His Church
Authority & Function
AUTHORITY IN THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH
This next part of our study is divided into three categories. Firstly,
‘Authority in the Universal Church’, secondly, ‘Authority in the local churches’
and thirdly, a special section looking at the word ‘pastor’ - ‘The pastoral
system’. This third section is necessary for two reasons: 1) we must ask to
which of the first two categories does this role belong? And 2) extra space and
attention is required to examine this function in the light of strongly
preconceived ideas found in our age and culture.
It will help us tremendously to a more balanced view of the New Testament
teaching on this subject if we think of the word ‘authority’ as always implying
a gifting or ministry, also as being a ‘function performed’, or simply a
‘recognized role’ not an ‘office held’ (see glossary for note on ‘office’).
While Christians must always respect and acknowledge and indeed benefit from
every true minister of Christ, we must not falsely ennoble such roles; e.g.
today we equate the title ‘minister’ with something and someone quite respected,
professional and qualified. In biblical times the word simply meant a servant,
someone to be used or even abused! Honour where honour is due, but let no man
think of himself as anything more than a mere bond slave of our Lord and Master,
Jesus Christ.Mat.16:18 is the first occasion that the Lord himself directly
mentions the Church, He says “... I will build My Church and the gates of hell
(that is, all the plans and conspiracies) shall not prevail against it.” In
Colossians we are told: “for by Him (Jesus Christ) were all things created, that
are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be
thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by
Him, and for Him, and He is before all things, and by Him all things consist.
And He is the head of the body, the Church: who is the beginning, the firstborn
from the dead: that in all things He might have the pre-eminence.” (Col.
1:16-18). Emphatically it is always, ever, His Church, and He is the absolute
authority in it, over it and through it. Therefore, no man, whether he be called
an apostle or an elder or whatever, has total authority in His Church. Having
established incontrovertibly His authority over every believer, we will go on to
look at the people He has given to His Church who bear a measure of that
authority.
“And He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and
some, pastors and teachers.” (Eph. 4:11,12).“And God hath set some in the
Church, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers...” (1 Cor.
12:28).As previously mentioned the word ‘pastor’ will be examined more closely
later. This leaves us with apostles, prophets, evangelists and teachers.
The context of both of the above quotations is very clearly the ‘One’
(universal) Body of Christ. In the Ephesians quote the passage leading up to it
refers to the “one body” (vs. 4). The same phrase is used in the Corinthian
passage (vs.13). Of course, all of the local churches are a part of that One
Body, but we must not think that in every local assembly there were apostles,
prophets … etc! These ministries exist in The Body of Christ as a whole, not
every local assembly. One hallmark of these men is that they spend much of their
time travelling in order to: 1) evangelise the unconverted and establish new
congregations, and 2) visit established assemblies in order to further edify
them.
A little further on in this study we shall be looking at ‘Authority in the local
churches’. Those with authority in each local church are called ‘elders’. An
obvious question that will be asked is: Can a person with a ‘Universal Church
gifting’ also serve as an elder in a particular local church? Certainly at the
beginning of the New Testament Church this was so. All of the original apostles
were also elders in the church at Jerusalem. However, none of the later apostles
are ever shown to be elders in any local assembly. With Paul it is very clear
that he was permanently itinerant. There may also have been some extra special
sense to the title ‘elders’ given to the original twelve? It does not appear
that these two roles continued to be compatible - (see ‘Appendix 2’ for more on
the development of the Church). What about the other four ministries mentioned
in Ephesians 4? We will consider the last two, pastors and teachers, to some
extent in the section entitled ‘The pastoral system’ where we will look at two
possible interpretations in reference to these. As for prophets and evangelists
also acting as elders in a local church there is little to go on to make any
clear statement on this. It is not the purpose of this study to try to delineate
every last detail of the ‘outward’ form of the Church but rather centre on the
clearly defined roles that are found in Scripture.[If this last paragraph seems
confusing at present you may find it helpful to read the section on ‘Authority
in the local churches’ and then return to this part].All authority in God’s
Church works by willing submission and mutual respect of one another’s
consciences. Every individual believer shall give account of himself or herself
at the judgement seat of Christ. Therefore the Church of God does not have an
unquestionable chain of command. This does not mean we are all our own masters.
We are equally accountable if we reject another man’s authority/counsel when he
is genuinely acting under the direction of the Holy Spirit. The spiritual man
must judge (weigh up) all things!
Before looking at the ‘universal ministries’ it is necessary to read a little
more of the quote from Ephesians 4 in order to see why these ministries exist:
“And He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and
some, pastors and teachers. For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of
the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the
unity of the faith, and the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man,
into the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ...” Where the A.V.
text reads “for” the work of the ministry the marginal rendering in some study
Bibles is “unto.” This is a very different emphasis as this means that ‘the
ministry’ is the work of all the saints (i.e. every Christian) not just a select
few. The job of the select few i.e. the apostles, prophets etc. is to equip the
saints (all Christians) for this work. We cannot here delve into the question of
“what is the ministry?” In short, it is the God-given privilege for every
believer to act as a spiritual priest in serving (ministering to) both God and
fellow man. (See Glossary under Ministry for more).The following is an overview
of four of the five ministries mentioned in Ephesians 4 - apostles, prophets,
evangelists and teachers. As for the question of “do all these ministries still
exist today?” for those that believe that the Scripture is inspired by God as a
pattern for all churches, at all places, at all times the argument is resolved
(see Appendix 1). Of course this still leaves the situation of there also being
false apostles, false prophets etc! Here we will simply look at some key
references to those who were the genuine ministers of God.
APOSTLES [GK. APOSTOLOS]
- means delegate, ambassador, messenger, he that is
sent, also translated once as ‘messenger’.
We all, of course, are familiar with the original twelve apostles and how Judas,
in effect, turned out to be a false apostle. In Acts 1:26 we read that Matthias
was appointed as replacement for Judas and it seems his appointment is
acknowledged and confirmed in Acts 2:14 - there were the eleven, plus Peter.
Some feel that as Matthias is afterwards never mentioned again in Scripture, in
reality God’s choice of replacement was Paul. He is clearly called an apostle in
many instances starting with Acts 14:14. The same verse also confirms
unambiguously that Barnabas was an apostle. In Gal. 1:19 we see that James the
Lord’s brother had become an apostle. A careful reading of 1 Thessalonians shows
that Silas and Timothy were referred to as being apostles (1 Thes. 1:1 & 2:6)
though some argue that the “we” refers only to Paul and Silas and may not
include Timothy (see 1 Thes. 3:1,2). In Philippians 2:25 Epaphroditus is called
an ‘apostolos’ – translated as ‘messenger’.
So we have eighteen or nineteen references to persons named as apostles in the
New Testament. By simply taking account of the meaning of the word ‘apostle’ and
by examining what we can of the lives and deeds of all the above mentioned we
might easily be led to conclude there were others that seemed to be authorised
to act in the same capacity. There is Titus who was told to appoint elders in
Titus 1:6, Apollos who is named alongside Paul and Peter (1 Cor. 1:12) and
possibly Sosthenes (see 1 Cor. 1:1, then 1 Cor. 4:9). Then there is Luke who
didn’t just travel with Paul but more notably, wrote the single largest
contribution to our New Testament. If we take Luke’s writings page for page,
they comprise more than either Paul or John individually wrote. If the Church is
built on the foundation of the apostles, how can we not include the books of
Luke as part of our foundation?
Paul was very clearly held in great regard by others who were themselves
apostles. He sent and called for them and they were happy to submit to his
wishes. However, this only worked by their willingness to do so, they could all
operate according to their own consciences before God as is seen in the instance
of 1 Cor. 16:12 - “As touching our brother Apollos, I greatly desired him to
come unto you with the brethren: but his will was not at all to come at this
time; but he will come when he shall have convenient time.”
On concluding this very brief overview of apostles, it should be said that, it
is clear that the early apostles (whether just the original twelve or all those
aforementioned) had a very special commission from God. For example, in
Mat.16:19 we read of Peter receiving the keys of the kingdom; a subsequent
reading of the first twelve chapters of the book of Acts shows us that Peter was
used of God as His ‘key’ man to unlock the door for many to enter the kingdom.
In Gal. 2:7&8 we are told that Peter had a special calling to bring the Gospel
to the Jews and Paul likewise to the Gentiles. In Rev. 21:14 we see that the
names of the ‘twelve apostles of the Lamb’ are written in the foundation walls
of the New Jerusalem. Also we must remember that the above-mentioned apostles
were authors of Holy Scripture, which is now complete.
PROPHETS [GK. PROPHETES]
- means foreteller, inspired speaker and poet. Also,
‘forth-teller’ - i.e. ‘a teller-forth of the word of God’.
It is worth first noting that a prophet is not just someone who predicts the
future. The word ‘PROPHETES’ implies being close to God and enabled by Him to
‘speak by inspiration’. Prophecy is the spontaneous word from the Holy Spirit
being expressed through human lips. To be occasionally moved of God in a
prophetic gift is not the same as being a prophet. This principle is better
explained below under the section on ‘teachers’ - we may all teach in a general
sense but this is not the same as being a teacher. There are only a few
references to prophets in the New Testament. Those named specifically are Agabus,
Judas (not Iscariot) and Silas. These are all mentioned in the book of Acts. I
leave you to conduct your own research: Acts 11:27, 13:1, 15:32 and 21:10.
EVANGELISTS [GK. EUAGGELISTES]
- means a preacher of the Gospel.
Now we are down to just one named example of an evangelist, it is Philip of
course - Acts 21:8. We have a wonderful account of Philip in action in Acts
8:26-40. Essentially, the evangelist’s ministry is to those who are not yet
Christ’s. In verse 35, we see that Philip ‘started from the place’ where the
Ethiopian was reading. This is the gift of evangelism, to meet with the
unconverted and take them from wherever they are, be it atheism or religion, and
lead them to Jesus the Saviour. Also note that Timothy was told to do the work
of an evangelist, though it did not say he was an evangelist (2 Tim. 4:5).
TEACHERS [GK. DIDASKALOS]
- means instructor, also translated once as ‘masters’
(James 3:1) and once as ‘doctors’ (Luke 2:46).
In Acts 13:1 we read “there were in the church that was at Antioch certain
prophets and teachers;” we are then given a list of five people that were such.
We cannot easily separate out who were the prophets and who were the teachers in
this instance, that is except for Saul (Paul), who is clearly noted as a teacher
(1 Tim. 2:7, 2 Tim 1:11). We must bear in mind that he was also an apostle and
therefore we cannot definitively use him as a pure pattern of a teacher. This
is, however, a good example of how ministries are often combined.
Teaching is a ministry that carries with it a great weight of responsibility and
accountability “My brethren, be not many masters (do not all try to become
teachers), knowing that we shall receive greater condemnation (or judgement)”
(James 3:1). Notice here that James uses “we”, therefore we can conclude that he
also was a teacher. The writer to the Hebrews says, “for when for the time ye
ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first
principles (the basics) of the oracles (the word) of God” (Heb. 5:12). It would
be a contradiction of James if this were a literal encouragement to all to
aspire to the specific role of teacher. It is more likely that it refers to the
every-day teaching ability that every Christian needs in order to exhort one
another; in fact, this was a statement of exasperation!
From this word [DIDASKALOS] is derived the English, ‘didactic’, which means -
‘to teach authoritatively’. This word appears in its verb form DIDASKŌ in 1 Tim.
2:12 - “... I suffer not (do not permit) a woman to teach, nor to usurp
authority over the man ...” Compare this with Paul’s statement that the older
women should “... teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands ...”
(Titus 2:4). Here a different Greek word is used – [SOPHRONIZO], which implies
practical instruction, more by example as opposed to ‘expositional teaching’.
We must also make the distinction between teaching in a general sense and the
specific calling of being a teacher. We read in Col. 3:16 “let the word of
Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another;
in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to
the Lord.” Here, ‘teaching one another’ does not imply that we are all teachers,
any more than it implies we all have wonderful singing voices!
So we see that there are at least three different ways that people can teach:
- Authoritative, ‘expositional’ teaching.
- Teaching/showing by example.
- Every-day admonishing/encouraging one another.
The latter two are the privilege and responsibility of all Christians. The first
is exclusively the work of those to whom God has given the gift of teaching.
Missionaries?
Now I would like to offer some food for thought by mentioning the term
‘missionary’. This has become a commonly accepted title, particularly in the
last few centuries, but it is not a biblical word (even if the idea may be).
Whenever we use non-biblical words we only succeed in fogging an issue. If a
person has a clear calling from God in an apostolic role then it is simpler to
use ‘approved’ Bible terminology – he is an apostle. If a man has been given the
calling to evangelise – he is an evangelist. If the biblical definitions fit the
role, then we should not be afraid to use such. I am not trying to be picky in
mentioning this; this is a very important principle that applies to all
Christian terminology. For example, if we wanted to examine the role of a
‘missionary’ and find biblical examples and indeed encouragements, we would not
be able to do so. If someone, on the other hand, wishes to know how an apostle
should behave, or believes that God has called him to be an evangelist, then, we
can turn to the Word of God and receive clear instruction. This does not mean
that everyone we call a missionary necessarily falls into the category of
apostle or evangelist etc. There are many other valuable supportive roles.
Various people accompanied and assisted Paul in his apostolic work. These other
supportive roles in the Church are mentioned in the second half of 1 Cor. 12:28,
in particular, “helps” is often overlooked.
Some further thoughts on the Universal Church ministries
Two notable hallmarks of the ministries in the ‘Church Universal’ are: 1) the
geographic extent of their work goes beyond the confines of one local assembly,
and 2) the effect of their ministry/teaching often continues even after they
have departed this earth. In other words, it spans time as well as location.
Finances
Another point which needs to be mentioned here is that those whose ministries
inevitably mean that they must travel regularly, and cannot be entirely rooted
and settled in one given locality, are worthy of the necessary financial
support. This is for obvious reasons; as such a person cannot be employed in the
normal fashion (see 1 Cor. 9:4-18 and Phil. 4:14-18). It is the duty of
individual Christians and the local church elders to sensitively seek God’s
guidance as to contributing to the needs of His servants. However, we also read
that the apostle Paul renounced this support if ever it was liable to hinder the
gospel: Acts 18:3, 21:34, 1 Thes 2:5-9.
A final word on the subject of money: In mat. 6:24 Jesus made a sharp
distinction between two groups of people – those who serve God and those who
serve mammon (the love of money). Attitude to money is one quite simple way of
telling apart the false from the genuine in the realm of apostles, prophets,
teachers and others. This whole topic needs to be explored as a separate study
but I would just like to mention two points on the spiritual man’s attitude to
receiving financial/practical support. These are lessons so well expressed in
the life of faith and faithfulness lived by a man named George Muller. Firstly,
we should not advertise our needs to any man, but rather make our requests known
only unto God. Secondly, a man of faith should know that “God’s work, done in
God’s way, never lacks God’s support.” - (George Muller).
Jesus fulfils every role
I would like to end this whole section with one final consideration for us to
meditate upon. All of the above ‘offices’ of Eph. 4:11 belong first and foremost
to the Lord Jesus, along with His many other titles. Below is just one reference
for each:
- APOSTLE Heb.3:1
- PROPHET Mark 6:4
- EVANGELIST Luke 7:22…...He ‘preached’ [EUAGGELIZO] - evangelised
- PASTOR Heb.13:20...…Translated as shepherd
- TEACHER John 3:2
AUTHORITY IN THE LOCAL CHURCHES
So far we have looked at four of the five specifically defined roles mentioned
in Ephesians 4. We will come to ‘pastors’ in the next section. We have seen that
these men have been given to the ‘One’ Church - v.4: “one body.” Meanwhile, what
about the individual local assemblies, is there any evidence of men being
appointed to any special task on the local level?
There was indeed a form of government that the apostles established in each
local assembly of believers. In Acts 14:23 we read that the apostles Paul and
Barnabas, on their return visits to the churches in Asia Minor, “ordained
(appointed) elders (plural) in every church (singular).” We know also that there
were elders at the church in Jerusalem (see Acts 11:30), Acts 15 mentions those
elders five times. In Acts 20 Paul wished to speak to the representatives of the
church at Ephesus, so he called for the elders. In Titus 1:5 we read that Titus
was charged with the task of appointing elders in all the cities of Crete. There
are abundant references that show without doubt that this form of government for
each local church is the clearly established principle for the New Testament
age: Jam. 5:14, 1 Pet. 5:1 and so on.
ELDERS [GK. PRESBUTEROS]
- meaning seniors or a council. There is a synonymous
term:
BISHOPS [GK. EPISKOPOS]
- superintendent, officer in charge, also trans.
as:
OVERSEERS
.
All three of the above terms relate to the exact same person/role. This study mainly uses ‘elders'.
“For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the
things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed
thee: If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not
accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of
God; not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given
to filthy lucre; But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just,
holy, temperate; Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he
may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.”
(Titus 1:5-9)
(It is quite clear from the Titus account that these descriptions, i.e. elders
and bishops, are used interchangeably).
“This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a
good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant,
sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine,
no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not
covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection
with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he
take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride
he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report
of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the
devil.” (1 Tim. 3:1-7)
Let us not think here that Paul is setting out some special code of conduct for
such people that need not apply to everyone else. He is simply outlining that
which is stated elsewhere in scripture as the minimal expected morality and
discipline for all believers. The only exception here is that elders must be
“apt to teach” (give didactic instruction). This does not necessarily imply that
all elders are, in the sense of the previous section, teachers, it may only mean
that they must have some measure of ability to teach on a local level. This
small point is debatable and will be dealt with under the two possible
interpretations in the ‘pastor’ section.The following two passages give
considerable insight into the role of elders:
“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the
Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed (lit. shepherd) the church of God,
which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my
departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.”
(Acts 20:28,29)“The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder,
and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that
shall be revealed: Feed (lit. shepherd) the flock of God which is among you,
taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy
lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but
being ensamples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall
receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.” (1 Pet 5:1-4)
Elders are spiritual shepherds in the local church. It is known that shepherds
of that day used to round up the sheep into a pen and then sit in the doorway to
guard them. (This is the imagery that Jesus is alluding to in John chapter 10;
in particular in verse 7 when He says, “I am the door of the sheep.”). On the
one hand they must not let the wolves come in, but at the same time they must
not stand in the way of the ‘Chief Shepherd’ or His genuine representatives when
they come. This was what happened when Jesus “came unto His own (things)” in
Israel. The parable of the vineyard (Mat. 21:33-45) shows us that the
‘shepherds’ of Israel had taken control and rebelled against the rightful heir
when he came! In this instance the metaphor is that of ‘Husbandmen’ (overseers
of the vineyard) but the spiritual analogy is the same. They also rejected the
genuine prophets that were sent from God to them.
The elders in a church have the awesome responsibility of ‘judging’ between that
which is from God and that, which is not. A wrong judgement either way is
something for which they will have to give account for to God! They are not the
owners of the flock; they are ‘under-shepherds’ who watch over the flock on
behalf of another. They are directly responsible to the ‘Chief Shepherd’
himself. It is His flock not theirs.
Analogy Warning!
Although it is quite correct to use the analogy of shepherds in reference to the
role of elders, we need to take great care that we do not unthinkingly pursue
this, or any other biblical analogy, too far. The Bible is full of types and
figures, some apparent, others not. But we must understand that such are given
purely as illustrations of a particular spiritual truth or principle, we must
not get so carried away with the picture as to then construct all kinds of
doctrines from it. It is a wonderful thing to meditate on a biblical allegory
and discover more of the background concerning these beautiful themes. However,
as an example of the limitation of analogies let me ask, have you ever seen a
shepherd who was also a sheep!? Although the role of an elder is likened to a
shepherd we must always remember that at the same time those who are elders are
still sheep themselves along with everyone else. Overemphasis of the
shepherd-sheep analogy could easily lead to all kinds of ideas and practises
that go beyond the intended illustration.
Appointment of Elders
With regard to how elders are selected, there are four main schools of thought:
- Appointment by higher authority
- Election by the local congregation
- A combination of 1 & 2
- Once established, the existing elders choose any new elders
1. Appointment by higher authority
This could appear to be the precedent set by Paul in instructing Titus: “For
this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things
that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed
(commanded) thee.” (Tit.1: 5). This conclusion may also seem justified when we
read again the account in the book of Acts: “And when they (the apostles Paul
and Barnabas) had ordained them elders in every church...” (Acts 14:23).
However, there are many other factors that come to light on further exploration
of these texts, which lead us to number two.
2. Election by the local congregation
Essentially, the word ‘ordain’ means ‘to appoint’. The particular Greek word
used in Acts 14:23 can convey, in its etymology (root origins of the word), the
idea of ‘appoint by stretching forth the hand’. This could, in fact, be taken in
two different ways. Either the raising of hands, as in a vote, or it could be
interpreted as the ‘laying-on of hands’. Arguments could be put forth for both
of these concepts.
On the side of the first (congregational choice), we have already seen the
instance of the ‘brethren’ being given the mandate to choose the seven at
Jerusalem (Acts 6:3). In defence of believing it to mean the second (laying-on
of hands), one could argue that the choice aspect was only in relation to the
selecting of deacons, not elders. One could further say that the laying-on of
hands was clearly associated with ‘appointment’ in Acts 13:3 - “And when they
had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.” If
this latter view is correct, then when we read in 1 Tim. 5: 22 “Lay hands
suddenly on no man ...” we could understand this to mean – “do not appoint a man
to be an elder without much deliberation.” We shall not delve any further into
the development of these two arguments except to say that; while the origins of
words can sometimes give us deeper insight into their meaning, it is just as
often difficult to interpret.
3. A combination of 1&2
This was more accurately the case at Jerusalem when they appointed the seven:
“Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of
the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.” (Acts 6:3).
But it is not made apparent that this dual method continues to be the same when
we read of instances referring to the appointment of elders.
4. Once established, the existing elders choose the new elders
Although we do not have any direct precedence for our fourth consideration, a
strong case can be made on the basis that it is the Holy Spirit who has
authorized the existing elders. “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all
the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers” (Acts 20:28). Here
Paul is addressing the elders from Ephesus (vs. 17). In this instance we
understand that ultimately it is God who has validated the choice of the
initially appointed elders. Seeing that it is the elders who are accountable to
the Lord for all oversight of that assembly it would not be unreasonable to
propose that the decision is theirs.
Conclusion of above
It is very difficult to arrive at a clear for-all-time pattern for the method of
appointing elders in local churches. I am not saying it does not exist, but it
seems that the Holy Spirit, when ‘inspiring’ the biblical record, chose to lay
the emphasis elsewhere with regards to the subject of eldership. The point,
which takes precedence over any ‘technical’ arguments of how elders are
appointed, is who should be made an elder? The passages in 1 Timothy and Titus
show us that the main emphasis is upon the character of those appointed not the
method of appointment.
Further considerations
We must also bear in mind that the term ‘elder’ can be a comparative one. For
example, in a gathering of people mainly aged 30-40, the few people present who
are 50 years of age may be considered, in the comparative sense, the elders. But
if age alone were the determining factor in the appointing of elders in a
church, then all that would be required is an examination of birth certificates
and that would be the end of the matter. A second way that a man may be
‘comparatively’ an elder is the length of time since his conversion. In other
words, it is not his physical age that is relevant but the number of years of
his spiritual lifetime. Once again, if this were all that is implied in being an
elder, a short rehearsal of conversion testimonies would be sufficient to settle
the matter. We are coming closer to the truth with this second point; however,
the spiritual realm does not directly correlate with the physical. The spiritual
age (i.e. maturity) of someone cannot be guaranteed to always reflect the length
of time since his ‘new-birth’. Therefore, we conclude that ‘elder’ in its
comparative sense means ‘of greater spiritual maturity’. This does not mean that
the first two factors are of no consequence at all. In an ideal situation
spiritual maturity should be a result of the first two.
Now we come to the most important point with respect to the appointing of elders
from among a congregation. Whatever the method employed, the appointment is not
so much a ‘choosing’ of the elders, but rather should be a recognition of those
who truly are the elders (most spiritually mature) already. No amount of
doctrinal analysis will guarantee that this will happen. The ultimate governing
factor in whether the right men are appointed or not, will be the ‘spiritual
temperature’ of the assembly. This should be our chief concern.
Elders, in Scripture, are always appointed from within a church, never sent to a
church. If an assembly cannot at some stage in its development produce men of
‘elder’ quality there must be something fundamentally amiss!
Are elders paid for what they do?
First and foremost it must be stated that there are no ‘professionals’ in God’s
Church, only bondservants. We have already touched upon material support for
those with a Universal Church ministry. This should be given on the basis of
need and the recognition that such a person is genuinely doing the work of God.
Essentially the same principles can be applied at the local level. There is
precedence for this, which we shall look at shortly. Before we do take a look at
the relevant Scripture though, some meditation upon this question will lead us
to see an important principle in interpreting and applying the New Testament in
different ages and cultures:
We must realise that this is primarily a practical concern not a spiritual one
and whilst all spiritual principles translate from the New Testament into every
society and every age, this is not always true of every practical issue. For
example, the first half of 1 Timothy 5 tells us of the ‘widows roll’ - a list of
widows, in particular those bereft of family support, who were to be provided
for by the church: “Honour widows that are widows indeed” (vs. 3). In those days
there were no insurances, pensions or welfare state and it was fitting that a
church should make provision for the needs of those who had little or no means
of income. Of course, where necessary, this still applies to the churches of
today. However, for many situations today the practical need isn’t the same. It
would be quite inappropriate for a church to regularly pass on money to a widow
if she already had ample provision provided for her by various other means. The
following reference, which in part refers to the giving of material support to
elders, flows directly on from this passage and the same common sense principles
must apply.
“Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially
they who labour in the word and doctrine. For the scripture saith Thou shall not
muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And the labourer is worthy of his
reward.” (1 Tim. 5:17,18).
We will now look in a little more detail at the practical applications that need
to be considered in relation to this verse. First of all, there is certainly no
inference in Scripture that when a man is appointed as an elder he must cease
secular employment. Unlike the ministry of an apostle, there is nothing inherit
in an elder’s role that would not allow for him to be employed in a normal
fashion. So why is this provision for elders mentioned? We must think in terms
of the practical situations that existed at that time. In so doing we see that
there are two important factors in many of today’s societies that place many of
us in a different position in respect of practical needs:
Money
- As a generalisation, most of us (particularly in the Western world) are
financially and all round materially better off than they were.
Time
- In at least two ways: First, travelling was a much slower process in
those days. Elders as a part of their responsibility must travel to some extent
in order to visit the sick and the widows and orphans (this is not a conclusive
list of situations that elders need to go out to). Second, study in preparation
for teaching. They didn’t have the ‘instant’ tools that we have today. Also,
some of them would have had to hand write copies of Scripture for themselves and
each other.
Even though there was a plurality of elders in every church some of these
responsibilities were very time consuming which meant less time available to
spend on their very labour intensive jobs of those days. Wages were not as good
as many of us have today. In fact, much of people’s labour went into producing
their own food. Of course there are still parts of the world today where people
have a similar existence. In these circumstances and in cases where an elder
does need to spend an exceptional amount of time to fulfil his duty, then the
supply obligation continues to fall upon the local assembly.
The supply of these needs for those who served the Lord was on a spontaneous
(free-will) basis rather than a ‘fixed wage’. Do not misinterpret the following
passage: “Have I committed an offence in abasing myself that ye might be
exalted, because I have preached to you the gospel of God freely? I robbed other
churches, taking wages of them, to do you service. And when I was present with
you, and wanted, I was chargeable to no man: for that which was lacking to me
the brethren which came from Macedonia supplied: and in all things I have kept
myself from being burdensome unto you, and so will I keep myself.” (2 Cor.
11:7-9). The use of the word ‘wage’ here does not literally mean ‘regular
salary’ any more than ‘robbed’ can be taken literally!
In summary of money matters
- An elder is not a salaried professional.
- There is no inference in Scripture that elders must leave off secular work.
- If an elder, in carrying out his duties (nurturing, teaching, visiting) does
need some material support then it is perfectly apt that he should receive such.
- The practical needs (never spiritual) in many societies of today may differ from
those of the first century.
In conclusion of elders
- At some point in a church’s development a plurality of elders are appointed from within that congregation.
- The qualifications for an elder are primarily moral character/spiritual maturity.
- All elders must be ‘apt to teach’; even as they must all ‘feed’ (literally in
the Greek ‘pastor/shepherd’) the flock.
- No formal training is required to produce any of the necessary qualities of an elder.
It is not within the scope of this study to examine all of the work and
responsibilities of elders in relation to every Bible reference. In addition to
the simple summary above it is should also be borne in mind that among the
elders there will be a variation of their time available to commit to the
congregation. Inevitably there will be difference of ability and diversity of
personality among them. All this, in the right godly environment, where there is
unity in love and soundness of doctrine, makes for a strong and wonderfully rich
assembly.
DEACONS [GK. DIAKONOS]
- meaning, and also translated as: minister and servant.
“Likewise must the deacons be grave, not double tongued, not given to much wine,
not greedy of filthy lucre; Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure
conscience. And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of
a deacon, being found blameless. Even so must their wives be grave, not
slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. Let the deacons be the husbands of
one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. For they that have
used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great
boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.” (1 Tim 3:8-13)
What is the role of a deacon? We can see from the above quotation how important
character was, but there is no ‘outline of duties’ given as such. The word
DIAKONOS implies ‘acting as a servant.’ Given that spiritual responsibility in
the local churches is clearly placed with the elders, this leaves the area of
practical needs.
Are the seven men mentioned in the book of Acts, chapter 6, deacons? Though the
term ‘deacon’ is not directly used in reference to them, the related words in
the Greek; DIAKONIA (translated as ‘ministrations’ in vs. 1) and DIAKONEO
(translated as ‘serve’ in vs. 2) are applied to the function that these men were
appointed to. The church in Jerusalem was unique in many ways (see appendix 2)
but I think it is reasonable to conclude that the seven are our earliest, and in
fact only, example of deacons. It is clear that the sphere of their
responsibilities was: 1) local and 2) practical.
What about Stephen’s gifts of preaching and miracles (Acts 6:8)? As will be
shown in our section under ‘How should a church meet?’ spiritual gifts are not
exclusive to any special person in a church. Stephen was not gifted in these
ways because he was a deacon. All who are enabled of God and filled with His
Spirit can function in God’s gifts. We must bear in mind that being ‘apt to
teach’ is not a necessary quality for a deacon. It does seem that ‘faith’ and
‘faithfulness’ are qualities that accompany this honoured role.
Women as deacons
Is there some argument from Scripture that shows that women can be deacons? Five
times the Greek word DIAKONOS has been translated as ‘deacon’: 1 Tim. 3:10 & 13,
1 Tit. 3:8 & 12 and Phil. 1:1. It is clear that in the translators’ minds these
instances refer to a specific church role as opposed to someone being in a
non-specific sense a servant or minister. On other occasions DIAKONOS is
translated as ‘servant’ or ‘minister’: Mat. 23:11, Mk. 9:35, Jn. 12:26, Rom.
13:14 and Rom. 16:1. The last instance on this list (Rom. 16:1) is sometimes
cited as an occasion where DIAKONOS could be translated as ‘deacon’ and
therefore shows that this role is open to women: “I commend unto you Phebe our
sister, which is a servant (DIAKONOS) of the church which is at Cenchrea:”
When Bible translators use more than one English word to translate the same one
word from Greek or Hebrew, they are acting not solely as translators but also to
some extent interpreters. Their interpretation has to be based upon, among other
things, context and the consistency of Scripture with Scripture. On this
occasion the translating committee of the Authorized Version of the Bible
correctly make Scripture agree with Scripture because in 1 Timothy 3:12 we read:
“Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their
own houses well.” Not only is it absurd to say that a woman can be “the husband
of one wife” but “ruling” (headship in the home) is clearly shown to be a male
responsibility. We shall be considering briefly the topic of women’s roles in
the Church/churches in the section entitled ‘Women and authority’.
In summary, the appointment of deacons is not given in Scripture the same
attention and importance as the appointment of elders in the local church. The
seven were appointed at Jerusalem as the result of a practical need that arose.
Therefore, if, when, and how many will depend upon the practical needs in hand.
THE PASTORAL SYSTEM
The above title is my own terminology for a system of government that exists in
the majority of churches worldwide and across most denominations. I do not know
if others have used this phrase in any context but I hope that by the end of
this section you will understand its intended meaning here. I have heard the
term ‘one-pastor-system’, which equally well describes the unbiblical practice
that we are about to examine. On this particular subject there is a strong need
to appraise the common tradition of the vast majority of churches and where they
differ from the scriptural pattern. This structure is, by and large, not even
examined but rather, taken for granted - “It’s just the way church is done!”
What is ‘the pastoral system’?
In most churches there is one focal person who is in authority and has overall
responsibility for ‘ministry’ in that church. Titles given to this person are:
Vicar, Rector, Reverend, Priest, Father, Pastor, Senior Pastor, Minister,
Bishop, Elder, Senior Elder, Pastor Elder, Leading Elder, Teaching Elder and
many other variants. This ‘office’ exists in churches whether they are
Episcopalian, Presbyterian or Congregationalist, whether they are Reformed or
Charismatic, Calvinist or Arminian. The ‘title’ may vary, and the processes and
qualifications for appointment may differ but the one common factor is, that
there is an individual who is the focal figure for that assembly. So much so
that the title is always preceded by the definite article, i.e. The Pastor, The
Vicar, The Senior Elder.
We have already well established in this study the clear biblical precedent for
mutual, plural eldership in each local church. The apostles, under the direction
of the Holy Spirit, ordered churches this way for many reasons. So where does
this system come from then?
Fallen human nature.
From the day that Adam sinned, in the Garden of Eden, man
has been indwelt by an overpowering desire for security and conformity. This is
expressed in the need to rule and equally to be ruled. In the Old Testament we
read of the children of Israel crying out “... nay; but we will have a king over
us; that we also may be like all the nations ...” (1 Sam. 9:19,20). Even the
people of the Old Covenant were told that they had no need of a king as the Lord
would be in their midst. They were also expressly instructed not to pattern
themselves on the other nations around them. How much more so are both of these
the intended principles for the Church of the New Covenant!
The Old Testament priesthood.
“And they said unto Moses, speak thou with us, and
we will hear; but let not God speak with us, lest we die.” (Exodus 20:19). Under
the Old Covenant, even after the instituting of an atoning sacrifice, there was
never the experience of a cleansed conscience (Heb. 9:9). Any approach to God,
or vice versa, for the ‘ordinary’ person usually had to be carried out through a
mediator i.e. a prophet or a priest. For the majority of the people that was
exactly the way they wanted it. It was a permanent and inescapable feature of
the Old Covenant.
The apostate Church.
When and why did the churches of the New Covenant leave the
authorized pattern of the plurality of overseers (elders with equally shared
responsibility) in favour of the ‘pastoral system’? The simple answer is; as far
back as the days of the original apostles. Paul, when addressing the Ephesian
elders said “For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves
enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men
arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.” (Acts
20:29,30). Some men liked the idea of having their own following, their personal
flock. We see an example of this in 3 Jn. 9: “Diotrophes, who loveth to have the
pre-eminence among them.” Couple this with the carnal attitude of the believers
at Corinth, “Now this I say, that everyone of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of
Apollos; ...” (1 Cor. 1:12) and we see that it was not difficult for charismatic
individuals to gain their own following, if that was what they wanted.
We will consider this third point a little further. When we turn to the letters
to the churches in the book of The Revelation, we see that two of the churches
were upbraided for having in their midst those that held the doctrine of the
‘Nicolaitanes’ (Rev. 2:6,15). A probable meaning of the origin of this word is:
NIKOS - victorious, and LAOS - the people – ‘victorious over the people’. In
other words, the teaching that in God’s Church, there were those with the
ability to uncover the mysteries of God, and the remainder, who needed the
intercessory ministry of the former. In any case, we know from Church history
that sacerdotalism (the belief in a ‘priest-class’ and the ordinary people)
rapidly spread throughout the Church. When this grew to its fullest, hideous
form it became the apostate church.
At the time of the Reformation there were those who protested about the many
unscriptural beliefs and practices in the Catholic system. Many wrongs were
righted and God wrought favourably for those who were His people. However, the
Reformation was by no means a completed process that brought everything back to
the New Testament pattern. In the area of Church government and the way that
church meetings were conducted there was not a return to New Testament
principles. Luther, Calvin, the Church of England bishops, and many other newly
formed church systems continued to model their ‘form’ of churches similarly to
those of Rome. Though many of the ‘non-conformist’ denominations of today do not
adopt all of the Episcopalian structure, with respect to the
‘one-priest/pastor/minister-per-church’ practice, it is their common way.
What am I saying then? Is every church that has adopted the pastoral system an
apostate church? No, because the state of apostasy is more a condition of the
heart than solely an erring in doctrine or practice. It is also necessary to
recognise that not all ‘one-man’ leader figures are in it for their own
self-advancement. Furthermore, I am very grateful for the Reformation and the
vast change for good it brought. But if we profess belief in the completeness of
Scripture, then we must accept that what the New Testament reveals concerning
the practice of the early churches is there as a pattern for the whole Church
age.
What then of this word ‘pastor’? Interestingly, though so much has been built
around it, the word ‘pastor’ occurs only once in the New Testament. All that is
plainly stated of such a role is simply “... there are some ...” So how can we
gain any further understanding of what this may be? There are no examples of any
individual who was called a ‘pastor’. We cannot rely on historical definitions
because we do not know whether they are accurate or an example of how this role
has been misused; so, once again, using only ‘God breathed’ Scripture what
conclusions can be drawn?
It will be helpful to us if we see again, the one New Testament verse that uses
this word: “And He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some,
evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers.” (Eph. 4:11). In seeking to analyse
the meaning and role of a pastor, solely from the evidences in the New
Testament, one is left with two areas of inconclusiveness:
- Reading the text where this word occurs, some scholars would say that the
role of ‘pastor’ and ‘teacher’ are but one because the article ‘some’ is left
out in front of ‘teachers’. Others say, that though the ‘some’ is omitted, the
‘and’ is still sufficient to indicate that these are two distinct persons. I am
unable to come to any clear conclusion on this point based solely on grammatical
analysis of this sentence. All further comments therefore will be with
open-mindedness as to which of these views is correct.
- Regardless of the inconclusiveness of the above, there are two relatively
strong arguments from scripture as to what a pastor really is. We will therefore
be giving consideration to both of these. It must be said however, that though
there is some scope for argument in seeking to determine what is the exact
nature of a pastor’s role, it is abundantly clear from study of the New
Testament what a pastor is not. There are two modes of examination open to us
that lead to two possible interpretations: 1) the context and the list in which
this word appears; and 2) associated words and ideas with the Greek word
translated as pastor.
PASTOR [GK. POIMEN]
- meaning shepherd, either figuratively or literally. POIMEN
is also translated as ‘shepherd’ 17 times, on these occasions it is either
referring to literal shepherds or figuratively used in reference to the Lord
Jesus. This only leaves us with the one reference where it is translated as
‘pastor’ and listed as a ministry in the Church.
Interpretation 1 (based on the context)
This is quite simple and seemingly consistent with what we have looked at
earlier regarding the other ministries of Ephesians 4. In this passage the
sphere of ministry is not any local church, but the ‘One’ Universal Church. It
would seem quite reasonable that number four on the list is an itinerant
ministry just like the rest. It has already been seen that ‘teachers’ operated
in this wider sphere, if pastor and teacher are but one then all we read of
teachers is really showing us pastors as well. Even if they are not one it would
still seem consistent that ‘pastors’ also travelled visiting various churches to
further feed and encourage the churches.
By this interpretation we might conclude that Paul’s return visits to previously
established congregations were more in a pastoral capacity rather than
apostolic. He was a teacher in addition to being an apostle therefore he could
have been a pastor as well. Titus and Timothy could be viewed in the same way,
it is clear that they were not permanently stationed at any one particular
church. Their ministries could be seen as apostolic and/or pastoral in this way.
On further reflection on this idea: there are many names mentioned of men who
were of note among the Church, but it is not mentioned if they were noted for
any particular ‘ministry’, could it be that some of these were pastors? There
are many mature men of God in every age who labour much to encourage and
stimulate (feed/pastor) the faith of many. They may not be recognised as
‘pastors’ because they have not been given that title and because of a
preconceived belief that this function is the role of leading a particular local
assembly.
Interpretation 2 (based on the Greek word)
Although the Ephesians 4 list is focussing upon the Universal Church it could be
argued that the Universal Church also encompasses all local churches. Seeing
that we do not have any other references to pastors in the New Testament it
can’t be proven that they were itinerates operating in the wider Church sphere
like others in that list. Therefore, this leaves open the possibility of another
interpretation.
In examining the original Greek word for pastor we can see that there are
related words used in other forms in the Bible. The verb form POIMAINO is used
several times translated as ‘feed’ and ‘rule’. The following are two of the
occasions where POIMAINO is translated as feed: Firstly, Acts 20:28, already
quoted twice: “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over
(or ‘in’) the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed (pastor) the
church of God, which He hath purchased with His own blood.” And secondly, 1 Pet.
5:1-4: “The elders who are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a
witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall
be revealed: Feed (pastor) the flock of God which is among you, taking the
oversight of it, not by constraint but willingly; not for filthy lucre but of a
ready mind; Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being examples to
the flock. And when the chief Shepherd (ARCHIPOIMEN) shall appear, ye shall
receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.”
In these two passages we see that it is the elders/overseers that are told to
‘pastor’ the church/flock. The portrayal of elders as ‘shepherds’ is common to
both the Old and New Testament. From this and other information we have looked
at regarding elders it could be easily thought that the term ‘pastor’ is yet
another synonymous term with that of elder, overseer and bishop. If this
interpretation is correct then it is still absolutely clear that there is no
distinct person among a group of elders who is the pastor - all elders are
pastors with equal responsibility for the oversight of the assembly.
A note in conclusion: In looking at the subject of ‘Authority in the
Church/churches’ there are many unequivocal facts to be seen for any who care to
look. It would have no doubt become clear to the reader too that there are a few
finer points that appear to be somewhat ambiguous, at least to me. It would be
much easier (in terms of effort) and far more supportive (seemingly) to the main
argument to simply take one line and hammer it through. However, it would give
me no pleasure or peace to only make my point at the expense of pursuing 100%
accuracy. This study is a pure quest for truth. This makes me as the author
vulnerable, but beware, it makes you as the reader accountable! Whether we
accept interpretation 1 or 2, I cannot find in Scripture any further
alternatives, what is most clear is; what a pastor is not. In the all-final,
authoritative written Word of God there is no mention of any such role in the
local church as 'The Pastor'!
WOMEN & AUTHORITY
This topic is better discussed under a much broader biblical study of Male and
Female. However, it may seem unreasonable to some to simply state that women are
not permitted to function in any of the above-mentioned roles and leave it at
that. That this is the case is quite clear in Scripture, there are many
references that make this patent. Here is one verse of Scripture that would
automatically exclude women from all authoritative function in the
Church/churches: “But I suffer not (do not permit) a women to teach (DIDASKO),
nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence (lit. distil from
bustle). For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the
woman being deceived was in the transgression.” (1 Tim. 2:12-14). Some may think
that this is only with respect to women teaching men but if this were the case
why does Paul go on to talk about the woman being deceived? If Eve’s
susceptibility to the Devil’s deception is part of the reason, how then could we
say that it doesn’t matter if they are only teaching (DIDASKO) other women?
This quote from the Epistle to Timothy may lead one to think that the exclusion
of women from serving the Church in these ways is solely a matter of
susceptibility to deception. If it were only a matter of natural strengths and
weaknesses, there would always be enough exceptions to the rule to give ground
for argument against such restriction. No, the whole topic of Male and Female
and our God-given roles is much more glorious. When we begin to see these things
in our spirits, every true child of God should glory in what He has made him or
her.
“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them
have dominion ... So God created man in His own image, in the image of God
created He him; male and female created He them.” (Gen. 1:26,27). The whole
essence of male and female is that God has created us as a pictorial reflection
of the Holy Trinity. God is three in one, and Man + Woman (which equals
child/children) is a purpose-made ‘tri-union’ for the glory and pleasure of God.
We cannot here begin a study of the Trinity, but most relevant to our topic are
two manifest facts: 1) there is absolute equality of being between Father, Son
and Holy Spirit; and 2) at the same time there is clear order and authority
among them. Here are just two examples where these two principles can be seen
between the Father and the Son: “Let this mind be in you, which was also in
Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery (a thing to
be grasped at) to be equal with God.” (Phil. 2:5,6) and the centurion addressing
the Lord Jesus recognises that He was a man under authority: “For I also am a
man set under authority ...” (Lk. 7:8). There is no ‘superior’ and ‘inferior’
quality to male and female. We are of equal value and worth, interdependent and
yet at the same time we were made to reflect the order of the Godhead.
This paradoxical principle is something rarely reflected in our fallen,
distorted world, but in God’s Church, as we live by His Spirit, this should be
restored. The Devil hates this image of God in mankind and his first tactic in
seeking to corrupt God’s creation, was to reverse this order by approaching the
woman first (Gen. 3:1). Any subsequent role reversal or even merging works to
destroy this testimony of God’s image. Throughout the Bible, the allegories of
God found in male and female vary; e.g. in Eph. 5:22-33 we see that the man
represents Christ and the woman His bride i.e. the Church. In 1 Cor. 11:1-16 the
relationship between man and woman is likened to the correlation between God the
Father and Christ. In this instance the man is representing the Father and the
woman, Christ. This latter portion of Scripture is a beautiful picture of the
equality of men and women while displaying absolute obedience to God’s order.
Although the pictorial roles we play vary, it is always consistent that the man
represents the higher authority and the woman the submissive. This is the way
God chose to make us.It is our wonderful privilege as believers to live out
before men and angels (1 Cor. 11:10) the roles for which we have been begotten
of God. To put this in its perspective let us note the fact that the majority of
males will not be called on by God to serve in a specific named role during
their lifetime. Remember James 3:1! Every child of God has already received the
highest calling that any created being can have - to know God and Jesus Christ
whom He has sent. The whole Bible testifies that God has created us according to
His pleasure. It is not for the vessel to say unto the potter “why hast thou
made me thus?”
CHILDREN & THE CHURCH
Interestingly, there are no instructions in the New Testament regarding children
in reference to either the Church Universal or the local assembly. Therefore, it
must be concluded that they are, essentially, in no different position from that
of adults in this respect. As previously stated, membership of both the Church
Universal and the local assembly comes by means of a spiritual new birth in
Christ. Children, before this conversion to Christ, cannot be considered in the
proper sense members of either. Subsequent to new birth, regardless of what age
this occurs at, they become full, and potentially, functioning members of both.
There is, of course, still the need to develop into spiritual maturity, just as
any adult who becomes a new born babe in Christ. Jesus said: “Suffer (allow)
little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me.” (Mat.19:14). We must
never underestimate the ability of any child to receive salvation. Children are
the objects of God’s love, and, as such, need to hear without compromise, the
Gospel of saving grace.
Is there any way at all in that a child may differ from an unconverted adult?
Yes, in the situation where the child has at least one believing parent: “For
the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is
sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they
holy.” (1 Cor. 7:14). The terms ‘sanctified’, and ‘holy’ are clearly not, in
this instance, synonymous with salvation, because in verse 16 we read “For what
knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou,
O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?” But a child with a believing parent(s)
is, in some sense, a partaker with them of God’s temporal blessings. They are
brought into contact with God’s people and His Kingdom.
So what of these children prior to their conversion, where do they fit into the
picture of local church life? There is ample instruction concerning believing
men and women and how they should “behave” in “a church of the Living God”, yet
there is no instruction with respect to their children in a church meeting. Like
all subjects that are not directly dealt with in scripture there must be some
latitude in our approach. A simple logical surmising of this leads us to four
possible options that are given here purely as food for thought.
Children whose parents attend the local church meeting could be:
- Excluded from the regular church meeting.
- Allowed to be present, whilst remaining silent.
- Encouraged to be present, and given some focus/attention.
- Provided with a separate facility.
It is not within the scope of this study to speculate upon these options. There
are, doubtless, valid arguments that could be given for all, or combinations of
the above, but without clear biblical backing we cannot be dogmatic about any of
them.
If a church chooses either of the latter two options, this must not become an
occasion to pander to fleshly, youthful desires. “... for childhood and youth
are vanity.” (Eccl. 11:10). “Flee also youthful lusts (desires).” (2 Tim. 2:22).
The church must not dilute the things spoken or sung to accommodate unspiritual
youth. In our last section we touched upon the seriousness of role reversals for
men and women. When worldly youth is allowed to be a governing factor in the
church meeting, it is a role reversal of the utmost folly. I have emphasized
‘fleshly’ and ‘worldly’ youth. To give balance here, it must also be mentioned
that some younger people have been, and are, capable of immense spiritual
maturity. When this is the case such young people must not be despised simply
because of their youth. It is a blessing to discover the riches brought to the
Church by some of the saints of the past who bore much fruit in the days of
their youth.
In the final analysis with regard to children and their attendance at meetings,
the one binding principle is that the elders in each local congregation are
accountable for the oversight of everything within the assembly. This does not
mean that they do not listen to and consider the wishes of other members but, in
the absence of explicit biblical directives, it is their responsibility.
A serious biblical warning!
In respect of our last two themes: ‘Women and Authority’ and ‘Children and the
Church’, we must take seriously a warning from the past. In the days of the Old
Covenant, God sent various chastisements on the children of Israel as signs and
warnings of His displeasure in their rebellions. Two such results of their
erring are mentioned in Isaiah 3. “And I will give children to be their princes,
And babes shall rule over them.” (vs.4) _ “As for My people, children are their
oppressors, And women rule over them. O My people, they which lead thee cause
thee to err, And destroy the way of thy paths.” (vs.12). If, in a church, there
exists the situation of female leadership and/or an overemphasis on youth
culture, remember - it is a sign of God’s displeasure! As with the situation in
the Garden of Eden, ultimate responsibility for these compromises will fall to
the man. Men who are in authority will be held accountable if they allow the
prevailing spirit of the world to become the standard for the churches in which
God has made them overseers. Let us be warned in our age!
[use your 'home' key to go to top of page]
