Brethren... Pray for Your Leaders !

The longer I serve as an elder/pastor, the more I realize that no good thing ever happens apart from God’s direct involvment. No person has the power to change a human heart. No one can explain Scripture well enough to convince another person to believe it. No one can hold a diverse group of people together in harmony year after year. Such blessings will be had only if God himself gives them.  A wise man once told me... “if God is in it... it will succeed.”

We are fully dependent on God’s grace and goodness in leading His Kingdom before His return. We can orchestrate no good work, no blessing on our own. This does not mean, however, that blessings cannot be had from the hard work and perseverance of faithful, humble and spiritual men in leadership. On the contrary, Jesus teaches us: “If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!” (Matthew 7:11). This verse can only mean that God will give blessings when his people are faithful and persistent in asking Him.

Personally, I am never more aware of this need to seek Him than when I prepare sermons and preach His Word. I plead to God,asking Him to bless his Word as I proclaim it.  I pray that the message is His and only mine in the sense that I prepared it using His Word as my only source and guide. I pray for insight into his truth, into his people, into what to say and how to say it. I ask him to make His power known in my weaknesses, fumbling and stumbling. Every time, God is gracious far beyond anything I deserve. I shudder to think what would happen if I didn’t ask Him to help me speak His Truth that honors and glorifies Him, not me.

As significant a responsibility as it is to proclaim God’s life giving truths, it is not only the preacher who has responsibility in this work. The church is responsible to prepare for worship, gather together, be attentive and receive with “hearing ears” [and hearts] the truth being spoken. The church also has a significant responsibility to ask for God’s blessing on the man preaching the gospel and the words spoken.  No preacher wants to  feel that his words of truth spoken on behalf of God, go in one ear and out the other of listeners.

Corporate responsibility, shared amongst the flock, for the gifts of preaching is one reason the apostle Paul asked often for prayer from the churches. He requested prayer for success in his proclamation of truth. His requests for prayer were not directed merely to other apostles, or to elders or deacons. They were directed to entire congregations. 

And his requests for prayers were not for personal glory or accolades, but that his words would lead everyone into a deeper stronger walk with Christ. That his words would “stick” and touch the hearts of seekers who would turn and give their lives to Christ.  His words were spoken as are all words spoken by preachers... for the cause of Christ... to seek, inspire and save souls!  

Paul asks the Ephesian church to “Pray on my behalf, that utterance may be given to me in the opening of my mouth, to make known with boldness the mystery of the gospel” (Ephesians 6:19). To the Thessalonians he says, “Finally, brethren, pray for us that the word of the Lord may spread rapidly and be glorified, just as it did also with you; and that we may be delivered from perverse and evil men; for not all have faith” (2 Thessalonians 3:1-2).

Every believer has a responsibility regarding the proclamation of the truth and the spread of the gospel. It is a responsibility that cannot be met without prayer. When the Word of God abounds and increases in the hearts of people, it is not because one man has prayed, but because many [all] have done so.

“Brethren, pray for us” (1 Thessalonians 5:25).

Is the Church an Autocracy?

There are relatively few church members who push the idea of “benevolent dictatorship” as a God-given model for the church. There are, however, quite a few church leaders who seem to have a strong preference for that model. There are also more than a few church members who are willing to defend it if the particular leader involved has been able to fill the building with people or generate other exciting “results.” Like other forms of church structure, this one needs to be examined in the light of Scripture.

Autocratic leadership is often the default position of churches that reject majority rule after having had it for a significant period of time. Those who have “suffered” under what they perceive as the tyranny of the majority are often ready to give the “right” leader all the responsibility and power just to end whatever it is they want to bring an end to. 

They may have experienced the negative consequences of leadership, in elders and maybe even the preacher-minister, who are not spiritually qualified to lead; or good hearted men but just not effective leaders.  So the congregants begin grumbling as a way of stimulating change, or some other option.  Often, the flock grows tired of the same men in leadership.  They don’t understand why being an elder/pastor should be a role held until the man for health or some other legitimate reason decides to step down.

In other instances, men of less regal character maneuver themselves into the position of full individual authority because they want that kind of power. Churches have various reasons for allowing or even desiring such an arrangement. Those reasons often center on perceived results or simple convenience.

From an earthly perspective, autocratic churches sometimes seem to work well. However, the arrangement is not healthy for the church or for the leader involved. This approach is fraught with danger and should be avoided for the sake of everyone involved.

The Apostle John references one potential result of autocratic leadership in 3 John 9-10. He states, “I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not accept what we say. For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does, unjustly accusing us with wicked words; and not satisfied with this, neither does he himself receive the brethren, and he forbids those who desire to do so, and puts them out of the church.” 

Here was an autocratic leader who was out of control, refusing to be taught, to listen to others, isolating himself from believers and even excommunicating some of the faithful believers, no doubt for challenging him. One may well ask what can be done when a man who has been given all the power takes such a turn. Even with apostolic authority to rebuke this leader, this was clearly a difficult situation for John the Apostle. It was even worse for the church family. The problem might easily have been avoided if the church had refused to allow this man to put himself (or to be put) in a position of such unbalanced power.

The autocratic system of church polity is based on the idea that God has given to each church a single elder at a time. The lead pastor is said to be that exclusive elder. He is given sole elder authority to oversee the entire function of the church.

Elder authority is clearly taught in Scripture. Elders are to have actual power to lead, make decisions and guide the general functioning of the church. What is not established as a standard of Scripture is for this authority to rest on one man only when it is possible to have multiple elders in a single congregation. Churches should pray and work toward having multiple elders who share the responsibility of oversight.

Rule by two or more elders working together in a single church is clearly established as the objective for New Testament churches. James 5:14 says, “Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.” James use of the “plural” for elders and the singular for church. These words put together this way can only mean that there were two or more elders in the single church mentioned.

In Philippians 1:1, Paul writes, “Paul and Timothy, bond-servants of Christ Jesus, to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, including the overseers and deacons.”   “Overseer” is a title used interchangeably in Scripture with the term “elder.” The church at Philippi had more than one overseer (a body of leaders distinct from the deacons).

In 1 Timothy 5:7, Timothy is instructed, “Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.” Since Timothy was the lead pastor of a church, we may conclude that he was receiving instruction on how the elders (plural) were to be treated within the single congregation where he served. (The same situation applies in 1 Timothy 5:19-20). More than one elder per congregation is clearly the expected standard in Scripture.

What if you don’t have any elders?

If a church declines and looses elders for health reasons, job transfers or even death, is it no longer a biblical church when it gets down to one elder? Is it unbiblical to begin a new church with less than two elders? Is it possible for a church to embrace elder rule, but having no biblically qualified elders yet, to be a biblical church in spite of this lack?

The book of Acts provides definitive answers to all of these questions. In Acts 13 and 14, Paul preached in the cities of Lystra, Iconium and Antioch. Many people were saved in those places as God blessed the preaching of the gospel. Since no new convert is ever to be made an elder (1 Timothy 3:6), those new congregations had no elders for a time, Paul had moved on to new places of service without appointing elders, since no one was yet qualified. In Acts 14:21-23, we are told that Paul returned to those same cities and appointed elders for them in every one of their churches. Sufficient time had passed to observe who was gifted and qualified, and elders were appointed. But for a time, these were biblical churches, but had no elders until such time as God blessed those men seeking to serve as spiritual leaders. 

In new churches or struggling churches where no man, or only one man, is qualified to be an elder, the church need not disband or consider itself unbiblical over its lack of two or more elders. Special care must be taken until the leadership can rest on more than one man. This is a challenging time that carries specific dangers for a church. However, this temporary condition is not necessarily sinful. 

Men in the position of being the single elder of a small church must be careful to remain accountable to others within the flock. Seeking input from other biblical churches is a great help. By God’s grace, he carries his people through such times. Churches must trust God as they diligently pray for and seek to have biblically qualified elders to share the leadership load.

There is a significant distinction between a church that temporarily has fewer than two elders and a church that chooses an autocratic system of church government as an intentional objective. 

A period of development for raising up an elder body is a normal part of growth for a new church and may be a necessary part of strengthening an existing church. 

An intentionally autocratic system is not a normal or healthy condition for any church and will be rejected by wise leaders and wise church-members alike.

Is the Church a Democracy?

Is the Church a Democracy?  You know, should congregants vote on such matters as leadership appointments?  Many denominational groups believe the church must operate by congregational vote.  Majority view prevails, and whatever is voted on with a winning percentage of the voters, becomes law within the body or congregation.  

The question though should be... is that the church is designed by God to function by majority rule through the voting of members of the congregation. As the phrase “democratic process” implies, each member in good standing has equal input in decision making. 

Congregational voting among early denominations, dates back at least to the mid-seventeenth century. At that time, most Christian congregations selected their leaders by popular vote. From a human perspective, this is a very long history. But is it long enough?

Is congregational voting the biblical model for church function?

In answering that question, one must distinguish between a consensus and a vote. It is clear that Scripture encourages a consensus among church members. We are commanded to have one mind. Philippians 1:27-28 says, “Only conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ; so that whether I come and see you or remain absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel; in no way alarmed by your opponents.” Having one mind must be the standard for God’s church on matters of doctrine and certainly in the area of leadership.

In the New Testament, we see this pattern worked out in the church at Jerusalem. In Acts 6, when men were selected for the distribution of food to the Hellenistic widows at the recommendation of the apostles, it says, “And the statement found approval with the whole congregation; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch” (Acts 6:5).

This passage clearly indicates congregational involvement. It clearly indicates that there was a consensus, since “the statement found approval with the whole congregation.” It also clearly indicates that a choice was made. What the passage does not mention is that a vote was taken in order to make that choice. Nor was the action initiated by the congregation. That was done by the apostles (men who held their positions without any human vote having taken place).

Churches tend to assume a vote was the means to reaching the consensus in Acts 6, but this assumption does not hold up well under scrutiny. Even when voting takes place, the vote never produces a consensus and seldom reveals one. In practical reality, a congregational vote is a choice of “yes” or “no” to a proposal that has been made. That proposal may not address the concerns of many in the congregation. Discussion is limited to the distilled idea about to be voted on. In casting a vote, the voter is sometimes choosing the lesser of two offensive options and will not be satisfied with any outcome. When the church’s vote is not unanimous, congregational voting may well create disharmony rather than consensus.

Consensus is far more likely to be reached through good communication between leaders and the congregation, without Roberts Rules of Order interfering with open discussion, and without limiting the content of the discussion to a single motion or the duration of the discussion to a single meeting. If a statement finds approval with an entire congregation, the leaders and the people will know it without a democratic process.

In Acts 15, the Jerusalem counsel reached a consensus regarding Gentile believers. Acts 15:22 states, “Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas.” This passage, like Acts 6, lacks any statement to indicate that a vote was the means of reaching consensus within the leadership body or the congregation as a whole. They did what seemed good to them as a group. When they had worked through all the questions and reached a consensus, everyone knew it.

Scripture is conspicuously silent on the issue of voting. It was not a part of the cultures of the Old or the New Testament. It was not imposed on those cultures by commands of Scripture, as a good many other concepts were. It is not called for by Scripture. Church voting comes from western tradition, not from Scripture.

To this rather clear reality, many congregations respond that voting is not prohibited, so churches are allowed to use it as a helpful tool. In the absence of a command for churches to vote or not to vote, is there anything in God’s revelation by which one may decide the question?

One consideration is the frequent error of the majority. Throughout the history of ancient Israel it is demonstrated that the majority is often horribly wrong. This is true because the majority of people have not been gifted by God specifically to deal with the demands of leadership or qualified for leadership by the process given by God. As a result, they tend to be led astray (in large groups).

The biblical model for leadership within God’s church involves qualified and tested leaders making decisions on behalf of the body. This does not take place without the body’s involvement, but it does take place without granting equal power to those who have not been biblically qualified as elders. First Timothy 3 and Titus 1 are clear regarding qualifications and duties of these leaders. If equal input is given to those who have not been biblically qualified, the church in question is simply rejecting God’s commands regarding the function of his church.

The reason that voting is absent in Scripture may well be that voting itself is in conflict with the God-given structure for the church. Hebrews 13:17 commands, “Obey your leaders, and submit to them; for they keep watch over your souls, as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.” A vote that would remove decision-making responsibility from qualified leaders is in direct opposition to the command of this text.

Majority rule cannot bear the test of a careful study of Scripture. It is a system which stands in opposition to God’s design regarding church leadership and church function. As such, it is a concept that can be gently laid aside by the believer who is willing to test everything by the Word and to adjust his life accordingly.