What does biblical church leadership look like and how does it function? This is probably the number one question I get asked. Biblical Church Leadership by Beresford Job is one of the best books I can recommend concerning this topic. Below is a short excerpt concerning eldership.
We must make an extremely important point now by way of a vital qualification. Although we are seeing that permanent, local church leadership (eldership, as scripture terms it) carries no executive or positional authority, we are not saying that it is therefore merely “a token affair.” As already established, the major default of biblical church leadership, in contrast with leadership as found in most unbiblical churches, is that of invisibility, as opposed to being high profile, and visitors to such a church would not, under normal circumstances, know if there were any elders or not, let alone who they might be. Remember, there are no services led from the front in a biblical church because, as we have seen, all present are free to take part as the Spirit leads them. Indeed, being also home-based, there isn’t even a front for anyone to be upat anyhow, and people are just sitting around in a circle in someone’s sitting room. Furthermore, any elders present just think of themselves as being “one of the lads” and would not for one moment be sitting there thinking in terms of them being a leader. However, this is not to say than any elder present would shrink from taking a lead if any developing situation required it, and as publicly as necessary too.
The fact that church government is consensual does not in the slightest mean that elders do not know when to step forward, or when they must be somewhat more definitive than usual about something, or when it is appropriate for them to give a strong lead concerning anything that is pressing. They would also, in any such circumstances, expect the church to give serious consideration indeed to anything they were saying as a result. As I have already noted, there may be times when there is no consensus over an issue that just cannot be shelved and, in such cases, if the eldership has a clear idea of the necessary way forward, then the church would be strongly advised to go that way. Being also guardians of the church, as we have also already clearly seen, elders have the serious duty of protecting it from attack, from both outside and from within, however the attack might manifest itself. We earlier saw what Paul wrote to Titus concerning elders, that an elder “…must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine, and refute those who oppose it.” (Titus 1:9) The Greek word Paul uses means “to refute in such a way as to put the person to shame.” Indeed, it is appropriate to think of elders, and church leaders more widely, by making a parallel comparison with Jesus being designated both as the Lamb of God and as the Lion of Judah. Wise and godly church leaders fully realise that there is a time to roar, just as there is a time for gentleness. This is the type of wisdom and discretion that (even more-so than the other leadership qualifications) primarily defines them, and stems from exceptional character and sound, godly living.
It is not, therefore, the case that biblical church leadership, such as I am advocating for, is in any way token, or merely some kind of toothless rubber stamp. Elders may not have executive or positional authority, but they have still been recognised by their church as having been fitted by God for the task because of their exemplary Christian walk. They have therefore been recognised precisely because they have proved themselves over the years, by personal example, to those they lead, and that, as I have already stated, gives them something arguably even more powerful than executive authority; and that is moral authority. It is the moral authority of being able to freely and effectively carry people along with them because of the profound trust engendered between all those concerned over the many months and years of close, personal fellowship.
If you’re a good swimmer you might want to take a deep dive into The Pastor Does He Exist? by David H.J. Gay. This book, at about 350 pages is not for everyone. However, if you like church history, this book contains details of how the church fathers introduced error and how future generations exacerbated this error.
The great causality in the corruption of the New Testament system, about which I have been writing, is not church life, or men. Far from it. Most damage has been done to nothing less than the glory of the person of the Lord Christ himself. Really? Yes, indeed!
The grievous consequence of this pastor business, the grievous error in it, is not some technical point of church order and structure. Certainly not. No! Rather it is this: When men invent a third order of minister, when they invent the notion of the pastor, they are in fact – albeit unwittingly – fulfilling a basic instinct ingrained in fallen man; namely, the need of every sinner to find a priest to represent him before God, and a visible priest at that. The widespread existence of a priesthood is no accident. Men and women all over the world, in all sorts of cultures, in every culture, crave a priest. It takes various forms, but the craving is there.
Let me stick with Christendom. How rife is the need for a priest in Christendom! I say ‘need’, but throughout Christendom, men demand, crave, hanker after such an individual. Many think they need a priest for their babies as they enter the world, so that he, with his ministrations, can get these babies right with God, will give them their so-called Christian name by sprinkling drops of water on them, and muttering some hocus-pocus over them. Some of these babies as they grow up, take it further. They need a priest – or even a bishop – to confirm their spiritual status in some way or another, and bestow the Holy Spirit upon them through the laying on of his hands. They need a priest to administer the communion to them. They need a priest to make their marriage ‘proper’. They need a priest to offer them words of comfort when they pass through affliction. They need a priest to absolve them from their sins. They need a priest to tell them the words of God. Above all. they need a priest who will make sure that all is well at their death, and will ensure their safe and certain passage to the realms of bliss. Men hanker after a priest, I say; they crave the comforts of a professional minister and his religious ministrations. At all stages of life, they want a priest to perform the rites of passage for them.
Reader, do not make the mistake of thinking the above paragraph applies only to those churches which openly speak about having a priest. Far, far from it! Many believers and churches are guilty of it in some form or another – not excluding those who are most vehement in their dislike of the word ‘priest’. Of course, most dramatically is it seen in the Roman abomination, with its so-called Vicar of Christ, and his priestly legions. But, distressing to report, the principle is not only a feature of Popery. It is alive and kicking in the evangelical world. Oh, we may have jettisoned the gaudy trappings of medievalism, yes, but we have replaced them with our own Reformed and evangelical trappings and props, right enough!
My point is, by breaking Christ’s ordinances on this subject, evangelicals (including the Reformed) pander to this craving. Ordinary – what a dreadful word – ordinary believers, so they are told, are lay people; they really do need a member of the special class – one of the clerics – to lead and preside over their worship, to minister holy things to and for them.
And it is but a short step from this for the ordinary people to let their clerics ‘do’ their worship on their behalf. Ordinary Christians cannot be expected to learn directly from God’s word, can they? They need the professional expert, the man of God, the Lord’s servant, the Lord’s sent-servant, the Lord’s anointed to teach them, don’t they? They need a professional minister to pray for them, not infrequently to pronounce (if not to bestow – but not, as it should be, to ask) God’s blessing on them as they leave the meeting house. It is not unknown for Reformed or evangelical men to pronounce the aaronic benediction (Num. 6:24-26) upon a congregation at the close of a service, even with uplifted hands, palms facing the congregation – copying Aaron who addressed the people, not God, with this benediction (Num. 6:23). Do such men not fear they might be trespassing on Christ’s prerogative (Luke 24:50)? Or, worse, are they aping him? No man today has this right or power. If 2 Corinthians 13:14 is thought to justify it though it needs proof that Paul was not simply praying there – it was an apostolic blessing. Compare Romans 1:7; 15:13; 16:20,25-27; 1 Corinthians 1:3; 16:23; Galatians 1:3-5; 6:18, for example.
For many ‘ordinary’ believers, in their need, their professional pastor counsels them. In their ignorance, he guides them. In their sin, he intercedes for them. Nothing wrong with this, of course. Except… when the pastor takes the place of Christ. And, not infrequently, he does. Hackles will rise at this, but I say it again. For the ‘ordinary’ believer, too often the visible pastor is more real than the invisible Christ. Yet all these vital ministries belong to Christ. They are properly his, and only his. He is the Pastor of his people. But, once the human priest has got his feet under the table, he will eventually replace the Son of God.
Don’t miss a blog. Sign up below for my bi-monthly newsletter. Thank you.
Below is the second excerpt from Safe Houses of Hope & Prayer by R. Maurice Smith. You can find out more about Maurice by going to his website risingrivermedia.org. The first excerpt can be accessed by clicking here.
I would dare say that most Christians in traditional institutional churches never achieve or experience genuine fellowship (what I would prefer to call genuine community). Why? Because genuine fellowship is messy, takes work and requires perseverance. For time pressed leaders, it is much easier to teach people to death with impressive Bible notes in PowerPoint presentations than it is to work through the personal issues which stand in the way of genuine community. And lectures you can control are easier than dialogues which you can’t.
Our English word translated “fellowship” is the Greek word koinonia which comes from the Greek word koine, meaning “common.” Fellowship is the holding of certain things in common. In the life of the organic house church it is a mutual sharing of our lives together. We share a common life in the Kingdom of God and drink from a common River of His Spirit in the bond of Christ.
The desire for genuine koinonia was not new in the ancient world, nor was it exclusively Christian. The Classical Greek philosophers had envisioned a utopian fellowship that they described as koinonia. But all classical attempts to achieve this koinonia by human effort had failed miserably. But now, through the death and resurrection of Christ and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, God had accomplished in the Church and the Kingdom of God what the efforts of men throughout the ages had never achieved: genuine fellowship. And this fellowship, this genuine koinonia, was manifested in the organic house churches of the New Testament where believers shared their lives with one another. They shared meals together in one another’s homes. They prayed together, endured persecution together, worshiped together and, at times, they even died together. They preferred one another’s company above all others and gave sacrificially to meet each other’s needs. To express it in contemporary terms for today, these early house churches were made up of people who loved to hang out together. They shared an affinity an attraction based on common interests – that surpassed the natural – it was supernatural. True koinonia or fellowship means that as Christians we share a common life in the Kingdom of God.
A quick word is in order at this point about genuine koinonia or community versus pseudo-community. In genuine community the reality is that baggage happens and this frequently results in conflicts. But mature believers look past the conflict and work together to “bear one another’s burdens” (Galatians 6:2) and help each other unpack their baggage and resolve their conflicts. Unfortunately, this is a new experience for many people who have only experienced the pseudo-community of most churches (traditional and otherwise).
In his excellent book The Different Drum Dr. M. Scott Peck describes pseudo-community this way:
“The essential dynamic of pseudo-community is conflict avoidance. The absence of conflict in a group is not by itself diagnostic. Genuine community may experience lovely and sometimes lengthy periods free from conflict. But that is because they have learned how to deal with conflict rather than avoid it. Pseudo-community is conflict-avoiding; true community is conflict resolving.”
Genuine community, genuine koinonia requires intimacy, vulnerability and conflict resolution with both God and men. Genuine koinonia requires a willingness to work through differences, baggage and conflict. If we are to be successful as organic house churches and as Safe Houses of Hope and Prayer, then we must pursue genuine community in our house churches and create a safe place where it can take place.
I really enjoyed reading Safe Houses of Hope & Prayer by R. Maurice Smith. His writing is down to earth, comedic and full of wisdom. The excerpt below addresses how relational gatherings can transform messy people. You can find out more about R. Maurice Smith by going to risingrivermedia.org. Another excerpt from this book can be accessed here.
Let’s face reality, shall we. For several years now I have taught a simple maxim in our house church network: “Life is Messy.” If we look with honest eyes we quickly see that people’s lives are a mess. Their families are a mess; their marriages are a mess; their finances are a mess. And that messiness is most often (but not always) caused by sin and its ripple effects. This is true of the non-Christian as well as for the believer. For those of us seeking a Jesus-shaped spirituality in organic house church, our challenge is how to respond to the messiness of life (particularly other people’s lives) when it shows up in our living room. Over the years we have had just about everything from divorce to demonic manifestations show up in our living room. That’s the challenge (and the blessing) of organic house church. But the messiness of life raises issues of how we deal with issues of sin and its consequences in the lives of those around us as we seek to lead people into the Kingdom of God.
Generally speaking, there are two basic ways such messes can be addressed: 1) We can attempt to create religious rules (“Do these ten things and God will love you and we may let you back into our house church!”) designed and intended to clean up messes and prevent sin, or 2) we can seek God for the inward transformation of the heart and life which overflows in obedience to God.
Brandon and Alondra know how to handle all kind of messes.
The choice between these two approaches for dealing with issues of sin and the messiness of people’s lives, the choice between outward religious conformity to rules versus trusting God for the inward spiritual transformation of the individual, will eventually confront every organic house church. And how you respond will define your ministry and your walk.
I want to urge you to believe God for the inward spiritual transformation of people’s hearts, in spite of the messiness of their lives, rather than allowing yourself to walk in a spirit of control and religious legalism. Every ministry, including the organic house church which meets in your house, will eventually be defined by two things: What it stands against, and what it stands for. As organic house churches and Safe Houses of Hope And Prayer, we must stand against sin and the kingdom of darkness in all of its manifestations, and against any spirit of control and outward religious conformity which believes and teaches that you can fight spiritual darkness with man-made religious rules. We stand for the Kingdom of God in all of its righteousness and holiness, and for the genuine spiritual transformation of the individual heart which will overflow in obedience to God.
Is your life a mess?
Here is where life gets complicated and messy. You see, in order to deal with or prevent the sins which they see in others, people and ministries are constantly tempted to create rules of outward religious conformity. We fail to comprehend Paul’s description of the Law in 2 Corinthians 3 as representing a ministry of death and which offers only a fleeting, temporary glory. All too often we fail to realize that, if the Law of God brought only death and condemnation, any laws and rules of men can only do worse! Religious legalism is like fools gold. In the end it is a worthless disappointment, but one which leads many people astray before the truth is discovered.
But because men are sometimes desperate for any kind of glory, however fleeting, they will pursue even a temporary and fading glory which they can control, rather than a greater abounding glory which only God by His Spirit can give. And there’s the rub. A religion-shaped spirituality made up of legalism and outward religious conformity places trust in ourselves to conquer sin and to clean up life’s messes by our own efforts. But a Jesus-shaped spirituality seeking spiritual transformation must always trust God, for He alone gives His Spirit without measure.
What does this mean for Safe Houses of Hope And Prayer and organic house church? And why is this an issue? It means that in both word and deed our message MUST be that we are not here to call anyone to obey our set of rules. We are here to proclaim the Kingdom of God and liberty to the captives. We are here to proclaim that God wants to transform people from the inside out, to deliver them from the ministry of death and condemnation and to introduce them to the abiding and abounding glory of God in the face of Christ. To the extent that we impose our man-made rules of outward religious conformity, we short-circuit the work of God’s Spirit and offer the fool’s gold of believing that personal transformation will come as the result of keeping a set of rules.
Sign up below to receive my bi-monthly newsletter. Blessings.
Timothy Germain has created this great little PDF, 69 pages with images and graphics. Solid material and easy reading that can be sent to a friend to introduce them to House Church. This can also be used as a study guide for current groups. The PDF is free to download. I have also included a sample page below.
I’ve read a few books by Stephen E. Atkerson and it seems his model of House Church or Small Church is a bit of a mystery to me. The Second edition of New Testament Church Dynamics was published in 2024 and contains some interesting concepts not found in most books on the subject. I hope he has success and people do life well under his ministry, but I can’t recommend his book. You can read some excerpts below.
Aberrant Theology The lure of a participatory meeting might attract those looking to promote an eccentric doctrine. This is another situation where leaders are needed. Timothy, stationed in Ephesus and temporarily functioning as an elder, was to “charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine” (1Ti 1:3). One qualification for an elder is that he must “be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it” (Titus 1:9). Similarly, Titus was told: “Exhort and rebuke with all authority. Let no one disregard you” (Titus 2:15). John warned about a known deceiver: “Do not receive him into your house” (2Jn 1:10). The prevention and correction of error is one reason elders are needed.
One way to filter out doctrinal error is for the church to have an official statement of faith. Remarks made during the church meeting must be consistent with the belief statement. Members with odd beliefs should not be free to publicly express them. In addition, only brothers who are in good standing with the church should be allowed to share. Each week, an announcement should be made that only church members are permitted to speak. The leaders are the gatekeepers for would-be speakers.
Congregational Size Meetings that are either too big (hundreds of people) or too small (fewer than ten or twenty) present hindrances to participation. The presence of too many people will be inimical to intimacy. It will intimidate the shy and inhibit sharing and accountability. Only a tiny fraction of those present in a big meeting would be able to share anyway (even if they had the courage). Too few contributions from people in a tiny congregation could make the meeting seem dull because of the absence of diversity of spiritual gifts. The typical first-century church, meeting in a wealthy person’s villa, might have sixty-five to seventy people in attendance. There were 120 in the upper room. Early church meetings comprised scores of people: not hundreds and, certainly, not thousands.
Overall I think Stephen promotes the idea of a small church in a building that allows others to speak and share a meal. This seems more of a hybrid between a typical organic church and the institutional church. Like I said above, if people are becoming more like Christ, then God bless them.
To receive my bi-monthly newsletter, sign up below. Thank you.
Secret Church by Maurice Smith is sobering, well written and important. Is the Church ready to face the darkness when the moral and spiritual lights go out? How does the Church prepare itself? I recommend this book and I look forward to reading other works by Maurice. The excerpt below is about getting started. Check out his website risingrivermedia.org.
“And day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart, praising God, and having favor with all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved” (Acts 2:46-47).
When the Church was born in the Book of Acts, beginning at Pentecost, those early disciples had no idea how to “do” Church. Like you, they had NEVER “done” Secret Church, or any other kind of Church gathering. But by Acts Chapter 7, after a span of only a few weeks, those early disciples had recognized gifted leaders, assigned responsibilities according to gifts, callings and needs and organized thousands of new converts into a network of organic house churches, spread out all over Jerusalem. These “Secret Churches” met regularly from house-to-house, shared meals together and shared resources to help those in need (read the first seven chapters of Acts to get the whole picture). What is truly amazing, by modern “church growth” standards, is that they did it all without a budget, a building, a professionally trained staff, any “how to” manuals, any church planting or church growth workshops, and no worship team. And they did it all while enduring persecution, first from institutional Judaism and later from Rome itself. It was Simple Church. It was Organic Church. It was Secret Church. It later became an Underground Church. But most importantly, it was Effective Church, effective for the times in which they lived. How effective? So effective that they were accused of turning the Mediterranean world upside down (see Acts 17:6).
There’s an important point here. Secret Church isn’t about a program. Secret Church is a lifestyle; a lifestyle of being a disciple of the Kingdom, lived out in community with other disciples of the Kingdom. That was true of Secret Church in the 1st Century, and it is true of Secret Church today. It is somewhat ironic that as our civilization collapses and devolves into that same moral and spiritual paganism which characterized ancient Rome, God is calling His Church back to being the counter-cultural witness of 1st Century Secret Church. Your journey into Secret Church truly begins when you and I embrace the biblical truth that we don’t “go” to Church. We “are” the Church, a small manifestation of the Kingdom of God where ever we happen to be, starting in our homes.
American Christians seem to have a built-in “default” button. Press it and the average American Christian will show up at a building on Sunday morning at 11 AM looking for a bulletin and a program, ready to sit for an hour-or-so while “others” (paid professional staff) “do” Church. That isn’t church, not in the biblical sense. As A.W. Tozer described it a generation ago, and little has changed since.
“When we compare our present carefully programmed meetings with the New Testament we are reminded of the remark of a famous literary critic after he had read Alexander Pope’s translation of Homer’s Odyssey: ‘It is a beautiful poem, but it is not Homer.’ So the fast-paced, highly spiced, entertaining service of today may be a beautiful example of masterful programming – but it is not a Christian service. The two are leagues apart in almost every essential. About the only thing they have in common is the presence of a number of persons in one room. There the similarity ends and glaring dissimilarities begin.”
Secret Church doesn’t have a default button. If it did, when pushed, the result would be a potluck in someone’s home, worship together, ministry to each other based upon individual spiritual gifts and needs, and maybe even a discipleship study. The focus would be on building community, worshiping together, making disciples and finding ways to sow the seed of the Kingdom by serving those in need. Making the mental transition to Secret Church will take both time and intentional effort. And we may quickly discover that we have less time than we think. The urgency to move forward may well be determined by events which are beyond our control.
Don’t miss a post, sign up to receive my bi-monthly newsletter. Thank you.
Off Course! is a great little book by Rick Sundblad. Rick highlights eleven perils, which the early church faced, that threw the church off course. If you want to learn about the early church fathers and how their theology changed the direction of the true church, this book is for you. The excerpt below is from a chapter addressing how to get back on track.
Discipleship is designed to help us become more like Christ. Biblically it is done when believers share their lives in Christ through meaningful discussions focused on the directives of the Scriptures and learning how to apply God’s truth to our daily lives. This is what true biblical fellowship, or the Greek word koinonia, is supposed to be about. It is life sharing, spiritual nurturing, a bonding together of the body of Christ. We could look at this like receiving a spiritual life transfusion, helping one another in the preparation process God uses to make us like Jesus to be servants of his grace. “Each of you should use whatever gift you have received to serve others, as faithful stewards of God’s grace in its various forms” (1 Peter 4:10).
But if you are discouraged from talking openly about your relationship with God how can you ever hope to really improve it? I know some may say, “I can talk about God whenever I want!” But please be honest, how often, if ever, do those conversations get to where the rubber meets the road spiritually? Where iron sharpens iron and genuine repentance is seen in people’s lives, and the relationship and connection with the body of Christ are made stronger? Or do those types of exchanges nicely end up with, “You should talk to our pastor.”
Living a life of true discipleship involves a daily walk with Christ that will be reflected in a desire to constantly focus on things that have eternal value. If we are closely walking with Jesus, not at a distance, we will have a much better chance of staying on his course. If we get too far apart, out of sight from WHO we are to be following, we will surely lose our way.
In Renaissance: The Power of the Gospel However Dark The Times, author Os Guinness gives this admonition against losing our way and the hard work it takes to prevent it.
“Do we know the world well enough to know how and where it is likely to be squeezing us into its mold? And do we know our faith well enough to know where the mold of our world will be beneficial and where it would be harmful? We are to be as close as we can be to our Lord’s call to us to be in the world not of it-a challenge that requires not only faithfulness and obedience, but discernment and the willingness to count the cost and say no to the world.”
“God loves the world-the people of the world, that is and in this sense so must we. But God does not love the spirit and system of the world that is set against his kingdom, and neither must we. Thus one positive reason to understand the world is our desire to love the world too and to witness to the world, for the world is the social setting within which people hear what we have to say. Equally, one negative reason to understand the world is the danger of worldliness, for unless we discern its spirit and its shape, the world will always threaten to squeeze us into its mold unawares.
When we truly live in the world but are not of it, the church becomes-under God-the greatest transforming agency the world has ever seen. The glory goes to God and the credit to the truth of the gospel. It is not we ourselves, but our living-in-truth that changes the world. Our small part is simply to live the truth of the way of Jesus to which we have been called [p. 88].”
Sadly, it appears we may have collectively wandered off course and gotten stuck in the morass of self-righteous pride, time-ignorant worldliness, lukewarm complacency and blind selfishness. Such a pity. We miss so much of what he wants. And don’t forget, if one part of the body is stuck, we are all stuck. “If one part suffers, every part suffers with it” (1 Cor. 12:26). May we sincerely repent and ask God to forgive us, and help all of his true church to get back on his charted course for his glory.
“For whatever was written in the past was written for our instruction, so that we may have hope through endurance and through the encouragement from the Scriptures. Now may the God who gives endurance and encouragement allow you to live in harmony with one another, according to the command of Christ Jesus, so that you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ with a united mind and voice” (Romans 15:4-5 HCSB).
Published in 2003 and edited by Steve Atkerson, ekklesia addresses the roots of biblical church life. This book is an earlier version of a book published in 2008 entitled House Church. You can read an excerpt of House Churchhere. The ten contributing authors make ekklesia a well rounded book and I recommend it. I especially enjoyed the two different perspectives on women being silent in the church. Below is an excerpt written by my good friend Jon Zens on how to deal with conflicts and problems that will eventually arise in any group.
No human family can function indefinitely without having to face a conflict or problem. Likewise, in Christ’s family there will be problems that must be resolved. Indeed, much of what was written in the New Testament had to do with correcting errors of teaching and practice among the saints. What guidelines does the New Testament give for working through the bumpy times that any congregation will inevitably face? 1 Corinthians 1:10 reveals some critical apostolic teaching in this regard.
First, it can be noted that Paul directs his exhortation to the “brethren.” These were believers in a city who maintained an ongoing relationship with one another in the bonds of Christ. They were committed to one another because of their common interest in the Gospel. It is this deep mutual fellowship (koinonia) in Christ that provides the backdrop for Paul’s approach to them with correction. Larry Crabb notes a vital perspective that emerges from this consideration, “Change takes place when truth is presented in relationship. Perhaps a relationship of deep regard and empathetic concern is the context for change, creating an atmosphere in which the truth of God can be heard nondefensively and thus penetrate more deeply…to be healthy, a church must present truth in the context of encouraging relationships” (Encouragement: The Key to Caring, Zondervan, 1984, pp.84,91).
This insight reflects what we saw in Romans 15:7. A loving, caring, accepting atmosphere must be the context for speaking the truth to each other in love (Rom.15:14). What reason would we have to think that Gospel truth will take deep root in a setting which reflected instead the modified line from the old song, “Where seldom is heard, an encouraging word”?
Next, Paul confronts the Corinthians with a very serious problem. Paul had a number of issues with them, but this is the one at the top of his list. They were clustering around gifted personalities, and by such schism were ruining the image of an undivided Christ. “Each one of you is saying, ‘I’m of Paul; and I’m of Apollos; and I’m of Peter; and I’m of Christ.” This sinful division was already occurring and had driven the saints apart from one another.
To solve this problem Paul appeals to them “to agree” about the wickedness of this situation. If they “agreed” then the divisions could no longer exist. The participle katartismenoi used in verse 10 is significant. It is from the same verb used in Ep 4:12, translated there as “equip” or “prepare.” It is the verb used when the disciples were “mending” their nets (Mt 4:21; Mk 1:19). We could loosely translate the verb, “mending with a view toward rendering something as functional again.” This idea also emerges again in Galatians 6:1, “restore such a one…”
As used in the context of 1Co 1:10, we can see an important implication of being “perfectly united in mind and thought.” While we are not given any of the details as to how they worked this out, at a minimum we can say that the Corinthians had to work through this matter until the breach was “mended” and they finally “agreed.” A process which results in unity is in view. They were already split apart, so in order for the torn garment to be repaired they had to: (1) take the apostolic instruction; (2) come back together; (3) face and discuss the word of the Lord together; (4) repent of their sins; and (5) be restored again to their original oneness.
The utterly amazing fact is that, even with all their problems, Paul assumes that the assembly has the spiritual resources to overcome their waywardness. Many posit that the problem-solving abilities Paul presupposes will only work among mature churches. But this is a bogus suggestion. Corinth was in many ways a very immature assembly, but Paul still expects them, for example, to deal with immorality in their midst (1Co 5) and to resolve their disputes internally without going to unbelieving courts (1Co 6).
The apostles taught that within the New Covenant community all were anointed by the Holy Spirit who enabled them to “test” and “discern” what the will of God might be (1Jn 2:20,27; 4:1; 1Th :21). The ekklesia, therefore, is first of all a discerning community, able to “bind and loose,” and thus is also a decision-making community. The very word chosen to earmark the New Covenant people of God, ekklesia, is taken from the secular political realm, not from a religious context. Ekklesia referred to a group of people with common interests getting together to accomplish certain business. It would be very similar to the town meetings that took place in developing America in the 1800’s. John H. Yoder observes that, “The word ekklesia itself…does not refer to a specifically religious meeting, nor to a particular organization: it rather mean the “assembly,” the gathering of a people into a meeting for deliberation or for a public pronouncement… The church is where, because there Jesus is confessed as Christ, people are empowered to speak to one another in God’s name… It is only in the local face-to-face meeting, with brothers and sisters, who know one another well, that this process can take place of which Jesus says that what has been decided stands decided in heaven” (“Binding & Loosing,” Concern #14, Feb. 1967, pp.2ff.; cf. TDNT, IV, p.336).
As you reflect on the New Testament epistles, it is quite striking that church leaders are not addressed separately, as if some special decision-making authority resided in them. Instead, Paul directs his writings to the entire assembly. For example, he does not rebuke the elders at Corinth for failing to deal with the immoral person or for not resolving the disputes among the brethren. He puts the nexus of responsibility on the whole congregation to carry out Christ’s revealed will.
Paul’s approach flies in the face of the traditional decision-making method, which views “the pastor,” or a body of leaders, as the source of decisions. Abraham Kuyper, for instance, removed the “right to judge” from the congregation and asserted that “the administrative authority over the church rests not with the members, but properly with the presbyters” (“Pamphlet on The Reformation of the Church,” The Standard Bearer, Oct. 1979, p.14). Jay Adams avers that “take it to the church” means “take it to the elders,” who then forgive or excommunicate (Ready to Forgive, Pres. & Reformed, pp.3-4). Such an interpretation is arbitrary, informed more by presuppositions than by the text itself. Elders will certainly be a part of the “discerning” process in the body, but the New Testament will not sustain the notion that elders are the process itself. The truth is, there is very little focus on elders in the New Testament, compared to the at least fifty-eight “one-another” imperatives found therein.
Both times Jesus uses ekklesia to identify His New Covenant people, He attaches “binding and loosing” to its function (Mt16:19; 18:18). This clearly indicates that we need to significantly broaden our ideas of what is entailed in doing “church.” Traditionally, doing church means going to a building, sitting in a pew, singing some songs, putting some money in a plate, hearing a sermon, shaking the pastor’s hand, and heading home to get your roast out of the oven. Most fundamentally, however, ekklesia means doing the whole gamut of kingdom activities with other committed believers in a local congregation. We are not used to thinking of resolving disputes within the body as “church,” but the essence of practicing ekklesia involves problem-solving and decision-making in an atmosphere of loving acceptance where Christ’s truth can be spoken in love.
It behooves us, therefore, to realize that it is expected of assemblies to “agree with one another” and to be “perfectly united in mind and thought”. This does not mean that we must have unanimity regarding every doctrinal nuance, but it does mean that we must be ready to work things out with our brethren as required in light of apostolic teaching. Paul was not surprised when congregations had problems, but he was upset when they failed to work through their problems together as a body. Here is a question each of us needs to face: when the inevitable day comes in my assembly that a problem surfaces, am I going to run and hide from it, or am I going to stand with the body and do my part to be part of its resolution? Real ekklesia requires hard work and commitment, but we must never forget that Jesus’ presence by the Spirit, persistent prayer, preferring others ahead of ourselves, and fervent love are where the battles are won.
I am not recommending the book House Church, edited by Steve Atkerson with eight other contributors. The book is a little over 300 pages with small font, single-spaced and information I did not agree with, making this an unpleasant slog. I did find one excerpt from Beresford Job that I thought was compelling and it’s highlighted below.
It is amazing to realize, though nevertheless a fact, that Jesus’ conflict with Israel’s religious leaders was not over the Mosaic Law. Jesus kept the Old Covenant to the letter. Apart from one attempt to trip Him up using the occasion of a woman caught in adultery, those who sought to do battle against Him did so for other reasons. What made them so angry with Jesus wasn’t that He went against anything in the Old Testament Scriptures, but rather that He challenged and went against something called the tradition of the elders.
We read in Mark’s Gospel, “Now when the Pharisees and some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem gathered around him, they noticed that some of his disciples were eating with defiled hands, that is, without washing them. (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they thoroughly wash their hands, thus observing the tradition of the elders; and they do not eat anything from the market unless they wash it; and there are also many other traditions that they observe, the washing of cups, pots, and bronze kettles.) So the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, ‘Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?”” (Mk 7:1-5). So what, precisely, is going on here? The answer is that whereas in theory Israel considered the Old Testament scriptures to be its final authority in matters of both faith and practice, the reality was somewhat different. The Jews actually paid far more heed to a system of teaching and practice known as “the tradition of the elders” or “the Oral Law.”
Pharisaic Judaism taught that when Moses was on Mount Sinai he was given not one, but two laws by God. The written law, or Mosaic Law, was recorded in the pages of the Old Testament. However, a second, secret law was said to have been passed on purely orally down through the generations. This secret law allegedly only came to public light in the years preceding the time of Jesus. When the inevitable conflict between these two laws and what they taught came about, Israel had to eventually decide which one was their actual final authority. After all, you may claim to have two things equally as your final authority (in this case the Old Testament and the Oral Law), but you can really only have one, and it is that which you obey if contradictions between the two emerge. Incredibly, Israel went with the Oral Law, and relegated the Mosaic Law, and thereby the Old Testament scriptures, to second place. Indeed, the Pharisees taught that it was more punishable to set against the tradition of the elders than the Old Testament scriptures.
What we must understand is that, at the time of Jesus, the nation of Israel lived under the authority of a system of teachings and practices which, in vitally important ways, went against other teachings and practices laid down in the Old Testament. They did this whilst claiming to have been led to do so by God Himself, under the pretext that this Oral Law had supposedly been given to Moses by Him. A system of completely man-made and merely humanly originated teachings and practices had therefore usurped and replaced the revealed truth of the written Word of God, yet under the claim that, even though they contradicted the Old Testament Scriptures, such traditions and teachings had nevertheless come from the Lord God of Israel Himself.
However, if we ask what the Lord God of Israel thought about this (supposedly) inspired Oral Law, then all we have to do is to look at Jesus’ responses to it: “He said to them, ‘Isaiah prophesied rightly about you hypocrites, as it is written. “This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching human precepts as doctrines.’ You abandon the commandment of God and hold to human tradition” (Mk 7:6-8).
Hypocrisy! That was the Lord’s clear and unwavering verdict on such traditions as were causing His people to go against the inspired traditions as revealed in the Word of God. To hold to merely humanly originated practice, whatever it may be, as opposed to biblical practice is, according to the Lord Jesus Christ, to “abandon the commandment of God.”
I think you’ll agree that this is pretty heavy duty stuff, and I can imagine the kind of responses even now being elicited from my readers: “Amen brother! That’s terrible what Israel did!” “Imagine that! Israel going against the Mosaic Law in favor of their own man made teachings and practices and traditions. No wonder God judged them!” “What? Abandoning the commandment of God by holding to merely human tradition? Unthinkable!” But I have to tell you that, for virtually two millennia, we Christians have been doing exactly the same thing.
It is incredible beyond words to realize that when it comes to our experience of church life, by which I mean the traditions, or established practice, which the vast majority of Christians unquestioningly follow, virtually all of it is based on a system of practices which, just like Israel’s tradition of the elders, has nothing whatsoever to do with the Word of God. Far from being what we see revealed in the pages of the New Testament, it rather originated from, and was implemented by, men who came on the scene after the Apostles of Jesus were dead and therefore after the writing of the New Testament was completed.
Many church traditions are not just different from what we see in Scripture, in the sense of being merely variations. They are actually the complete opposite of what we see in the New Testament. Far from being mere developments whereby biblical practices are applied in slightly different ways, they are rather practices which are actually at complete variance with what the New Testament teaches. They are practices that cause those adhering to them to go directly against what we see revealed in the Word of God, the very thing Jesus so unwaveringly and blatantly condemned.
Israel disobeyed the Old Testament at various points because of their beloved, yet totally wrong and unbiblical, tradition of the elders. The Christian Church has done exactly the same thing, only with the tradition of the Early Church Fathers. In England we call that a double-whammy, and it’s time we started to put it right. What are we going to go with? The traditions of man? Or the traditions of the Divine? I leave you, dear reader, to decide for yourself!
Receive my bi-monthly newsletter by signing up below.
