Lesson #2 in series
Leadership “In” The Congregation
Introduction: Eph 4
History is filled with examples of how men imposed their traditional institutions upon their understanding of the Bible; and our age is no exception.
And, it appears that often we establish understandings and practices upon comparison with and imitation of other congregations; the congregations we have known and loved "where we came from," or, the better known and apparently successful congregations we constantly are hearing about.
In all fairness, while "Madison," "Broadway," and all the other great congregations of our day, as well as all of our former congregations that we have known and loved, may well be within the bounds of Scriptural authority (and we hope that they are), they must not become the basis of judgment for our congregation's government. We must continue to go to the source of authority, whether it is "like" any other congregation we know, or not like any of this.
J. Ridley Stroop, in his great book “The Church of the Bible,” starts his chapter on “The Organization Of the Church,” with these words.
This is the topic about which there has been much misunderstanding, that has given rise to many misinterpretations of Bible teaching, and in turn has led to a multitude of conflicts in religious thinking, resulted in much strife and numerous divisions. The seriousness of the situation is portrayed especially in the fact that many of the divisions caused have been among those people that have been most zealous in their efforts to comply with the Bible teaching in every way. When a misunder- standing of a Bible concept causes divisions where there had been no division causing skife by misguiding one's zeal for the truth, it is surely time to carefully and prayerfully re-examine the concept and to make correction where correction is due to be made.
He continues:
First let us recall the fact that at no place in the Bible record is there given a fully detailed description of the organization of the church. This subject was never formally presented by any one writer, but the information must be gathered from a variety of statements made by different writers under different conditions. None of the authors of the books of the New Testament ever seems to have had an occasion for writing such a description in full but made a few statements here and there where an occasion arose that made them appropriate or necessary to the understanding of those to whom they were writing. . . . This practice naturally makes us like the blind men who went to see the elephant. Each examined a different part of the elephant, and each had a different concept of the whole elephant.
A reminder of our motives
Let’s go to our text
1. It is the duty of every Christian "to be eager to maintain the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph. 4:3). He is commanded by the Lord "to seek the things that make peace" (Rom. 14:19). He as an individual is commanded by the Lord: "If possible, so far as it depends upon you, live peaceably with all"(Rom. 12:18). These are not optional matters; they are duties that are incumbent upon all, whether or not there are elders. These duties are what all ought to be chiefly interested in. The individual's desires and preference should be subordinated to a concern for the welfare of the body of Christ.
2. The New Testament church acted "with one accord."
The phrase "one accord" comes from one word, "homothumadon," and means "unanimously." The word is used only a few times and all from Acts.
ACT 1:14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
ACT 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
ACT 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
ACT 4:24 And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is:
ACT 5:12 And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch.
ACT 7:57 Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord,
ACT 8:6 And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did.
These are the only times the word which gives us "one accord" is used except on two occasions when bad deeds were done against Christians, the people acting with "one accord." One additional time it is said of Titus that he went of his "own accord" on a gospel effort.
3. The church in Philippi is ordered by Paul to be "of one accord" (Phil. 2:2). Another word, "sumpsuchos," meaning "co-spirited," is translated here "one accord."
PHI 2:2 Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.
4. Biblical authority comes by a direct command, an approved example, or by a necessary inference. The Biblical position for the action of the church is that it act "with one accord." This position is required both by Biblical command and by Biblical example.
Question? Can it be granted that a group of people may decide that they wish to follow the leadership of selected men in their number?
Question? Can it be granted that many congregations are operating that way with whatever minority there may be in them submitting graciously or otherwise to the will of the majority. Business is transacted in the general business meeting. But this practice is entirely in the realm of expediency and is not in the realm of Biblical command, example, or necessary inference at all. It could just as well be done in some other way (e.g., informal polling of wishes of the people; foregoing action to which there is opposition) if that other way could enable the congregation to act "with one accord." There is not one syllable in the Bible that describes the details of how a congregation arrives at a decision for action, whether it should be by casting lots, by flipping a coin, by voting, or whatever.
Leadership in the New Testament is really leadership by the consent of those led. It is a wise leader who leads where his flock wants to go. An elder is to lead, "not as domineering . . . but being an example to the flock" (1 Pet. 5:2).
While he (as other older men) is not to be rebuked but is to be exhorted as a father (1 Tim. 5:1), it is also envisioned that a charge might be made against him. Such charges must be established, at the mouth of two or three witnesses (1 Tim. 5:19) - the legal number in Jewish law.
6. When one suggests that a congregation should act "with one accord," it goes without saying that such action must be in keeping with Biblical teaching in matters on which the Bible has spoken. If men become determined to do error, the servant of God must oppose the error, even if he stands as lonely as Elijah envisioned himself to stand. But even where other matters are under consideration, one immediately encounters the objection, "If we only acted 'with one accord,' we would never be able to do anything." This objection asks the wrong question first. The first question is, "Do we have the Biblical duty to act with one accord?" If we do have the Biblical duty (and the above cited passages establish that we do), then we should seek ways to conform regardless of how difficult the task is. This is the attitude we should take toward any duty the Bible imposes upon us. Self-control also is a difficult task, but we must be self-controlled however difficult it may be.
7. The basic question of how a congregation can act with one accord is, of course, crucial. We Americans are activists and feel that we must get things done. We all tend to be the "now generation." But patience and charity can help a congregation to be in one accord. In six months men often see this differently from the way they do at the moment. A delay for a period of study and prayer might in some matters bring us together. An effort to persuade is of an entirely different character from an effort to force. Often a bad spirit is the chief deterrent to unified action. This problem is one of attitude, not of form of government, and can only be cured by study, repentance, and prayer. Even the decision of a properly constituted eldership will not bring "one accord" where attitudes are bad. Compromises might bring us together; hence, where men are at loggerheads, it may be in order to seek alternative actions. In some instances, mediation of tension might help. Paul asked, "Can it be that there is no man among you wise enough to decide between members of the brotherhood?" (1 Cor. 6:5). Paul's question implies that the judgment of such a wise brother should be followed.
8. A congregation can act with one accord by each member keeping himself conscious that the Christian is not to be contentious (Rom. 2:8; 1 Cor. 11:16; Titus 3:10); that he is not to be quarrelsome (2 Tim. 2:24); that the wisdom from above is pure, peaceable, and open to reason (James 3:17); that each is to count the other better than himself (Phil. 2:3). Of course, there is a problem here, for no man ever classified himself as contentious, and men are quick so to label the man who holds opposing views to the views of the majority.
Rather than the majority imposing its will on the minority, Paul's teaching on the attitude to be taken in the matter of eating meats (1 Cor. 8:1ff.) would suggest the need to yield so-called "rights" in the interest of the welfare of the weak brother. This might suggest precedent for the majority yielding to the minority in some situations. The apostles delegated responsibility to the dissidents in the matter of the neglect of the Grecian widows and maintained peace (Acts 6:1ff.) These suggestions are expedients and are not to be insisted on to the disruption of the peace of the congregation. The task of acting "with one accord" is not easy, but it could make for peace in many places where there is strife.
9. The duty to act "with one accord" has been established by both Biblical command and example. What Biblical passage, however, remotely suggests that a group of people, large or small, has the Biblical right to constitute themselves into a governing body over the Lord's congregation, to impose their will upon the remainder of the congregation without regard to congregational feeling?
10. One says, "I have always heard that in the absence of elders the majority of the men should rule the congregation." Now "I have always heard" does not constitute Bible authority for any practice. Another says, "That is the way I think it should be." "I think" does not constitute Biblical authority. Now, back to our question, what verse of Scripture authorizes the majority of the men to presume to constitute themselves into the authority in the church? No such verse exists. There is no Biblical precedent for such action.
Except for the two letters to Timothy and the one letter to Titus which are letters to individuals, and except for isolated charges to other individuals, Paul addresses his letters to the church - not to a group within the church.
There is no case in which he charges "the majority of the men" to take action.
There is no case in which he commissions the majority of the church to take action, nor any case in which he commissions the minority. He charges the church.
The word "majority" does not occur in the English Bible (King James Version) at all - not to mention its occurrence to describe a governing body for the Lord's church. Across history the majority has been wrong about as many times as it has been right. A majority brought on the flood; a majority sold Joseph into Egypt (a majority of ten to one, by the way); a majority report of ten to two of the spies kept Israel in the wilderness forty years; a majority crucified Jesus; a majority stoned Stephen; a majority beat Paul in the synagogues; a majority burned witches in Salem; and a majority slaughtered six million Jews in Germany.
There is not one word in the Bible which suggests that a majority of any sort can presume to set themselves up as a ruling body in the Lord's church.
There is not one word which suggests that a minority (this word also is not in the Bible) can set themselves up over the Lord's church. Not even an elder is to be a lord over God's heritage (1 Peter 5:3). That being true, how much more is it unsuitable for any lesser figures to be so? The Biblical precept is that the church act "with one accord."
11. As Jesus made very plain in Matthew 20:25,26, one does not become great in the kingdom of God by seizing and exercising power. He becomes great by rendering service. If you will distinguish yourself for your Christian graces and by the outstanding Christian service you render, you will not have to seize power. The Lord's people will willingly follow you wherever the Word of God leads; they can, with patience, be persuaded in matters of expediency; and God will be glorified by the life you live.
12. In local congregations with no elders, there is a widespread conviction that the majority of the men should rule, because majority rule is the sort of political government we know and admire. Once men have accepted the presupposition that the majority of the men constitute an authority, they can justify whatever they will to do, even if it is a coup of the most vicious sort.
In the absence of a passage setting forth "the majority of the men" as an authority, the struggle often seen to establish this situation in the congregations takes on aspects of "might makes right." Might never did make right, and it does not in this situation. Jesus said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you" (Matt. 20:25,26).