The year was 1968. Little did I realize
how my move to Dallas would reshape my life and ministry. I had served on the faculty of Moody Bible
Institute in Chicago for thirteen years prior to accepting a professorship at
Dallas Theological Seminary.
I'd always been committed to the local
church and particularly to the area of Christian education. But as I faced the "winds of
change" that were whirling and swirling across our nation in the late
1960s and early 1970s, my students challenged me to take a fresh look at what
God intended the church to be. For the
first time in twenty years as a professor, I laid aside my syllabus in the
middle of the semester. My students were
asking questions I wasn't prepared to answer. Together, we immersed ourselves
in the book of Acts and the epistles to see just how Jesus Christ intended for
us to carry out the Great Commission.
It became a great adventure, and I certainly didn't anticipate that this
new direction would eventually lead me out of the "sacred halls of
learning" into a church-planting ministry.
One of the great principles that
grabbed my attention during this process was "plurality in leadership."
I'd always enjoyed working with a "team," but as I ventured into
church planting, I became even more committed to this concept. I saw no other "plan" in the New
Testament story — and still don't. To
be perfectly honest, I have always been very disappointed with what I've perceived
to be ministries built around the personality and abilities of a single leader.
Let me be perfectly honest. I was initially so committed to the
principle of plurality in leadership that I, at times, downplayed and, in some
respects, denied how important it is to have a strong primary leader. When I was asked, "who leads the
church?" I would always say, "The elders." In essence, that
was a very true statement. And when I
was then asked, "who leads the elders?" I'd answer, "We lead the church,
together." Again, this was a
true response, but I didn't answer the question adequately. The facts are that "I led the
elders" and together "we led the church." I was then, and always have been, the
primary leader in the Fellowship churches where I've served as senior
pastor. Unfortunately, in those early
years, I communicated a "model of leadership" I was not in actuality
practicing.
It didn't take me
long to discover I was overreacting to what I still believe is a distortion of
what God intended in the realm of local church leadership. I needed to discover a balance. Personally,
I believe we see this balance in the section of this book we call "The
Biblical Story," and, hopefully, you'll see this balance in "our own
story" as elders, as I share aspects of our own personal journey.
The first part of this book describes
the process my fellow elders and I have been involved in at Fellowship Bible
Church North where I serve as senior pastor.
The second part is the biblical story — what happened during the first
century as recorded in the New Testament.
Part 3 outlines the observations we've made as we analyzed the biblical
story. The culminating section outlines
the supracultural principles we've formulated based on this biblical,
historical, and cultural study.
In this final section, I've shared our
own experiences as we've attempted to apply these principles — particularly as
they relate to "forms" we've developed and reshaped over the
years. Our hope is that what we've
learned will motivate anyone who reads "our story," to evaluate their
own leadership model in the light of the "biblical story" and the
"supracultural principles" that emerge from this study. Though I rejoice at those things we've done
well, perhaps the most helpful illustrations are those things we could have
done better.
THE NEED FOR A PRIMARY LEADER
The New Testament definitely teaches
and illustrates that when there is a plurality of leadership, someone needs to
function as the primary leader of the team.
It may be
surprising to learn that the biblical story of local church leadership offers
little data to make the specific observation that someone must function as the
primary leader. However, we must
remember that this story is not a self-contained historical unit. Taken out of context, it can lead to some
very erroneous and impractical conclusions. In order to understand the accuracy
of this observation, it's imperative that we have a total biblical
perspective.
JESUS’ EQUIPPING
MINISTRY
The Focus
on Peter
When Jesus ascended from the Mount of Olives, He did not leave a "leaderless group" of apostles. Rather, Simon Peter was clearly their leader and spokesman, and John became his associate. While on earth, Jesus Himself had served as their primary leader. But during this time, He had taken nearly three years to prepare all of them to carry out the Great Commission. But, at the same time, He focused His efforts on equipping Peter to be their leader once He returned to the Father.
When Matthew, Mark, and John recorded
their Gospels, and Luke recorded his Gospel and the book of Acts, they
mentioned Peter's name dozens of times more than the other apostles (see figure
1). And when they recorded the
"events" involving Peter, these episodes far exceed the number
of events involving any other apostle.
For example, Peter is mentioned specifically in fifty-seven events
compared with his brother Andrew who is mentioned in only eight events (see
figure 11).
Of course, many more events could have
been recorded about Jesus and His association with these men (John 21:25), but
we can assume that what has been recorded represents what actually happened in
the larger setting. Clearly, Jesus
focused on equipping Peter to be the primary leader. Furthermore, he focused next on John who was to be his associate
(note again the statistics in figures 1 and 2).
Figure
1 Number of Times the Twelve Apostles’ Names
Appear in the Gospels and the Book of Acts The The
Book Total Gospels of Acts Times Peter
(Simon), Cephas 117 72 189 John 35 15 50 James 16 2 18 Andrew 12 1 13 Philip 16 1 17 Bartholomew
(Nathaniel) 0 1 1 Thomas 10 1 11 Matthew
(Levi) 8 1 9 James,
son of Alphaeus 6 1 7 Thaddaeus
(Judas) 3 1 4 Simon,
the Zealot 3 1 4 Judas
Iscariot 20 2 22
Figure
2 Number of Events that Focus on Each Apostle in
the Gospels and the Book of Acts Events* eVENTS Total IN
the Gospels IN Acts EVENTS Peter 35 22 57 John 19 9 28 James 10 2 12 Andrew 7 1 8 Philip 6 1 7 Bartholomew
(Nathaniel) 3 1 4 Thomas 6 1 7 Matthew
(Levi) 3 1 4 James,
son of Alphaeus 2 1 3 Thaddaeus
(Judas) 1 1 2 Simon,
the Zealot 1 1 2 Judas
Iscariot 7 2 9 *
These are not duplicated “events” in the four Gospels.
AN INGENIOUS STRATEGY
When Jesus eventually called Peter to
leave his role in the fishing business, this rugged Galilean was already the
primary leader in this enterprise. His
brother, Andrew, and his friends James and John were called his
"partners" (Luke 5:7, 10).
From a strategic point of view, the fact that Jesus initially chose
these four men first was ingenious. The social and psychological infrastructure
for this new leadership team was already in place. Andrew, James, and John already looked to Peter as their
leader. Furthermore, when Jesus added
other men to this team, Peter already stood out as the man who would eventually
lead them all.
The Upper Room
When the apostles returned to Jerusalem following Christ's ascension and entered the Upper Room, "Peter stood up among the believers" (Acts 1:15) and led them in making a decision to replace Judas. Jesus had prepared him for this moment, and everyone among the one hundred twenty in that room knew that Peter was their leader. Jesus' prayers for this man had been answered. After being tried and tested by Satan — and even after he had denied the Lord three times — he was now able to strengthen and lead his "brothers" (Luke 22:31-32). Though they were his fellow shepherds, they were still sheep and also needed a shepherd (John 21:15-17). Peter was to be that man.
PETER ON PENTECOST
Though Jesus' ultimate purpose in
calling these twelve men was not clear in their minds until He had ascended and
sent the Holy Spirit, all of them were ready to respond to Peter's
leadership. When he stood up on the Day
of Pentecost and explained from the prophet Joel what was happening, not one of
the apostles hesitated to follow him.
Even James and John had a new perspective. They never again tried to do an "end-run" around Peter,
trying to maneuver themselves into a position of power. And even James, John's eldest brother, took
a backseat to his younger brother who now assisted Peter in those early days of
the church. Again and again, we read
that "Peter and John" took the lead and, even though these two men
worked closely together, they were not co-leaders. Peter was continually the
primary spokesman, and John stood by his side affirming and confirming the
message of Christ's death and resurrection.[1]
BECOMING
SERVANT–LEADERS
Even
after this high and lofty moment in Peter's life, he still had a lot of growing
to do as a spiritual leader. And, as
his ministry continued, he learned more and more about what Jesus had meant
when He taught the first disciples about servant-leadership. This is why toward
the end of his life, Peter could write to the elders/overseers in various
churches and appeal to them ''as a fellow elder" (1 Peter 5:1).
We see this same relationship with the
other apostles. Though Peter was
definitely their leader, he was also a man under authority. When Philip went to Samaria and preached the
Gospel and saw many people become believers, we read the following: "When
the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they
sent Peter and John to them" (Acts 8:14).
This is a very important observation. Though Peter was definitely equipped and prepared to be the leader of these men, and did so with confidence, he never forgot Jesus' words in the Upper Room at the Passover meal — that he who is greatest is to be a servant. He did not act unilaterally without seeking advice and counsel and affirmation. He was definitely a servant-leader.
More Missionary Teams
We see the same dynamic when the Holy
Spirit assembled leadership teams to venture into the Gentile world. At first,
it was Barnabas and Saul (later called Paul) with John Mark as their assistant.
Initially, Barnabas was in the driver's seat.
But once they left Cyprus, it was "Paul and his companions"
who traveled on to the Galatian region (13:13). And on the next journey, it was once again Paul who led, this
time with three other "companions" — Silas, Timothy, and Luke
(see figure 3).
Figure 3 Paul's Team Ministry in the
Book of Acts THE TEXT TEAM MEMBERS MAIN GEOGRAPHICAL POINTS 13:1-13
Barnabas, Paul, & Mark From Antioch to Paphos to Perga 13:14-14:28 Paul
and Barnabas Perga to the
Galatian cities and back to Antioch 15:1-35 Paul
and Barnabas From Antioch to
Jerusalem and back to Antioch 15:39-16:1
Paul and Silas Antioch to Lystra 16:2-8
Paul, Silas, and Timothy Lystra to Troas 16:9-40
Paul, Silas, Tim. & Luke Troas to Philippi 17:1-15
Paul, Silas, and Timothy Philippi to Berea 17:16-18:4
Paul Athens to Corinth 18:5-17
Paul, Silas, and Timothy Corinth to Ephesus 18:18
Paul, Priscilla, &
Aquila Ephesus to Antioch 18:19-22
Paul Antioch to Ephesus 18:23-20:1
Paul, Tim., and Erastus Ephesus to Philippi 20:2-4 Secundus,
Gaius, Timothy, 20:5-23:30
Paul and Luke Philippi to Jerusalem 23:31-26:32
Paul Jerusalem to Caesarea 27:1-28:29
Paul and Luke Caesarea to Rome 27:30-31
Paul Two years in Rome
Tychicus and Trophimus
James and the Jerusalem Elders
In terms of a primary leader, we see
this beginning to happen in the church in Jerusalem when James, the half
brother of Christ, emerged as the key leader among the elders in
Jerusalem. When Peter was released from
prison and went to Mary's house, he definitely acknowledged James' leadership
role (Acts 12:17). Furthermore, during
the council meeting when they were resolving the law/grace controversy, Peter
represented the apostles (15:7-11) and James represented the Jerusalem elders
(15:13-21).
And years later when Paul returned to
Jerusalem, he went first "to see James, and all the elders were present"
(21:18). Call him what you will, James
clearly served as the primary leader.
Timothy and Titus
Both Timothy and Titus also illustrate how important it is to have a primary leader in any given situation. In these New Testament settings, they were apostolic representatives. Though their positions were not permanent in local churches, they definitely took charge in Ephesus and in Crete to make sure that qualified leaders were appointed. Based on what we see in the total biblical story of leadership, we can only assume that they were also influential in making sure a key leader was in charge — a man who could be trusted to lead the other elders as a servant-leader.
It's God's design — from the time He chose men like Moses, Joshua, Samuel, and Nehemiah in the Old Testament, and Peter, Paul, Timothy, and Titus in the New Testament — to always have a key leader in place to lead His people. Why would we think differently when it involves elders/ overseers in a local church? Those who respond to this question by explaining that a proper view of "spiritual gifts" makes it possible to function as a leadership team without a primary leader must also explain why there are no references to these "gifts" in the qualifications for elders/ overseers in the Pastoral Epistles.
AN OPEN-ENDED STORY
As stated earlier, the biblical story of local church leadership as recorded in the book of Acts and in the New Testament letters is "open-ended" and must not be taken out of context and made to stand alone. Jesus set the stage for the ministry of local church elders/ overseers in His equipping ministry with the apostles. With Peter as their leader, they were a prototype for bodies of elders/overseers in local churches. Though we're not told who led the elders/overseers on a permanent basis after Timothy, Titus, and other apostolic representatives left and went on to other churches, we can assume it happened immediately or shortly thereafter. When the New Testament ends and the apostles and their representatives passed off the scene, we can be sure that those men who were designated as primary leaders didn't suddenly appear overnight. They were already in place, which is clear in some of the letters written by the early church fathers.
We must remember that James modeled
this leadership role with the Jerusalem elders. Though James was never given a
specific title in the New Testament to recognize his unique leadership role,
nevertheless, others who "functioned in this role" later would be
identified as episkopoi—overseers or bishops.
A CHANGE IN DEFINITION AND FUNCTION:
THE LETTERS OF IGNATIUS
We do not encounter a change in definition and function until we read the letters of Ignatius, who himself served as the second "bishop" of Antioch in Syria. Written at some point near the end of the first century, these letters were not considered inspired Scripture. However, they have nevertheless been established as very authentic, giving us a very accurate picture of what happened in various churches when the "biblical story" ends.
As you read these letters, it becomes obvious that Ignatius faced deep concerns about false teachers and their impact on the doctrine and unity in the churches. Imagine for a moment facing these issues without the Scriptures as we have them today. Furthermore, the apostles, including John (who may have mentored Ignatius), had passed off the scene. Those claiming to be "apostles" and "prophets" and "teachers" were everywhere, often leading people astray.
A Three-Tier System
Facing the results of what he
considered a deteriorating situation, Ignatius moved the church toward a
three-tier system of leadership. The
primary leader of the elders/ overseers in various churches in the early years
of Christianity became "the bishop."
Using the freedom we see in the New Testament story to use different
terminology to identify spiritual leaders, Ignatius redefined the term episkopos
to refer only to the primary leader of "the elders." In other
words, the "presbytery" or "the body of elders" reported
directly to a single "bishop," and the "deacons" in local
churches basically reported to the "elders" and assisted them as well
as "the bishop" with their ministries. As this change took place, the "bishop" in a believing
community began to take on more and more authority, particularly because of
Ignatius' teachings (see "Ignatius' Initial Model of Influence,"
figure 4).[2]
Figure 4 Ignatius’
Initial Model of Influence BISHOP episkopos in Antioch ELDERS presbuteroi DEACONS diakonoi
Under Ignatius' influence, this
hierarchical structure impacted churches throughout the New Testament
world. Onesimus became the "bishop
of Ephesus" and Polycarp the "bishop of Smyrna" and Clement
became the "bishop of Rome" — to name a few of the most well
known. Unfortunately, this system set the stage for some of
the serious leadership abuses that have haunted Christianity for centuries (see
"Ignatius' Expanded Model of Influence," figure 5).
On the other hand, just because Ignatius developed an approach to leadership that was and still is out of harmony with biblical principles, it does not mean a body of elders/overseers in a particular local church do not need a primary leader.[3] "Shepherds" need a "shepherd" who will follow the example of the Great Shepherd, Jesus Christ Himself, who came not to be served, but to serve. Practically speaking, this means a primary shepherd should be a servant-leader. g
Taken from Elders and Leaders – God’s Plan for Leading The Church, by Gene A. Getz, Moody Press, Chicago, IL., 2003. Used with permission. Further reproduction prohibited without written permission from the publisher.