A Biblical-Historical Model of Church Order, Part III

Development of Complexity and Summary of the Model

The change from the apostolic to post-apostolic order in the local church was necessary to transition the newborn churches throughout the Roman world from the short time of dependence on the apostles and prophets to the long-term function of the churches without the apostles and prophets. In light of this new situation, the apostles and prophets reinforced their original offices of the elders (teachers, pastors, evangelists, etc,) and deacons (helpers, servers, ministers). Also, to maintain order and preserve the universal theological and practical principle of headship, the apostles appointed one of the elders in each church to serve as the overseeing elder, or “bishop.” At first this office of bishop appears to have been basically a prime among equals. The elders in a local church exercised considerable authority and held great responsibility, though the bishop provided central leadership, vision, and final authority on administrative matters, including the preservation of sound doctrine, the administration of the sacraments, and the general welfare of the elders and congregation.

As the centuries progressed, however, and especially as the church became a legal religion and then the favored religion in the Roman Empire, the office of bishop was seen as a position of great honor and power, no longer a prime among equals, but a separate and higher office than the elders. In this system the bishop had broad independent powers over large regions. The elders (soon called “priests”) were responsible for carrying out the bishop’s work in their local church parishes. And deacons were the ministers who assisted the priests in the local ministry. As the churches developed greater complexity of relationships among bishops, additional levels of oversight were developed, including archbishops. Ultimately the bishop of Rome claimed to hold the place of primacy over all other bishops and archbishops in the universal (“Catholic”) church.

We can therefore discern a development from a relatively “low episcopal” form of church order established by the apostles and their delegates, to a “moderate episcopal” form in late antiquity, and finally to a “high episcopal” form in the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and Episcopalian traditions. The “low episcopal” form actually seems to have functioned at a time when local churches had some degree of governmental autonomy, though they always had a consciousness of their belonging to a greater universal community of churches and bishops, and often corresponded, fellowshipped, and shared in ministry together. These were not what we would call “independent churches,” but “interdependent churches,” each with its own local church structure and headship, but actively engaged in a meta-community of churches both near and far. To draw on a modern analogy, these local city churches functioned as a loose association similar to the Evangelical Free Church or, perhaps, the Southern Baptist Convention.

Summing up, the basic contours of the early church order are fairly clear in both the biblical and historical records. The threefold order of overseer, elders, and deacons as the pastors, teachers, administrators, and ministers of the local church is so early and widespread that it seems inconceivable that anybody but the apostles themselves established this as the church order they meant for churches to follow after their departure. However, as history progressed, the original low to moderate episcopal structure became more and more complex and bureaucratic, resulting in a hierarchical system seen in the Episcopal, Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox, and, to some degree, Methodist traditions. Though this episcopal model reflects the post-apostolic office of the “bishop,” it takes the office beyond the “prime among equals” we see in the early church to an almost monarchical status.

In reaction to this system many Protestants of the Reformed tradition, relying almost entirely on the apostolic model of elders and deacons seen in the Bible, as well as addressing their own State-sponsored church needs, developed a Presbyterian or Synod form of governance in which authority rested in hierarchical levels of presbyteries—local, regional, and national. Though this “presbyterian” system reflects the biblical and historical emphasis on the authority of the council of elders, it fails to take into account the post-apostolic appointment of the bishop as head elder and responsible leader of the local church. It also adds concentric rings of authority and bureaucracy that are not apparent in the Bible or the early church. In reaction to both episcopal and presbyterian forms, the Congregationalists, drawing primarily on modern concepts of constitutionalism, democracy, and independence, established a form of governance in which final authority rested in the local congregation of members meeting and voting. Strangely, such a church order does not reflect at all the apostolic or post-apostolic order, which over and over again emphasized the authority and responsibility resting on the shoulders of the bishop, elders, and deacons trained and qualified for the work of the ministry. Although congregations were the source of leadership and were often involved in approving the ordination of elders and deacons, they were not the primary center of authority.

It has become common for Evangelical pastors, teachers, and scholars—especially independent church Evangelicals—to say that the Bible does not have a prescriptive local church order, and that the question of church order is therefore up to us to determine what kind of governance works best in our own culture. Part of the reason why this idea has been so prevalent for so long is because it allows for unity between denominations and traditions that had at one time fought over questions of church polity and order. Saying the Bible does not prescribe any particular order allows us to live at peace with a plurality of church structures. However, the statement that the Bible does not present a church order can only be maintained if we fail to read the Bible in its actual historical context, looking at the obvious transition from the apostolic to post-apostolic ministry and allowing early Christian writings outside the New Testament to help paint a fuller picture of what this post-apostolic structure actually looked like. Sadly, Evangelicals have been great at studying the Bible, but not great at studying early church history—especially the earliest church history that would help them actually read the Bible in its historical context. In the last twenty-five years an explosion of interest in second century studies among Evangelicals has led many scholars to question the old, worn-out answer that the Bible does not prescribe a church order. Rather, I and many other scholars have come to critique many historical and contemporary forms of church governance, comparing them with the way the apostles established local church order near the end of their ministries. Though we patristic scholars may disagree on various details of how these offices functioned, the general contours of a biblical-historical model of post-apostolic church order are discernible.

To conclude, a biblical-historical model of local church order includes trained, qualified, and ordained deacons (who function variously as ministers, servants, assistants, etc.); trained, qualified, and ordained elders (who function variously as pastors, teachers, evangelists, administrators, etc.); and a single trained, qualified, tried, and tested overseer (also known as bishop, overseeing elder, senior pastor, etc.). Such a model incorporates the strengths of episcopal, presbyterian, and even congregational church models, while remaining faithful to the order established by the apostles.

A Biblical-Historical Model of Church Order, Part II

The Post-Apostolic Church Order (AD 70–)

In the previous post I described the prevalent local church order established by the apostles and their delegates during their ministry among the new churches throughout the world. However, because the foundational offices of apostles and prophets were temporary (1 Cor 12:28; Eph 2:20; 3:5; 4:11), and because the apostles and prophets exercised direct control over their various church plants, this model of church order could not continue beyond their passing. That is, after AD 70, when many original apostles had been martyred or began to otherwise expire, the need arose for itinerant apostles and prophets to establish a more permanent form of church governance that would survive them. Such a post-apostolic church order would not only have to be in continuity with what was already established in the middle of the first century, but it would also need to be reproducible from generation to generation.

We see the emergence of this post-apostolic church order already appearing in the later New Testament writings as well as the earliest post-New Testament Christian writings. These non-biblical writings are not themselves inspired or authoritative, but because they were written by those who ministered alongside the first generation of apostles, they help us see what the apostles actually established as the normative church order. They become vital historical sources to help us read the Bible in its actual historical context.

In the second half of the first century (c. AD 50–100), the Didache (or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) was written over the course of several decades as a basic “how-to” manual of church order, including an early Christian instruction on baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and other pressing issues. It was likely written by leaders in Antioch for use by churches in the region planted by that larger church. In any case, we see within the text of the Didache a transition occurring from the itinerant leadership of apostles and prophets to a more stable local ministry. In Didache 11.3, we read, “And concerning the Apostles and Prophets, act thus according to the ordinance of the Gospel,” indicating that when Didache was written the churches were still under the roaming leadership of apostles and prophets. In fact, the Didache explains how these local churches and Christians can tell a true apostle or prophet from false apostles and prophets. However, anticipating that these foundational ministries would soon be passing off the scene, the Didache also says, “Appoint therefore for yourselves overseers (episkopoi) and deacons (diakonoi) worthy of the Lord, meek men, and not lovers of money, and truthful and approved, for they also minister to you the ministry of the prophets and teachers. Therefore do not despise them, for they are your honorable men together with the prophets and teachers” (Didache 15.1–2). The “prophets” and “teachers” most likely indicate prophets and early apostolic delegates such as Timothy, Titus, and others who had been established over local churches to shepherd them in their infancy. What we see here is a maturing of the churches and a transitioning from apostolic/prophetic ministries to local permanent offices. Among these offices, too, is an unnamed individual office of the preacher of God’s word: “My child, you shall remember, day and night, him who speaks the word of God to you, and you shall honor him as you honor the Lord, for where the Lord’s nature is spoken of, there is He present” (Didache 4.1). Here a distinct individual responsible for speaking the word of God may be singled out for special honor and respect, something we have not seen yet in the typical order of the apostolic period.

We also see this same kind of individual leader already present in the book of Revelation (around AD 95). In the messages to the seven churches of Asia Minor, Jesus repeatedly addressed the “messenger” (angelos) of each church: “To the messenger (angelos) of the church in Ephesus write,” “To the messenger (angelos) of the church in Smyrna write,” etc. Though some have taken this to refer to an angelic being, the term angelos in Greek is a general term that simply means “messenger,” either human or angelic. It is thus used of human messengers in the Greek translation of the Old Testament (Genesis 3:2–4; 16:7–12; 1 Samuel 19:11–20) and in the New Testament (Matthew 11:10; Luke 7:24, 27; James 2:25). In Revelation 2–3, though, we can be quite confident that a human messenger is meant by angelos. In the Greek text of the messages in chapter 2–3, Jesus addresses the angelos in the second person singular, commending the “messenger” for the good done as well as condemning the “messenger” for his failings. Most people reading the English text do not realize that Jesus is not addressing the whole church in the second person plural, but the messenger (angelos) of each church, who is responsible for the welfare of the local church body (see especially Revelation 3:15, 17, 19). Angelic beings could never be condemned for sin and urged to repent, so angelos must refer to a human leader in the local church who exercised distinct oversight among the elders .

In another book, the Shepherd of Hermas, written in the city of Rome beginning at about the same time as Revelation, we see an indication of a man among the leadership of the church in Rome occupying a distinct position of responsibility. In Shepherd of Hermas, Vision 2.8.3, we read, “Therefore you will write two little books, and you will send one to Clement and one to Grapte. Then Clement will send it to the cities abroad, because that is his job. But Grapte will instruct the widows and orphans. But you yourself will read it to this city, along with the elders (presbyteroi) who preside over the church.” Clement is singled out as the one responsible for representing the church of Rome to other churches, for he sends and receives messages, similar to the “messenger” of each church in Revelation 2–3.

Around AD 95, this Clement of Rome wrote a lengthy letter on behalf of the Roman elders to the church in Corinth admonishing them to unity after suffering from schism. In this letter Clement actually gives us an indication that the apostles did, in fact, establish a permanent church order intended to endure beyond the death of the apostles. Clement wrote: “And thus preaching through countries and cities, they [the apostles] appointed the first-fruits [of their labors], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be overseers (episkopoi) and deacons (diakonoi) of those who should afterwards believe” (1 Clement 42). A little later Clement wrote, “Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the overseer. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect foreknowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry” (1 Clement 44). Thus, Clement explains that the apostles established a permanent church order to endure in the local churches after their departure. This church order included the overseers (elders) and deacons (ministers). However, we also see that Clement himself is functioning as a supervising elder/overseer, with distinct responsibilities of oversight in the congregation. This is consistent with the individual called the “messenger” in the book of Revelation.

Within a few years, this threefold order of overseeing elder, elders, and deacons would be widespread throughout the entire Christian world, indicating that this was, in fact, the order established by the apostles near the end of the first century. By the early second century the three offices in a local church began to have distinct titles. Whereas Revelation called the lead elder the “messenger” (angelos), and Didache simply called him the “one who speaks the word of God to you,” the need developed to give this particular leader a consistent technical title. The name “overseer” (episkopos), which had originally been synonymous with “elder” (presbyeros) came to be used to describe this individual leader of the company of elders. Traditionally, the word episkopos is translated “bishop.” The “bishop” (episkopos) in each local church served alongside the company of elders (presbyteroi) and in conjunction with the deacons (diakonoi), and the “bishop” was himself one of the elders.

Around AD 110, Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, had been arrested, tried, and sentenced to death by the Roman governor. While being transported by Roman soldiers from Antioch in Syria to Rome to be fed to the wild animals for entertainment, he was able to stop in several cities in Asia Minor and receive visitors from nearby cities. Through the letters of Ignatius we see quite clearly that the threefold order of bishop, elders, and deacons was widespread throughout Asia Minor. We know, for example, that Onesimus (perhaps the slave of Philemon) was bishop of the church in Ephesus: “I have received in God’s name your whole congregation in the person of Onesimus, a man of inexpressible love who is also your earthly bishop (episkopos)” (Ignatius, Ephesians 1.3). We also know that Ignatius had been visited in Smyrna by leadership from the church in Magnesia: “I was found worthy to see you in the persons of Damas, your godly bishop (episkopos), and your worthy presbyters (presbyteroi) Bassus and Apollonius, and my fellow servant, the deacon (diakonon) Zotion” (Ignatius, Magnesians 2.1). Also, the famous Polycarp, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who was appointed to his position by John, spent considerable time with Ignatius while the latter was in Smyrna. At one point Ignatius made this reference to the need for unity and submission to the established leadership in the church in Smyrna: “Pay attention to the bishop (episkopos), in order that God may pay attention to you. I am a ransom on behalf of those who are obedient to the bishop (episkopos), presbyters (presbyteroi), and deacons (diakonoi); may it be granted to me to have a place among them in the presence of God! Train together with one another: compete together, run together, suffer together, rest together, get up together, as God’s managers, assistants, and servants” (Ignatius, Polycarp 6.1).

Through numerous early church writings and historians, we know that Polycarp was the bishop of Smyrna, having likely been appointed by the Apostle John himself. We also know that in the church in Ephesus the bishop was Onesimus, perhaps the slave of the same name mentioned in Philemon. Many of these bishops, or “overseeing elders,” had been students of the apostles themselves and had been appointed to this position of oversight by the apostles, prophets, or their delegates.

Thus, what we see when the apostles and prophets pass off the scene is a distinct order of 1) overseer (episkopos), who was the presiding elder, or, in our modern term, the “senior pastor”; 2) the elders (functioning as pastors, teachers, evangelists, etc.), who had individual home groups or areas of pastoral responsibility; and 3) deacons (ministers, servants, administrators) who assisted the pastoral work of the elders. The congregation was not in charge. There was no distinction between a pastoral staff and elder board, and therefore there were not two leaders—chairman of elders and a senior pastor. There were no elders who were not pastors, nor pastors who were not elders. The senior pastor was also an elder and accountable to them, though he was responsible for leading, shepherding, teaching, and guiding the elders and the whole congregation.

This is the post-apostolic order that was established by the apostles themselves to continue on after their departure.

A Biblical-Historical Model of Church Order, Part I

Introduction

The purpose of this series of essays is to present a picture of early church governance by tracing the development of local church leadership from the earliest apostolic period (AD 40 to 90) to the early post-apostolic period (AD 70–150). I will argue that the original first century apostles and prophets, knowing that their particular foundational offices were temporary, established a distinct and identifiable local church order, with the intention that this post-apostolic order continue after their deaths. This church order is discernible in the New Testament texts when read in light of the actual situation in the earliest post-apostolic churches (AD 70–150).

In preview, I will argue that the apostles and prophets of the New Testament church intended that local Christian churches reflect a three-fold office of episkopos (overseer), presbyteroi (elders), and diakonoi (ministers). Though the actual names and titles of these three offices changed over a period of about fifty years, eventually they settled on these particular terms to describe the offices necessary for administering worship, ministry, and service in the local church. Today we might call these offices “senior/lead pastor,” “elders,” and “deacons.”

The Apostolic Church Order (AD 40–90)

During the widespread missionary activities of the apostles (Paul, Peter, James, John, etc.) and their delegates (Timothy, Luke, Sosthenes, Silas, Clement, etc.), we see a simple twofold church order emerge, established by the apostles and based on the order of the original church in Jerusalem. In the Jerusalem church the original twelve disciples established the order of “deacons” to assist them in carrying out the work of the ministry (Acts 6:1–7). These “ministers” or “deacons” as they came to be called, were taken from the congregation and were ordained to their ministry by the apostles through the laying on of hands and prayer (Acts 6:6).

In Acts 20:17, 28, we see a clear description of the ministry of the elders in a local church. Near the end of his third missionary journey around AD 58, Paul made a brief stop in Miletus on the western coast of Asia Minor. From there “he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders (presbyteroi) of the church” (Acts 20:17). We see that there was a clear identification of this group of leaders in that local city. After informing them of his determination of go to Jerusalem, he gave them the following charge: “Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers (episkopoi), to shepherd (poimaino) the church of God which He purchased with His own blood” (Acts 20:28). From Acts 20 we see the convergence of three key terms used to identify the leadership in the local church: presbyeroi (elders), episkopoi (overseers), and poimaino (to pastor or shepherd). At this stage in the development of local church order, “elder” and “overseer” were interchangeable terms, and these officers of the church were responsible for the pastoral work. There was no distinction between pastors and elders; these terms described the same office.

A few years later (AD 61), Paul wrote his letter to the Philippians, in which he addressed “all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, including the overseers (episkopoi) and deacons (diakonoi).” Thus, we are informed that the local church in Philippi had a leadership structure of overseers (synonymous with “elders” and “pastors”) and deacons (synonymous with “ministers”), distinct from the general congregation of “saints.” All of these offices, though, were under the direct authority of the apostles and their delegates.

At about the same time, Paul wrote to the church in Ephesus and revealed the distinct ministries current in the first century apostolic period. In Ephesians 4:11–12, he wrote, “And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists (euangelistai), and some as pastors (poinmenai) and teachers (didaskaloi), for the equipping of the saints for the work of service (diakonia).” In this list we see the foundational ministries of the apostles and prophets listed first. “Evangelists” may refer to apostolic delegates or, perhaps, to a type of leader in the local church (see 2 Tim 4:5). It is apparent, though, that “pastors and teachers” refer to those who are elders or overseers in the local church. It has been argued in the past that the Greek underlying “pastors and teachers” actually indicates a single office of “pastor-teacher,” but this view has been set aside in light of more recent research. Instead, it is best to see “pastors” and “teachers” as two types of elder and overseer ministries, so that within the office of “elder/overseer” there is a diversity of responsibilities: pastoral, teaching, and evangelistic. In any case, all of these offices were under direct authority of the apostles and prophets.

Near the end of Paul’s earthly ministry, he wrote his letters to Timothy, who was at that time in charge of the church in Ephesus. This is in continuity with the pattern of apostles and prophets (and their delegates) exercising direct authority over the local church leadership of elders and deacons. In this context, Paul wrote to Timothy, the “apostolic” leader in Ephesus, “If any man aspires to the office of overseer (episkopos), it is a fine work he desires to do. An overseer (episkopos), then must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will be take care of the church of God?), and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil” (1 Timothy 3:1–7). Here we see the general qualifications for the office of “overseer” or, as it is called in other texts, “elder.” The qualifications include teaching, managing, and shepherding.

Following this description, Paul deals with the other office in the local church, the “deacons.” He writes, “Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid gain, but holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. These men must also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach” (1 Timothy 3:8–10). He also gives qualifications for their wives and notes that they must be able to manage their own households well (3:11–13).

Paul then explains to Timothy why he is writing these things: “In case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth” (3:15). That is, Paul is both describing and prescribing how leadership in the local church should be ordered under the oversight of Timothy, Paul’s personal apostolic delegate. So we see emerging, with the absence of the apostle himself, a threefold ministry—the apostolic leader (Timothy), the elders/overseers/pastors/teachers/managers (the episkopoi) and the deacons/ministers (diakonoi).

It is important to point out that at this time some elders in the church of Ephesus were compensated for their service. First Timothy 5:17–18 states, “The elders (presbyteroi) who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, ‘You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing,’ and ‘The laborer is worthy of his wages.’” The church at this time was undoubtedly compensating those who devoted their lives to full time proclamation and teaching in Ephesus. The fact that some elders were compensated for their pastoral work did not mean they ceased to be elders.

Paul wrote a similar epistle to his delegate, Titus, whom he left in Crete. He wrote, “For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders (presbyteroi) in every city as I directed you” (Titus 1:5). In his description of the qualifications for these elders, he uses the alternate term, episkopos: “For the overseer (episkopos) must be above reproach as God’s steward” (1:7). The responsibilities of the elders/overseers include moral qualities, but also the ability to “hold fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.” That is, the elders/overseers were primarily responsible for doctrine, teaching, and correction.

Around the same time (AD 63–64), the apostle Peter also made mention of the kind of apostolic church order that existed under the ministry and authority of the apostles and prophets. He wrote, “I exhort the elders (presbyteroi) among you, as your fellow elder (presbyeros) and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd (poimaino) the flock of God among you, exercising oversight (episkopeo) not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock” (1 Peter 5:1–3). In this passage, the same trio of descriptions is used of this body of leadership: elder, overseer, pastor, indicating that these various responsibilities rested within the same group of leaders in the churches. In fact, Peter, an apostle, counted himself among the “elders,” even though he exercised direct authority over the others as an apostle.

I must at this juncture point out that this apostolic church order only prevailed as long as the apostles, prophets, and their delegates were present among the churches to exercise apostolic oversight and leadership. The apostles and prophets (Paul, John, Peter, James, Timothy, Titus, etc.) exercised authority over these churches, appointing and instructing elders, ordaining them to their offices, and serving as advisors and supervisors. Also, it was typical for each elder/overseer, probably in conjunction with a deacon, to be responsible for individual “home churches” within the larger city church. We see this described in detail in Paul’s letter to the Romans (AD 57–58), where he mentions several names and those congregations that met in their homes (Romans 16:3–15). That is, we are not seeing here a single body of believers with multiple leaders, but rather a single local city church composed of smaller groups, with each group under the care of an elder/overseer/pastor working with one (or more?) deacons/ministers. Thus, each local city/community church was composed of smaller identifiable groups each under the care of an elder and deacon.

A Biblical-Historical Model of Church Order, Part IV

The Problem of Contextualization

Though I have presented what I see as the contours of the biblical-historical local church order as it developed from the apostolic to post-apostolic period between AD 40 and 140, the practical question becomes, “Is this early church order descriptive or prescriptive?” That is, though the apostles and prophets established a particular church order in the late first century, are we Christians in the twenty-first century bound to this apostolic church order? We can approach this question with three models: primitivism, progressivism, or progress through perspective.

Primitivism seeks to adopt the ancient church order and practices, transforming our current forms to match—as closely as possible—the order of the early post-apostolic churches. However, such an approach fails to realize the unique historical and cultural situations of both the early churches and our twenty-first century churches. If the apostles had lived in twenty-first century North America, perhaps their order would have been different.

Progressivism seeks to reinvent Christian forms and structures for each new generation. A radical form of progressivism questions everything from doctrine to practice and has led many branches of Christianity into liberalism. But a more moderate progressivism tries to distinguish between form and substance, asserting that the message (theology) must be preserved, but its medium (method of communication) can change with new cultural contexts. In a progressivist approach to church order, the apostolic theology is important, but apostolic methods of doing church and ministry are often downplayed or ignored.

Progress through perspective seeks to adapt the apostolic teaching for the unique twenty-first century context. Generally, this mediating position is compelled to follow the apostolic teaching as its primary guide, but not in a way that forces a second century cultural form into a twenty-first century context. This position acknowledges that some things simply do not fit in our current cultures, but thinking through these issues is a difficult process that requires time, deliberation, and constant re-evaluation.

Where do I think we stand? In 2 Thessalonians 2:15, Paul wrote, “Stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.” In light of this New Testament command, if we can actually determine the kind of local church order that was established by the apostles, I believe we are obligated to at least pay attention to it as we think about our own twenty-first century church order. It should not necessarily radically transform our current model, but as we seek to adjust our model of church order, the post-apostolic model should at least reasonably inform our decisions. As we make adjustments, it must be thoughtful and prudent, not merely pragmatic and convenient.

However, we must never forget that the apostolic age was very different from our own, and adopting the biblical-historical model without adapting it can be disastrous. For example, the earliest bishops and elders were hand-picked by the apostles and their delegates. Today we do not have apostles to appoint our pastor and elders. Also, the early churches enjoyed much more intimate inter-church community, so that each bishop and church was accountable to other bishops and churches in the region. Today our independent churches and separate denominations do not have this kind of mutual accountability. Another difference is that the early church did not have a complete canon of New Testament Scripture and therefore the bishop and elders had to be relied upon to preserve and defend the oral teaching of the apostles. Today we have a full canon of Scripture and final authority rests in the inspired, inerrant Word of God, to which all pastors and elders must submit. Similarly, the early church faced great challenges from false teachers, threats that demanded a strong leadership structure to provide doctrinal guidance in the midst of a hurricane of heresies. But today we have two thousand years of theological development and reflection, so that some of the issues that caused such concern in the early church are unquestioned by most believers. Differences like these must be considered as we approach the issue of how the biblical-historical model of church governance ought to inform our own approach. In short, we must proceed with caution.

However, I believe the model should serve to at least inform us as we think through questions of church order, especially in constitutionally-established independent churches and new church plants. As I reflect on “typical” (if I can use this term safely) tendencies in independent churches with regard to church governance, I would suggest considering the following, all of which would require careful, wise, and prayerful thought.

1. Consider unifying the pastoral staff and Elder Board into a single Council of Elders. I believe it is impossible to justify biblically or historically a separation of elders and pastors into two distinct groups. Biblically, all pastors must be elders. It seems permissible to appoint (i.e., ordain) certain elders to full time work in preaching, teaching, and evangelism, but being thus appointed does not mean these workers cease to be elders. (See 1 Timothy 5:17–18 for the biblical precedence of compensating elders for their pastoral work). In the biblical-historical model, elders did not merely oversee the work of pastors, teachers, and evangelists, but they were the pastors, teachers, and evangelists. Wouldn’t full time “pastors” as members of the elder board make the most biblical sense?

2. Consider appointing the Lead Pastor as Chairman of the Elder Board. If our “Lead” or “Senior” Pastor is functioning similar to the “overseeing elder” (episkopos) of the post-apostolic model, then should he not also function as the head of the Board of Elders? This would mean, of course, that we would consider restoring the Pastor to his biblical place as the head of the local church—not in a dictatorial sense, but in a sense of always being accountable to his fellow elders while providing the personal point of leadership. This would render the office of “Chairman of the Elder Board” redundant, as the Pastor would be the Chair.

3. Consider revising Elder and Deacon term limits. Nothing in the biblical-historical model suggests that elders and deacons in a local church served for a short time on a rotating basis. In fact, according to Clement of Rome’s recollection, the apostles had appointed presbyters until death. Would longer terms with less turnover better fit the biblical-historical model? Or, to keep elders and deacons accountable to the congregation, would two consecutive three-year terms and a sabbatical year of rest help create some greater continuity and stability? Considering that elders and deacons in the early church were appointed for life, would some modification here make sense?

4. Consider revisiting qualifications for Elders and Deacons. In light of the above suggestions, especially the possible return of pastors to the elder board and revising elder and deacon term limits, the question of qualifications for leadership would need to be revisited. Because elders were the teaching, pastoring, and preaching leaders of the early church, are we drifting from the biblical model if our elders are not functioning in these roles? Should those who are currently teaching, pastoring, and preaching be the elders (i.e., those who are already functioning as the biblical elders without the actual office)? Several questions here need to be asked. Since there is no biblical distinction between elders and pastors, should our elders be trained, ordained men, meeting the same qualifications as our pastors? Why should our requirements for elders be less than that of pastors? These are simply questions that need to be raised.