Biblical Church Structure

[JED8643]

What is the true biblical model concerning Church leadership? Are pastors supposed to be appointed to their positions (deacons, bishops) by an ecclesial hierarchy or is a local independent congregation supposed to interview and then vote on the best choice to shepherd their flock?

Is there any support in the New Testament concerning either of these Church models?

Jed

 

[JRKH]

There is little in the NT about how pastors etc are to be selected. Matthias was selected to replace Judas by casting lots (roll of the dice) St Paul was selected by Christ Himself. Presbyters were selected by the congregation and St Paul in his letters speaks of communites selecting their leaders.
We do know tha the “local communities” were not really “Independent” because when the issue of circumcision (Judaizers) came up in Acts 15, it was by inter church council that the matter was settled.

The fact is that the methods have changed and evolved over the centuries. There is little reason to assume that whatever methods were used in the NT times when the church was a few thousands are appropriate in a Church of a billion worldwide…

Peace
James

 

[JED8643]

There is little in the NT about how pastors etc are to be selected. Matthias was selected to replace Judas by casting lots (roll of the dice) St Paul was selected by Christ Himself. Presbyters were selected by the congregation and St Paul in his letters speaks of communites selecting their leaders.
We do know tha the “local communities” were not really “Independent” because when the issue of circumcision (Judaizers) came up in Acts 15, it was by inter church council that the matter was settled.

The fact is that the methods have changed and evolved over the centuries. There is little reason to assume that whatever methods were used in the NT times when the church was a few thousands are appropriate in a Church of a billion worldwide…

Peace
James

Hmm…

So I suppose local Protestant (evangelical, Baptist, Non denom) congregations of today are at least “biblical” in their Church Structure.

I guess the big difference between the Catholic structure and local independent congregations in the evangelical world have more do with apostolic succession and the source of revealed truth. (either scripture only or scripture and apostolic teaching)

Thanks James,

Jed

 

[Petergee]

Hmm…

So I suppose local Protestant (evangelical, Baptist, Non denom) congregations of today are at least “biblical” in their Church Structure.

I don’t see how you draw that conclusion at all.

St Matthias was selected by lot from between just** two ** (out of all the thousands of followers of Jesus) possible candidates selected by St Peter and the other Apostles, and who met the strict “job criteria” which St Peter laid down.

St Paul was converted to Christianity by a vision of Christ, following which he spent years on retreat and formation praying in the Arabian desert, then he went to Jerusalem where he goes out of his way to tell us that he didn’t see anyone else, only St Peter and St John. He was sent on his missionary journeys (i.e. appointed to his pastoral positions) firstly by St Peter and St John, and later by a convocation of all the Apostles.

St Paul speaks of local church communities nominating possible candidates for bishop, priest and deacon, who were then,** if **they were approved by the Apostle or Bishop who was in charge of the community, then ordained to office by him. This is exactly what happens today in the Catholic Church. St Paul in writing personally to the bishops he had ordained, tells them explicit requirements which the bishop (not the congregation) is to use for canddates for holy orders to be ordained by the bishop.

All quite the opposite of the local Protestant (evangelical, Baptist, and so-called “Non denom”) congregations of today where a man becomes leader of the community simply as a result of the community electing him.

 

[JED8643]

I don’t see how you draw that conclusion at all.

St Matthias was selected by lot from between just** two ** (out of all the thousands of followers of Jesus) possible candidates selected by St Peter and the other Apostles, and who met the strict “job criteria” which St Peter laid down.

St Paul was converted to Christianity by a vision of Christ, following which he spent years on retreat and formation praying in the Arabian desert, then he went to Jerusalem where he goes out of his way to tell us that he didn’t see anyone else, only St Peter and St John. He was sent on his missionary journeys (i.e. appointed to his pastoral positions) firstly by St Peter and St John, and later by a convocation of all the Apostles.

St Paul speaks of local church communities nominating possible candidates for bishop, priest and deacon, who were then,** if **they were approved by the Apostle or Bishop who was in charge of the community, then ordained to office by him. This is exactly what happens today in the Catholic Church. St Paul in writing personally to the bishops he had ordained, tells them explicit requirements which the bishop (not the congregation) is to use for canddates for holy orders to be ordained by the bishop.

All quite the opposite of the local Protestant (evangelical, Baptist, and so-called “Non denom”) congregations of today where a man becomes leader of the community simply as a result of the community electing him.

Ah, I’m so glad you responded with this point.

I actually agree with you that the Apostles approved of and appointed leadership (Bishops, Deacons) ensuring proper apostolic succession and uniformity of doctrine.

What I’m trying to figure out is why groups such as independent Baptist’s and Church of Christ insist that they follow the true “biblical” model of what they consider a NT Church.

They believe in a completely autonomous, self governing leadership structure using scripture alone as a guide for doctrine and practice. If a pastor leaves for some reason, maybe retirement, the congregation would begin to interview selected candidates and eventually “vote” on a qualified replacement.

They are convinced this is the NT model.

This is very different than mainline Protestant denominations and the Catholic Church who’s pastors are appointed by an ecclesial hierarchy.

Can both models be seen as “biblical” or can only one be correct?

 

[JRKH]

The reason that these groups insist on this model is because they do two things.
First they redefine “church” from something visible and united and universal to something “invisible”…They will say that, “The Church is made up of all those who are saved…no matter what denomination they belong to” or words to that effect.

Second, they deny or reinterpret anything in Scripture that points away from their definition in my point one above…Things like the council of Jerusalem, or The Church having authority to bind and loose…Or that Paul reported his teachings to Peter and others (to make sure they were all on the same page)…

I have found that, even if you try to build with them how authority works from the local level up they reach a point where they cannot seem to grasp or accept it and either won’t answer you question at all or will try to deflect it somehow because it is just too uncomfortable to them…

The basic thing is that their faith tradition is built on the rejection of an earthly authority and they have a really hard time getting past this.

Now - I don’t want to give the impression that the early Church functioned in precisely the same way as it does today. Far from it. There was necessarily greater autonomy in the early Church just from the simple fact of logistics in communication, the periodic polgrom (persecution) and the fact that there was far less that had been actually codified…
But the essentials were there - primarily the desire to be part of the one true church. And over time the Church organization and structure developed quite organically into what we have today.

Peace
James

 

[kepha1]

There is nothing in scripture where pastors are appointed or hired by a committee.

 

[paul_c]

There is nothing in scripture where pastors are appointed or hired by a committee.

There is also nothing in scripture stating that when someone has a new idea on church doctrine or practice, that they can start their own church…

 

[Todd_Easton]

My reading of Acts 14:3 has the apostles Paul and Barnabas ordaining Church elders in various cities.

My reading of Titus 1:5 has the apostle Paul commissioning Titus to ordain Church elders in various cities.

Certainly looks like local Church elders were ordained by those higher up the Church hierarchy.

The Bible seems to be against people appointing their own religious teachers:
For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths. (2 Timothy 4:3-4)

 

[TimothyH]

Matthias was selected to replace Judas by casting lots

The selection of both Matthias and Barsabas as candidates for Apostleship was out of a group of men who had followed Jesus from the time of his baptism, out of the disciples. Casting lots was only to determine between the two and the Apostles prayed for God to show them which one He wanted through the casting of lots. I know you all know this but just wanted to point it out.

Jed8643 brings up a good point in asking this question. What is the biblcal basis for the non-denominational Church’s pastoral search comittee?

Where I live in here in the deep south there are billboards advertising Churchis which say “Come grow with us” or “We are growing” all over the place. Independent non-denominationalists tend to regect large institutional Church structures yet seem to focus quite a bit on their own growth.

If “Growth” means numbers of people saved then I guess that’s good for them but the need for an infrastructure to manage it all seems to be ignored at first, considered a necissary evil second and finally condemned. In the end, the Church which grew experiences people leaving for smaller, more intimate, more independent Churches without all the hierarchy. Either that or they just split or implode due to the inability to manage the institution. Seems like a catch-22.

-Tim-

 

[JRKH]

Perhaps there is another aspect here that isn’t being considered, and really isn’t considered much by those who seek to find the church model in Scripture. I refer to the fact that mostly what is described is the “missionary activities” of The Church.
The Church was growing by leaps and bounds and what was being described primarily in Acts is this great expansion of the Kingdom.
There is comparatively little written in the Bible about the structure of the local communities …Likewise the letters of Paul, Peter, Jude, James et.al were written to deal with specific problems and offer encouragement and, while they do offer some insight into church structure, they were not, for the most part, written specifically for that purpose.

Peace
James

 

[paul_c]

Perhaps there is another aspect here that isn’t being considered, and really isn’t considered much by those who seek to find the church model in Scripture. I refer to the fact that mostly what is described is the “missionary activities” of The Church.
The Church was growing by leaps and bounds and what was being described primarily in Acts is this great expansion of the Kingdom.
There is comparatively little written in the Bible about the structure of the local communities …Likewise the letters of Paul, Peter, Jude, James et.al were written to deal with specific problems and offer encouragement and, while they do offer some insight into church structure, they were not, for the most part, written specifically for that purpose.

Peace
James

I agree. The new testament letters were concerned with clarifying church doctrine an addressing issues within the specified churches. They were not generally concerned with Church hierarchy. so what can be gleaned on that topic is from the periphery or other discussions. We know, for instance, that Paul didn’t go out on the missionary missions on his own, but was sent by the church in Antioch. and when there was a global question, in 49 AD on the requirements of following the Jewish Ceremonial laws, the Church in Antioch refered them to the Apostles in Jerusalem (Acts 15). So its clear that they recognized a worldwide hierarchy and worldwide church unity, even as early as 49AD.

 

[JED8643]

My reading of Acts 14:3 has the apostles Paul and Barnabas ordaining Church elders in various cities.

My reading of Titus 1:5 has the apostle Paul commissioning Titus to ordain Church elders in various cities.

Certainly looks like local Church elders were ordained by those higher up the Church hierarchy.

The Bible seems to be against people appointing their own religious teachers:
For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths. (2 Timothy 4:3-4)

Has anyone heard of the concept of a “plurality of Elders” used by some non-denominational and Church of Christ congregations?

They use the same two verses mentioned above to claim a local congregation is to have multiple Elders with equal authority as pastors of the group.

The two verses (Acts 14:3,Titus 1:5) use “Elders” in a plural form. They claim nowhere in NT scripture does a single Pastor or “senior Pastor” model exist.

Jed

 

[Todd_Easton]

The two verses (Acts 14:3,Titus 1:5) use “Elders” in a plural form. They claim nowhere in NT scripture does a single Pastor or “senior Pastor” model exist.

Philippians 1:1 also seems to support the idea of multiple bishops:
Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus,
To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:
However, some see in the later letters to the churches in Revelation 2 and 3, each addressed to the angel of a particular church, an indication that a single individual had the oversight of each church. In other words, angel = bishop.

It is clear from the letters of Ignatius of Antioch (d. A.D. 107) that by the end of the first century and the beginning of the second that the model of one bishop assisted by many elders (presbyters/priests) and was the norm for churches.

 

[JRKH]

Has anyone heard of the concept of a “plurality of Elders” used by some non-denominational and Church of Christ congregations?

They use the same two verses mentioned above to claim a local congregation is to have multiple Elders with equal authority as pastors of the group.

The two verses (Acts 14:3,Titus 1:5) use “Elders” in a plural form. They claim nowhere in NT scripture does a single Pastor or “senior Pastor” model exist.

Jed

I assume they are making this argument in relation to the idea of the Pope…(Single or Senior Pastor = supreme pontiff type argument)

In such an argument I would gladly concede that there is no clear teaching that the single pastor model exists…though there might be hints of “seniority”.

But I would likewise challenge them to demonstrate from Scripture the “local doctrinally independant model” that they themselves use…

I have yet to find where they can point to any verse or passage in the bible that demosntrates where it is acceptable for one community to doctrinally oppose another community. The one example of such a difference in the Bible resulted in the Council of Jerusalem.

Peace
James