ephesians 6:11,13), and quench fiery darts of the wicked (6:16). The same people were taught to be angry (4:26), kind, tenderhearted, forgiving (4:32), and thankful (3:15). Some of them were fathers (6:4). Others were slave owners (6:9). They lived to be sincere and without offense till the day of Christ (cf. Phil. 1:10). Every living member of the called-out in Philippi had men who watched over them, cared for them, and taught them the Word (Phil. 1:1, Eph. 4:11). Shepherds from the cities in which individual saints lived were so committed to their care that they “reaped carnal things” from the saints that they taught (1 Tim. 5:17-18, cf. 1 Cor. 9:11). They gave to the necessities of Paul and the poor saints. Paul wrote in Ephesians 4:28-29,
Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labor, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth. Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.
(4) Only leaders of a corporate institution would make their rulings in private meetings apart from the church. This is not to say that there is never a time when fellow shepherds of the first century met in private (Acts 15:6). It is only to say that they didn’t meet behind closed doors and announce their decisions as a “ruling” body. The leaders of Acts 15:6 discussed or “considered” the matter but the decision was one in which there was consensus and in which all were involved. Everyone, who makes up this organic body, will be involved in matters of this kind that involve judgments, even with spiritual implications. It is not so much that they have membership rights from having joined the local church organization. Such a concept was foreign to their thinking. Rather, it is the natural work of the individual saints. This pattern is altogether different from the workings of an institutional corporate body whose leaders seldom meet with its members to discuss anything. If they do, it is to pacify a few who believe in greater communication. Usually, the leaders who agree to such a meeting to satisfy everyone, make it quite clear that this is not a meeting to decide anything (as that is their perceived role) but to hear the congregation’s concerns. Unfortunately, the leaders remain quiet and just listen. The church can speak but they do not hear any plans, goals, concerns, or hopes from the elders. It is often a one-sided conversation to clearly distinguish themselves from the members. In at least some cases, their silence is designed to clarify that elders have nothing to discuss because no one but they have the authority to make decisions for the church. The popular view is that leaders should discuss the business of the church only in private settings with other leaders. It is in these settings that they make choices for the church and when the decisions are made, they inform the brethren who are duty-bound to support the decision.