by Mark Conner (senior pastor, Waverley Christian Fellowship, Melbourne).

"Many Christians claim that the leadership of their church is based on clear biblical teaching. What hermeneutical challenges are to be faced in seeking to move from the diverse New Testament comments about leadership in the congregation to the life of the institutional church of our day?"

Abstract

The church in the modern world looks to the Bible for guidance in establishing godly and effective leadership structures. One approach has been to seek for a specific detailed pattern of leadership. The difficulty in this is that there seems to be no clear prescriptive pattern of leadership in the teachings of the New Testament. More often than not, this approach simply results in various church groups or denominations finding "proof texts" to justify their existing leadership structure. A better approach is to study the New Testament writings in order to discover what they did and why. Once this is done, we can then glean principles that can be applied to our culture and time. By doing this, we can develop a broader consistency in church leaderships structures while allowing for diversity in each unique situation. Biblical principles of leadership include each believer having a ministry, some believers called to church leadership, always a plurality of leaders, the presence of a primary leader, leadership and ministry that is gift based, the appropriate legitimisation of leaders, leadership patterns that reflect in some way the prevailing culture, titles given based on function and the remuneration of ministries as appropriate. By following these biblical principles of leadership we can see strong and healthy churches emerge in each community. Introduction The church in the modern world faces the challenge of seeking to be relevant to its contemporary culture yet remain faithful to the biblical record that outlines both the nature and mission of the church. In seeking to be "biblical", there has been much discussion and debate throughout the centuries about the "biblical" pattern of church leadership. Various churches and denominations within the wider body of Christ often declare that their particular leadership structure is based on the teaching of the New Testament. The difficulty lies in the fact that there are so many different leadership structures existing today, all claiming the Bible as their primary source and authority. So what is the New Testament pattern for church leadership? I believe that there is no set pattern of leadership presented in the New Testament, but rather, there are principles that serve to guide the modern church in establishing godly and effective leadership in fulfilling our purpose and mission in the world. A Proper Hermeneutic Firstly, we must, look at the very nature of Scripture itself and understand the intention of both the human author(s) and the Holy Spirit who inspired them. A large portion of the New Testament, and especially the Gospels and the book of Acts, is in the "narrative" literary genre. Narratives are stories. They tell us about things that happened and especially, God at work among his people. Narratives glorify God and provide illustrations of many important lessons for our lives.

There are four important aspects about narratives:

1. Narratives are first and foremost stories about what God did to and through people. God is the hero of the story.

2. Narratives are not allegories or stories filled with hidden meanings. We are often told what happened but not always how or why. 3. Narratives do not always teach directly. However, they often illustrate what is taught directly elsewhere.

4. Each individual narrative does not necessarily have a moral of its own. The big picture must be kept in view.

These principles are common sense and appear simple enough, especially when reading the Old Testament. However, when we come to the book of Acts which tells the story of the church, it is easy to read these narratives as setting biblical "precedents" or being a "normative" model for church and Christian life for all times.

Our interest in this essay is a pattern for church leadership. However, we must understand that Luke's primary purpose in writing Acts is simply to show the movement of the church as orchestrated by the Holy Spirit, not in setting forth a specific model of Christian experience, church life or a pattern of church leadership. When Luke describes what happened in the time of the early church, it does not always translate into what must happen in the ongoing church. Nonetheless, we can glean various principles for our experience and practice today.

Secondly, we must note that the Bible is an historical revelation. In the New Testament we find an account of how the first churches were led at that time. The danger for us today is to look at our modern day church leadership structures and then look for various Scriptural "proof texts" to validate their authority and thereby declare them "Biblical". The problem is that we are more than two millenniums removed from the life and times of the early church. This creates an immense "cultural gap" that must be bridged. Therefore, a theology of church must be an ongoing conversation between what the Spirit speaks through Scripture, how church tradition has applied Scripture throughout the centuries and how the principles of Scripture are to be outworked in our specific contemporary historical-culture context.

The correct hermeneutical questions are firstly, "What actually happened in the leadership of the early church and why?" We must seek to approach this question as honestly and openly as possible, free from as many presuppositions as possible. Then we need to ask, "How does this apply to the church in the modern world?" Based on an accurate understanding of what happened in the apostolic age we can then seek to appropriate applicable principles to our time and culture. New Testament Church Leadership As we look to the New Testament for a pattern of leadership, we see a leadership structure that is very fluid, diverse and changing. Rather than presenting one particular model, the New Testament picture of leadership is very dynamic.

Church leadership in the apostolic age:

1. Jesus said virtually nothing about how the church was to be organised or who was to lead it. The only thing he emphasised was that leaders were to be "servant leaders" (or "leading servants"), not "rulers" like the leadership style of the culture of that day. The twelve apostles gave leadership to the early church community in Jerusalem, though their primary role was to bear witness to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus (Acts 1:21).

2. The first churches were "house churches". They were relatively small and, at the very most, no more than fifty people attended any particular home at one time. This was the pattern for the first two hundred years of the church. This local house church setting would have greatly influenced the leadership structure of the church. They had no church buildings as we have today and informality would have prevailed.

3. The church was greatly influenced by their Jewish culture and roots. They borrowed many ideas from the local synagogue. Synagogues were led by a "ruler" of the synagogue and a "servant" of the synagogue, both of whom were office bearers. Under the new dynamic of the Spirit, these were transformed and the offices of "episcopos" (overseer or bishop) and "deacon" emerged in the life of the church. Christian elders are very much seen as the counterpart of Jewish elders, a group of senior men given the general oversight of the Christian community. 4. Older men ("elders") were given authority, which was part of the patriarchal culture of the time. Timothy, who was most likely in his late thirties, was considered a "youth". Church leadership was given to older people who were respected within their communities. It would seem that most, if not all, prophets, teachers, bishops and deacons would have been elders in this sense.

5. The apostolic church moved over time from a very "charismatic church order" to a more "institutional church order". Structure, titles and patterns of leadership emerged and developed slowly. Sociology refers to this process as "institutionalisation".

6. There were a variety of leadership structures that emerged progressively over time.

a. In Acts, the first leaders were the twelve apostles , with Peter as their leader. We have no record of them leading house churches, although they did visit various houses churches where they ministered (Acts 5:42).

b. In time, the leadership of the church community of Jerusalem was handed over to "elders" and we hear very little more about the twelve apostles from this time on. These elders emerged suddenly , with no explanation from Luke as to who they were or how they were appointed. We then presume they were the Christian counterpart of the Jewish elders.

c. The early Pauline letters (pre-50 A.D.) indicate a high degree of informality and fluidity in the titles used of leaders. Paul's first letters, which were to the church at Thessalonica, simply refer to the "leaders" of the church, who were most likely the house church leaders (1 Thess.5:12-13). His letters to the church at Corinth also have no reference to any elders or other leadership titles. He does refer to house church leaders and Stephanas seems to be one of the prominent church leaders (1 Cor.16:15-16). His theology was that all believers had a ministry, while some were leaders (1 Cor.12:1-31). Ministry in both of these churches, including prophecy, is clearly open to all (1 Thess.5:14-21. 1 Cor.14:1-39).

d. Paul's letter to the church at Philippi contains the first mention of what we would call office bearers. Paul writes to the "bishops and deacons" (Phil.1:1). We have no explanation as to who these leaders are or what they do. The most likely explanation is that they were the house church leaders and assistants, although this is only conjecture.

e. Paul's letter to the church at Ephesus (55-60 A.D.) emphasises the equipping nature of church leadership (Eph.4:11-15). Leaders are given by Christ to equip believers to do the work of the ministry so that the church may be grow and become mature.

f. In Paul's latest letters, often referred to as the Pastorals, we have a much more institutionalised leadership structure. The office of "bishop" and "deacon" is discussed (1 Tim.3; 5:17ff. Titus 1:5). These leaders are to be given the "oversight" of the church community (see also Acts 20:28 and 1 Peter 5:2). "Deacon" was an everyday word that referred to all believers, then later became a title for people appointed to this ministry. It should be noted, that although we have the mention of these offices and titles ("bishop", "elder" and "deacon") we have no clear "job description" of what they actually did in the church community.

g. A variety of other ministry and leadership titles are mentioned in the New Testament, including "prophets" (1 Cor.12:29; 14:29. Eph.4:11), "teachers" (1 Cor.12:29. Acts 13:1), "evangelists" (Eph.4:11. 2 Tim.4:5) and "pastors", or more literally, "shepherds" (Acts 20:28. Eph.4:11). What these people actually did and how they related to one another, as well as to the "bishops", "elders" and "deacons" within the church community is unclear. As we can see, there is very little evidence of one particular pattern or model of church leadership in the New Testament. Also, with the few texts we do have that refer to church leadership, there is much we do not know about how these people were selected, as well as how they functioned in their particular ministries. Principles of Leadership for the Modern Church We should avoid looking at the modern church and then turning to the Bible to try and prove that what we're doing is right. The trouble with this approach is that our context "colours" so much of what we see and we bring many cultural presuppositions to the Bible about the church. I would suggest that it is better to search for "principles" of church leadership in the Scriptures rather than seeking a specific "pattern" or model to be strictly adhered to. The Scriptures tend to "describe" what happened in their time and culture rather than "prescribe" what must happen in all times and in every culture.

The following general principles emerge out of the New Testament record of the church:

1. All Christians have a ministry. "Each one" is given at least one spiritual gift and will be held responsible for their faithful use of it for the benefit of others. No one in the church is excluded from having to use their spiritual gifts to serve others. The church is a "body" where everyone contributes (see 1 Cor.12:1-26. Rom.12:3-8. 1 Pet.4:7-11).

2. God gives some believers to be leaders in every church. Church leadership is "servant leadership" and leaders are required to be of godly character (Acts 6:1-7. 1 Tim.3:1-13. Titus 1:5-9). Leaders are given to serve the church by encouraging its health and growth. They also are to equip or empower the other believers and release them to do the work of the ministry (Eph.4:11-13). The concept of an ordained "clergy" being paid by the "laity" to do the ministry of the church is not a Biblical paradigm.

3. Church leadership is always plural. Nowhere do we have a single, dictatorial leadership style within the church community . Paul ordained "elders" in every city, never one "elder" (Acts 14:23). Just as God is a Trinity in community, so leadership in the church is to be done in a team environment, where diversity and the wisdom of a multitude of counsel is the norm.

4. Although leadership is always in the plural, there seems to be an indication of one of the leadership team being the primary leader, a "first among equals". We see Peter and the other eleven apostles (Acts 2:14), then James and the elders (Acts 21:18). This may have emerged from the Old Testament model of leadership where we have Moses and the elders (Ex.4:29. Num.11:16), Joshua and the elders (Josh.24:1. Jud.2:7) and also David and the elders of Israel (2 Sam.5:3. 1 Chron.15:25). It is possible that the "bishop" was a singular leader over a church in a locality with a team of "elders" assisting in the oversight of that community. Kevin Giles sees the "elders" as the community leaders and the "bishop" as responsible for leadership of an individual house church. It was not until the time of Ignatius that we see the rise of the "monarchical bishop", where the bishop was the "unquestioned leader of the community of a given city, who presides over a council of elders and is assisted by a group of deacons".

[It is interesting to note that church growth researchers have concluded that the number one vital sign of a healthy, growing church is "a pastor who is a possibility thinker and whose dynamic leadership has been used to catalyze the entire church into action for growth." God gives vision primarily to a chosen leader, not to committees. However, that leader is wisest to outwork the clarification and implementation of any vision with a team of godly gifted people.]

5. Leadership and ministry are to be "gift based". In other words, leaders should be appointed because of their evident gifting and ability to perform a particular ministry or task, remembering that the one sure sign that this giftedness is of God is the character of their lives (see what Jesus said about true and false prophets in Matt.7:15-23). God has designed the church so that those with the spiritual gift of leadership should lead, those with a teaching gift should teach, those with a mercy gift should be the mercy showers, those with caring gifts should care, etc. New Testament ministries are first described as an "activity" then later as an "office". People who prophesy regularly and faithfully came to be known as "prophets". People who reach many others for Christ and are skilled at equipping others to share their faith came to be known as "evangelists". Function should precede any title or office.

6. There is need for the "legitimization" of leadership once a community of believers becomes more established. In the church, everyone should be able to minister and the community and/or its leaders are to recognize or appoint others to leadership based on their effectiveness and fruitfulness in ministering to the rest of the church. There seems to be no set formula for this. New leaders seem to be appointed as the need arose. Leadership initially may be assumed by those called by God to found a church, but once the church is established, church leaders are responsible to legitimize other believers into official positions of ministry. The apostolic church legitimized specific leaders through the "laying on of hands" (Acts 6:6; 9:17. 1 Tim.4:14) or through "letters of commendation" (1 Cor.16:3. 2 Cor.3:1). Although the term is never used in the Bible, these principles form the basis for the concept "ordination", though not as it developed in the Middle Ages as almost a magical act.

7. Leadership in the church in some ways reflected leadership patterns in the prevailing culture, though never contradicting any Christian virtue or moral principle. Therefore, in our contemporary culture, consideration should be given to both younger people and women to assume leadership positions in the church based on godliness and gifting. Discrimination based on age or gender in a society where education and opportunities abound for young people and women is inappropriate. Involving young people and women in church leadership should not be seen as "unbiblical", as the New Testament church gave more opportunity to younger people and to women than the surrounding culture did, though is was influenced by the cultural norms within which it existed.

8. Titles should be given to match or identify specific ministry function. Titles are to be descriptive of the actual work that the leader does. Many churches have adopted exact terms used from the Bible for their leadership titles - "elder", "bishop" or "deacon". In reality, these titles were initially chosen because they described a specific function in the language of the day. The word "bishop" means "overseer", so it was a title given to those who were overseeing or supervising the church. The word "deacon" means "servant", so it was given to those who served in the church. We are now two thousand years away from the context and meaning of these New Testament words. In fact, these English words now mean something completely different because they now carry all kinds of history and tradition that has tainted their original meaning.

Take for example the Mexican word "burrito", which in the West now refers to a flour tortilla wrapped around beans or chicken. If you went to rural Mexico and asked for a "burrito" they would bring you a "little donkey". Why? It is because the word "burrito" means "little donkey" ("burro" means "big donkey"). We have taken a Spanish word and have given it a completely different meaning than it originally had.

Therefore, there is a danger in simply taking New Testament words such as "elder", "bishop" and "deacon" and assuming that what we think they mean is what they actually meant in the apostolic age. In reality, these words are now infused with hundreds of years of church tradition, religious meaning and cultural baggage.

Today, especially in many Pentecostal churches, many leaders in the church are called "pastor". The concept of a local "pastor" evolved out of Medieval Europe. The title "pastor" is a Latin word translated by Luther and not a true translation of the Greek word poimevna" (which literally means a "shepherd", a person who cares for sheep). Often the term "pastor" creates confusion of expectation for church leaders and members. A "pastor" is seen as a primary caregiver or shepherd. Although this is part of a minister's function, the term "leader" or "senior minister" reflects much more accurately the Biblical concept of an equipping leader. "Leaders" is a much more functional word and incorporates the responsibility to motivate, train and release the other members of the church to significant ministry.

Over the years, the church has adopted other titles for different functions within the church that are not mentioned in the Bible. These include titles such as "worship leader", "youth pastor", "church administrator", "hospitality team", "usher", "church secretary", "church caretaker", etc. However, in most churches, there has been a hesitancy to drop the use of the titles "elder" or "deacon" (some have dropped the title "bishop"). This is in spite of the fact that these titles no longer have meaning in our culture, in that they no longer describe the function in terms that are understood by the average person with no Biblical context.

The New Testament encourages us to ensure that each task and function of leadership occurs within the church, but it in no way does it give us a set structure, model or list of titles that must be used in all situations. The emphasis is on function and the ongoing growth and health of the church, which very much depends on godly, passionate and balanced leadership.

Why not just call people according to what they do, using contemporary and relevant titles? If a person leads the youth ministry then call them a "youth leader". If a person serves in various areas of helps around the church, call them a "volunteer" or "helper", which is probably the most accurate equivalent for the New Testament concept of "deacon" or servant. Call the leader of the community outreach ministry the "Community Services Director", or something similar.

Why even have a group of "elders"? Why not have a "leadership team" or a "church board"? If young people are included in church leadership, why call them an "elder" when they may not be considered old in our culture. More contemporary titles better describe the function of these people in our church context. In doing so, we are not compromising or eliminating these Biblical roles. We are simply upholding the Biblical concepts and then describing how it works in our context.

In other words, you could say something like, "The Bible talks about 'deacons' who served the church community. In our church, everyone needs a servant spirit and we encourage you to become a volunteer in some ministry area." The title then given to each person will relate to what they do (their function) - "car park supervisor", "usher", "home group leader", etc. In reality, all believers are "deacons" with a specific servant ministry.

In reference to elders, you could say something like, "The Bible talks about the importance of church leadership. They called their leaders 'elders' and their role was to lead, manage, shepherd and teach the church. In our church these important functions are carried out by the following groups of people." The titles given to each person or group will describe their function - "senior minister", "church council member", "area pastor", "counsellor", "business manager", "building committee member", etc.

9. Although the majority of key people in local congregations appear to have worked independently for a living, some church leaders were remunerated for their ministry (1 Tim.5:17-18). This means that those who serve the church by giving a large portion of their time to the ministry may receive financial compensation or employment as part-time or full-time staff. In fact, in our era, the payment of leaders is more important for we live in a specialised age where those with other jobs have less time to give to ministry than those in other cultures.

Conclusion Throughout church history, there has been a quest to find the most biblical model of church governance - to be a New Testament church. In reality, we only have a little detail about the structure and function of the early church leadership roles and this is not uniform or fixed. In our desire to be biblical, we should focus on principles rather than specific models or methods. Much of what we do in the modern church, though not necessarily wrong, is not prescribed by the Bible but has emerged over time through the traditions of the church. I believe that the wisest approach is to appropriate the biblical principles of church leadership to our particular time and culture. As we do this, we can see healthy growing churches emerge in every community.

Bibliography

Burtchaell, James Tunstead. From Church to Synagogue: Public Services and Offices in the Earliest Christian Communities. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Conner, Kevin. The Church in the New Testament. Kent, England: Sovereign World International, 1982.

Fee, Gordon D. and Stuart, Douglas. How to Read the Bible for All It's Worth: A Guide to Understanding the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Corporation, 1982.

Getz, Gene. The Measure of a Church. Glendale, California: Gospel Light Publications, 1975.

_________ Sharpening the Focus of the Church. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1984.

Gibbs, Eddie and Coffey, Ian. Church Next: Quantum Changes in Christian Ministry. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 2001.

Giles, Kevin. Patterns of Ministry Among the First Christians. North Blackburn, Victoria: Collins Dove, 1989.

________ What on Earth is the Church? Victoria, Australia: HarperCollins Publishers, 1995.

________ Making Good Churches Better. Victoria, Australia: Acorn Press, 2001.

________ Class notes from lectures in A Theology of Church and Ministry in the 21st Century. Victoria, Australia: Ridley College, 2001.

Grenz, Stanley J. and Franke, John R. Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping Theology in a Post Modern Context. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001.

Hawthorne, Gerald F., Martin, Ralph. P. and Reid, Daniel G. [Editors]

Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter-Varsity Press, 1993.

MacArthur, John. The Master's Plan for the Church. Chicago, USA: Moody Press, 1991.

Wagner, Peter. Your Church Can Grow. Ventura, California: Regal Books, 1976.

_________ Leading Your Church to Growth. Ventura, California: Regal Books, 1984.