Doing Church - Leadership

Taking my own suggestion, I want to examine various aspects of "church" that, perhaps, we need to revisit. Are we doing what we're simply comfortable doing, or are we doing what the Bible says to do? I will look here at the concept of leadership.

There is plenty of information in the New Testament to explain what church leadership is supposed to look like. We have two entire passages -- one written to Timothy and the other to Titus -- that details the qualifications for a particular component of church leadership referred to as "elders". It might be called "bishops" in some translations or "overseers" in others, but it's the same thing. We know, for instance, that elders are appointed, not elected. We know that they are males (no matter how hard you work at changing that). They are called to a higher character than your average, everyday Christian, beginning with the concept of "blameless", a high calling indeed. We know that they are to lead by example, and not for personal gain (1 Peter 5:2-3). And we know that there was not a single "elder", but always a group of elders. Oh, yes, there is plenty of information on this particular group.

Funny thing. How many churches do you know that follow this? Elders are elected, not appointed. The qualifications are often mitigated -- "No one can meet those standards, so we'll just try to get close." Often those who serve as elders aren't chosen for their spiritual depth, but for their willingness or, worse, their contributions. In the worst cases, though, some churches ignore this group of people altogether. They claim that their pastor is their "elders". (You see the problem, don't you? "Elders" is plural, but "pastor" is not.)

There is a second group in biblical church leadership. They are typically referred to as deacons. This group first came about in Acts 6 when the numbers of believers were starting to overwhelm the Apostles. Deacons, then, were appointed to serve the needs of the church people. These first men were no slouches. They were "men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom" (Acts 6:3). One of them, in fact, was Stephen who, a chapter later, died for the faith. Paul explains to Timothy what the qualifications should be for deacons in 1 Tim 3:8-13. There is some question about whether or not women may serve in this role, and that's fine, but there is no doubt that deacons form a second tier of church leadership. Another group of servants, the deacons take care of the physical needs of the church while the elders take care of the spiritual needs.

Today, of course, biblical qualifications aren't of much concern. "Warm, willing bodies that can do things around the church" are pretty much all the qualifications required. I mean, seriously, are you really going to suggest that you need to have "men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom" to get the job done? Don't set the standard so high! And, of course, there are other churches that ignore this group entirely as well. Some churches have deacons and no elders. Other churches have elders and no deacons. Neither of these fit the instructions for church leadership.

I have to admit, there is a problem along these lines in my mind with a particular segment of "church" today in America. The "house church" is quite popular, and I see lots of good things there, but a church that consists of maybe a dozen people is not likely to include "elders" and "deacons" without making nearly everyone one or the other. I've never quite understood that particular aspect of the house church concept. I'm just saying.

There is another disconnect between today's churches and the biblical accounts that I've never had cleared up for me. Every church in America today has a pastor. This pastor is the primary leader. These primary leaders vary, I suppose. In some churches he is the "teaching elder". In others there is the "head pastor" along with several other "lesser" pastors. But it's still primarily a singular form of leadership, not a leadership by elders. Now, in the Bible I find only one, single, solitary reference to "pastor". It's in Eph 4:11, and most reputable translators find it to be a basically hyphenated word with the concept that follows it: "Pastor-teacher". There are no Bible colleges, no seminaries, not even anything that resembles "clergy" in the Bible, but we still live with this pastor-leadership concept in nearly every church in the country. Why is that? Where does it come from? Most importantly, is it right?

My question, then, is this. Are we doing church leadership in a biblical manner? Biblical leadership has two tiers, elders and deacons, is constructed of a plurality, has specific qualifications, and is appointed. Each tier has its tasks to do. There is no example in Scripture of a singular leader of a church -- what we call today "pastors". (Of course, you'd be hard pressed to find anything approximating the concept of "the Southern Baptist Convention" or some other denominational structure over a group of churches.) So ... are we doing church leadership in a biblical manner, or is it time to reexamine how we have structured the leadership of our churches?