Church Leadership in the New Testament
Fourth essay in series on Developing a Theology of Ministry
In
my tradition (Disciples) there was a long held belief that the New Testament
provided the church with a fairly straightforward vision of church
leadership. Just go to Acts and perhaps
the Pastorals and you’ll have what you need.
That vision has proved to be rather simplistic, especially since a close
reading of the New Testament reveals a rather varied understanding of church
leadership.
Having
already noted the post-apostolic developments of Ignatius, I’d like to step
back for a moment and look at that variety present in the New Testament. We might ask ourselves, what do these
developments have to do with the contemporary church? There are those who wish to reproduce the New
Testament church, but many of us feel that this is a dead end. So, what might we take from our engagement
with the biblical text for today?
It seems rather clear that from a
NT perspective, ministry begins with the whole people of God. Whatever forms of leadership may develop,
they emerge out of a common call to ministry of the whole people of God. We see this clearly developed in Paul's
description of the church as a body (1 Cor. 12:14-31). This description clearly suggests that the
whole people of God have been gifted for and called to ministry.
But,
what is ministry? The Greek term diakonos can be translated in a variety
of ways, but its most important nuance suggests the role of being a servant. Thus ministers are servants of God and the
people of God. The biblical model for
Christian ministry is found in the person of Jesus, who demonstrated that
servanthood defined diakonia, even
the servanthood of the cross.
Whatever we have to say about ministry and the relationship between ordained
and non-ordained forms of ministry, we need to realize that servanthood and
mutuality stand as the founding principles.
Further,
we can say that because Christ stands before God as our high priest, we have
the right of access to God as priests for ourselves and priests for one another
(Heb. 10). This principle of a royal
priesthood, so eloquently defined in 1 Peter 2:5-9, eliminates the clergy as
necessary priestly intermediaries between God and the people of God.
When
we look at the New Testament we discover that no church order dominates and
that all seem to emerge in ways appropriate to its cultural context. This should give us insight into how we might
create structures that are culturally appropriate but that reflect the ministry
of the whole people of God.
Although
scholars have disabused us of the idea that we can simply turn to Acts and find
the New Testament church order, what is found there should at least offer us
something to reflect upon. According to
the Acts narrative, the Jerusalem church was led by the Twelve or the
Apostles. According to this tradition Jesus chose eleven
of the twelve prior to his death, while Matthias replaced the disgraced Judas. According to Acts 2:42 and 6:2-4 these twelve
men (yes, they were men, but is this prescriptive or descriptive?) formed the
primary teaching ministry of the earliest Jerusalem church. Of the twelve, Peter and John seem to stand
out, with the rest falling into the background.
One of the Twelve is arrested and executed early in the life of the
church and does not seem to have been replaced (Acts 12:1-2).
Acts
6 describes the selection of seven men of the Spirit to provide for the needs
of widows in the church, especially from the Hellenistic Jews. The reason this group is set aside stems from
the Twelve's need to teach rather than "serve tables." They were chosen because the demonstrated the
presence and power of the Spirit in their lives. The church's first martyr came from this
group, Stephen (Acts 6-7). Another
member of this group, Philip, took the gospel to the Samaritans and to the
Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8).
If
the Apostles are said to be the earliest leaders, it is interesting that before
too long the primary leadership role goes to James the brother of Jesus. When and why isn’t really described by the
text, but as time goes on the Twelve recede and James comes to the
forefront. According to the Pauline
letters there will be conflict between James and Paul – or at least between
Paul and certain persons who claim to represent James. A détente is established at a council
described in Acts 16, over which James presides. But James appears to be assisted by elders,
who are mentioned along with James and the Apostles as leaders of the church (Acts
15:4, 22).
There
is another church that figures prominently in the early sections of Acts, and
that is the church of Antioch. This church
seems to be composed of a mixture of Gentile and Jewish Christians, and it’s
this church that commissions Paul and Barnabas as missionaries. It’s also where the believers first came to
be called Christians (Acts 11:26). We’re
never told when this church came into existence, but from this account one
would assume that it occurred rather early on.
In Acts 13:1-2 we read that the church in Antioch had both Prophets and
Teachers. Nothing is said in Acts about
elders or deacons in Antioch. Paul and
Barnabas appear to be part of the leadership structure that seems somewhat
charismatic in orientation.
Paul
is described as the founder of the churches in Greece, Macedonia, and Asia
Minor, and information on those churches we have not just Acts, but also Paul’s
own letters. It would seem that Paul
continues to have a supervisory role in these churches, even after he moves on
to start another church. Even if it’s not institutional authority, his
influence appears to be quite important.
Regarding
the nature of authority in these churches there seems to be quite a degree of
difference between individual churches.
From the Corinthian letters we can see that at least that church had a
somewhat "charismatically" orientated sense of ministry organized
around the concept of spiritual gifts.
Eduard Schweizer notes that there was "no fundamental organization
of superior or subordinate ranks, because the gift of the Spirit is adapted to
every church member."[1] As one looks at the description of the church
in 1 Corinthians 12 one sees this sense of gift-based ministry. On the other hand, as one looks at the
Pastoral Epistles, which are post-Pauline, one sees a much more formalized
sense of ministry – one of the reasons why this has been deemed post-Pauline,
since elsewhere there appears to be a more charismatic and less formal
structure.
The
most potent example of a charismatically organized church could be found in
Corinth. In his letters to this church,
Paul instructs the church how to properly make use of the gifts given by
God. Eduard Schweizer makes the astute
observation that in the letter to this church, Paul addresses not the leaders,
whom we know nothing about, but the church as a whole.[2] Here
ordination does not seem to be a central concern. Rather leadership is something that is
demonstrated through involvement in the life of the church. Those persons who have demonstrated effective
use of spiritual gifts are to be followed.
Unfortunately the Corinthians had put the emphasis on certain gifts of
the Spirit that tended to emphasize spiritual ecstasy rather than service to
God and humanity. Schweizer comments:
It is not because a person has been chosen as prophet or presbyter that he may exercise this or that ministry, but on the contrary, because God has given him the charism, the possibility is given to him, through the church order, of exercising it.[3]
The
Philippian letter doesn’t speak too directly about church order, but Paul does
open the letter by addressing the bishops/elders (episcopoi) and deacons of the church of Philippi.
The Ephesian letter, which is likely post-Pauline (though one can make
an argument for it being Pauline), offers a look at a more formalized structure,
with five orders of ministry (giftedness) spoken of: Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, and
Teachers (Eph 4:11-13). The Ephesian
church also seems to have had elders, a fact mentioned in Acts 20:17, where we
find Paul meeting with the elders from Ephesus at Miletus.
The
most detailed descriptions of ministry come from the Pastoral Epistles, which
is quite likely post-Pauline. In these
letters, the author(s) address questions of leadership qualifications. Two primary offices are discussed, that of
eldership and the diaconate.
In
1 Timothy 3:1-7 "Paul" provides the qualifications for overseers or
elders (episkopos). In later developments episcopal ministry
will be equated with that of bishops. The
focus of this letter is on personal and moral qualifications for ministry. Elders should be able to teach and manage
their own finances as well as the church's.
The word episkopoi, from which we get the word episcopacy (bishops), it’s
helpful to remember that it’s used here in the plural, and thus no monarchical
episcopate quite yet (1 Tim 3:1; Tit 1:5-7).
While some would distinguish
between those with the ministry of oversight (episkopos) and that of eldership (presbuteros) there does not seem to be any difference in
office. In Titus 1:5 we find “Paul” directing
Titus to appoint elders (presbuteros)
for the churches in the cities of Crete, which at least suggests that by this
time there was some form of outside supervision of the various churches.
In
addition, the author suggests that these leaders should receive some kind of
financial assistance, possibly so they can devote more time to the church's
ministry than would be allowed if they had to earn their entire way outside the
church (1 Tim 5:17, 19).
The
second office mentioned in the Pastorals was that of deacon (1 Tim
3:8-13). The Greek word is diakonos, which can be translated as
minister or servant. Paul describes
himself as a diakonos (Col. 1:17, 23,
25) and he calls Phoebe a diakonos as
well (Rom 16:1). Again the emphasis is
on personal qualifications rather than on defining responsibilities. It is possible that they were entrusted with
overseeing the church's work of social service or perhaps they oversaw the
financial side of church life. Little
else is known.
In 1 Tim 5:3-16 the ministry of the widows in the church is
discussed. Qualifications are laid out –
just as for those called to be elders and deacons. According to this passage a widow had to be
older than 60, the widow of one man, have a reputation of good works, have
raised children, shown hospitality to strangers, washed the feet of strangers
and assisted those in distress. There
does not seem to be much difference in role from that of the diakonate. This person, now alone in the world, is to be
supported by the church and now has the ministry of intercession.
The office of elder is mentioned in several other books. The author of 2 John and 3 John addresses
himself as an elder, as does Peter (1 Pet 5:1).
Peter also advises his readers to be subject to their elders. James 5:14 provides a further job
description, as the letter encourages the church to call on the elders to pray
and anoint the sick for healing. Finally
in Revelation 4:4, 10 we find described the twenty-four elders in heaven who
sit on twenty-four thrones and worship God.
So
then – what does this quick look at New Testament church orders suggest to us
as we develop our own contemporary theologies of ministry? What might we take with us into the
present?
Comments
Steve Willers
http://fur.ly/6d2h
God Bless
My point was that we need not rest our hopes for a vibrant future on a single person who will come and rescue us. Instead we can restore hopes on the holy spirit who will preserve us, and grow us in due time, and, may well do so through the leadership and work of many people. The authority in the earliest church was decentralized, and it grew and spread through agency of many people, most of whom were anonymous, and not through the work of any single person, nor even through the work of a small group of people. I wonder if such is how the holy spirit works most authentically - through the whole Body, working together?
Of course, the very variety of leadership present in the NT is also a reminder that different forms of leadership will emerge in different times, depending on the circumstances.
Having a strong visionary leader is not the same thing as a charismatic figure who will hold herself/himself out as savior, nor should we as members of the region expect this person to be a savior.
We who are clergy know all to well the messianic expectations that congregations can place on us when we come to a congregation. "You're our last hope!" But of course, that's not true.