Church Leadership

As most of you know, the final Sunday in February will be our annual members’ business meeting. It is not the only member’s meeting we have, because we meet as a church when we take the Lord’s Supper or receive a new member. But this meeting is distinct because we are doing some official business.

There are some people in this world who don’t prefer anything that sounds official, or that has to do with business. And there are those who like that sort of thing.

Whenever I think about business or administration, I like to compare it to a meal. Some people like potlucks. And they might even prefer the true potluck, which is: “bring whatever you want, and we’ll see what happens.”

If you’re that kind of person, a true potluck sounds exciting. It’s spontaneous and adventurous. It’s like opening a gift from a stranger. Who knows what it could be?

Some of you aren’t wired that way. For you, a true potluck sounds like chaos or anarchy. It’s an accident or a disaster waiting to happen.

What happens if everyone brings dessert? What happens if nobody brings something to drink? It just sounds like a lot of risk that isn’t going to be worth the payoff.

If that’s you, then you would prefer some organization. You want a list. You want someone in charge of it all making some phone calls.

If you’re the potluck person, too much organization can sound stuffy and restrictive—not enough room for self-expression.

Thankfully, our only options are not a true potluck or a dinner with the Queen of England. There’s a spectrum of how organized and how free that kind of event might be.

Well, that spectrum also exists when we think about a church. Some people have this idea or this preference that church should be very free. People should be able to do whatever they want. We don’t want to get bogged down by some kind of structure. We don’t want someone coming in trying to organize it for us.

Sometimes, that can be a way to escape accountability and hide in your sin, because there’s no oversight.

On the other side of spectrum are the people who crave order and formal authority. They want everything organized and orchestrated. They want to know exactly what they are supposed to be doing. And they want someone making sure that everybody else is doing their part as well.

That approach can also be a way to escape accountability, because if something goes wrong, then it’s not your fault. You can pass the blame on to whoever is in charge. And it also means that you don’t have to think for yourself. Someone else will tell you what to do.

So, there are extremes for each of those positions, and both extremes dishonor what Jesus intends for a local church. It’s sad thing to hear about authoritarian churches where people’s individual freedom is stifled. And it’s just as sad for me to hear about churches where leadership is non-existent, and people are running around without any clear direction.

Where should a church fall along that spectrum? What is the organization and leadership of a church supposed to look like?

In theological terms, questions like that fall under the category of ecclesiology. Don’t’ let that big word intimidate you. It simply means the study of the church. Ecclesiology, I think, is one of the most neglected aspects of theology in our day. And the neglect of ecclesiology has caused major problems in many, many churches that could have been avoided. Churches are always going to have problems, but the clearer our understanding is of the church, the more problems we can avoid altogether.

What is a church? That’s the question we want to start with before we get to some of the specifics about a good one. What is a church?

Well, I think it’s helpful to remind ourselves what it NOT a church.

Number 1, our building is not a church. At least not in the sense that the New Testament uses that term, right? This is a building that our church owns, by the grace of God. But the building itself is not the church. We can lose the building and still be a church. That might sound basic to some of you, but it’s an important distinction to make, especially since we can all say things like, “I’m going to leave my car parked at church, and then get it tonight.” We use the word church as a shorthand for the building. I don’t think that’s necessarily wrong; we just need to recognize what’s happening.

Secondly, the term “church” doesn’t refer simply to our meetings and our services. Again, this is something a lot of you know, but the way we talk can confuse this for others. We say things like: “We have church on Sunday morning at 9.” That kind of speech allows people to think that if they just attend our services, then they are part of our church. That’s a common thought in a lot of places.

I think most of you understand that when we talk about the church, we’re not talking about the building and we’re not talking about our services. We’re talking about a group of people. The church is people.

In the Bible, there are sometimes where the word “church” refers to the global church, that is every single believer in the world. For example, Jesus said, “I will build my church.” And in Ephesians it says that Jesus loved the church and gave Himself for her. That’s talking about the global church.

But, way more frequently, the word “church” is used in the Bible to talk about a local church. And that only leads us to the question: what is a local church? That’s one of the questions that ecclesiology is trying to answer. What is a local church?

A local church is a local manifestation of the body of Christ. It’s a group of Christians that (1) edify and affirm one another in the faith, (2) evangelize the lost, and (3) meet regularly for the preaching of the Word and the practice of the ordinances. I’ll say that again. A local church is a local manifestation of the body of Christ. It’s a group of Christians that (1) edify and affirm one another in the faith, (2) evangelize the lost, and (3) meet regularly for the preaching of the Word and the practice of the ordinances.

That’s a very broad definition, but I think it’s an accurate framework for what constitutes a local church. If a group of believers isn’t interested in edifying one another in the faith, evangelizing the lost, or meeting regularly, it’s not a church.

If you have lunch regularly with a Christian co-worker, that can be a good thing. But it’s not a church. If you attend a Christian club at school; that’s good too. But chances are that’s not a local church. Our Family Life Groups are good too. They’re important. But those groups are extensions of who we are as a church; they are part of our local church, not the church itself.

So, when you have a group of Christians, you can ask yourself: Is this a church? Or is it something else? It’s not wrong to be something else. It just clarifies things if you know the answer.

Once you’ve determined whether or not something is a church, the next question then is: What kind of church is it? Is it a strong church? Is it a healthy church? The answer to that is going to depend on how well they accomplish the tasks laid out in the definition.

Since the local church is a manifestation of the body of Christ, how well does it represent Christ? How well do its members edify one another? How do they affirm each other in the faith?

At our own church, we affirm one another in the faith through baptism and membership. That doesn’t mean you’re not a Christian if you’re not a member here, but it means that we, as a church, haven’t officially affirmed you as part of our local congregation. Sometimes when we get a new member, I like to tell them, “Now, you can no longer visit our church. Now, you are part of our church.”

I’m not going to say more on this, but if you want more information, you can go to our website, fbbchurch.org, and find the series called Doctrine. And you can listen to sermons from 2016 dealing with the church and with the practical issues of our church, like membership and discipline, and the ordinances, and spiritual gifts. Or send me an email and I’ll send you my notes.

Our focus for today, and for the next few weeks, however, is going to be the leadership of the church. What kind of leadership structure did God intend for a local church to have? Or did He just leave it up to us to decide?

First Timothy 3:15 says that the church is “the household of God.” So, that being the case, we want to run the household the way God wants it to run. What has God told us about church leadership?

I believe that the Bible shows us that a local church should be under the leadership of elders. And today is going to serve as an introduction to a series on church leadership, and it will be an explanation and a defense for why our church has elders.

I’m going to give you two major arguments for elders, okay? Having elders in a church can be supported through biblical history, and through the biblical commands. You see it in the practice of the early church, and you see it in the explicit commands of the Apostles.

Let me start with the biblical history. This is like a quick, historical overview of elders. In the Old Testament, the word “elders” is used about 140 times. Sometimes, the word is just talking about the older people. But it’s also used in an official sense when it talks about the elders of a tribe, or the elders of a city.

If you remember, Moses chose 70 elders from the people, along with Aaron and his sons, to go up to the Lord at the mountain.

In Leviticus 4, it talks about the whole congregation sinning against God unintentionally, and then finding out about it. An offering then needs to be made. And for that offering, the elders of the congregation were to come forward and lay their hands on the bull. They were the leaders. They acted as representatives for the nation.

Elders also acted as judges for the people. They helped apply God’s law and settle disputes. They also helped conduct some of the business. You might remember the story of Ruth, when Boaz intends to buy a field and make her his wife. He gathered the elders of the people.

Well, when we come to the New Testament, you still have this concept of elders as influencers and leaders. Now, in Jesus’ ministry, He condemned the elders because they had strayed from the truth, but He never canceled that structure. Jesus never said, “It’s wrong to have elders.” He just condemned the corrupted elders, who were more concerned about tradition than godliness.

And, you might remember, it was the chief priests and the elders who put Jesus to death. They had a council of elders known as the Sanhedrin. They were the leaders. And they used their position for evil purposes.

Well, what happened once the church began to grow? What happened to the structure of elders?

It seems as though, at the beginning, the Apostles were the only leaders. And that makes sense. It all started with them. They were the ones doing signs and wonders. And they were the ones teaching. They were the ones leading.

Go with me to Acts chapter 4, verse 33. This is describing the church’s unity and love. And what I want to point out is how the money was handled. Look at Acts 4:34—There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold [35] and laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. [36] Thus Joseph, who was also called by the apostles Barnabas (which means son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus, [37] sold a field that belonged to him and brought the money and laid it at the apostles' feet.

Twice there, it says that the money was laid at the Apostles feet. That doesn’t necessarily mean that they were the ones who distributed it. But they were the ones the believers gave it to. They were seen as the leaders.

In Acts 5:2, you see it again. Ananias and Sapphira gave an offering, and they laid it at the apostle’s feet. Offerings were given to the Apostles. They were the recognized leaders.

But somewhere along the line, that changed. Go with me to Acts chapter 11. Acts chapter 11, verse 29. We’ll just look at two verses.

When a large group of believers had formed in Antioch (in Syria), the church in Jerusalem sent Barnabas. Barnabas went to get Saul, or Paul. Together, they stayed in Antioch, teaching for about a year.

Well, the Antioch church got news that a famine was coming to Jerusalem. Look now at Acts 11:29—So the disciples determined, every one according to his ability, to send relief to the brothers living in Judea. ³⁰And they did so, sending it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul.

It doesn’t say they gave the money to the Apostles. It says they gave it to the elders. Something changed. Many of the Apostles were still there in Jerusalem, but the leadership structure was changing. At a minimum, what we can say is that new men were being recognized as leaders of the group. That’s why the money was sent to them.

Later, in chapter 15, it talks about both the elders and the apostles gathering to talk about a doctrinal matter.

What about the other churches? What happened there? Well, chapters 13 and 14 describe Paul’s first missionary journey. If your Bible has maps in the back, you can probably see Paul’s first missionary journey there. He and Barnabas travelled for about two years, preaching the gospel to Jews and Gentiles who had never heard of Jesus. And by God’s grace churches were started.

When they finished the journey, the headed back to Antioch, retracing their steps. They re-visited the church that had already begun. And notice what they did. Look at Acts chapter 14, verse 21—When they had preached the gospel to that city and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch, [22] strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying that through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God. [23] And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed.

What did they do? They appointed elders. Now, notice, you don’t need elders to be a church. Those cities had churched before they had elders. But Paul wasn’t satisfied leaving a church all on its own; he wanted to establish elders. That was his pattern.

We’re not going to look at the passage today, but there is also the story of Acts chapter 20, where Paul is in Miletus, and before he leaves, he calls the elders of the church in Ephesus. So, the Ephesian church, even though is only about 5 years old, by that time, they had developed elders.

So again, from a historical perspective, the practice of the Apostles was to develop or appoint elders in every church.

Let’s shift now, from the biblical history to the biblical commands. If all we had was the historical examples of elders, someone could say, “Well, that was Acts. That was the early church. That is a description of what they did, but it doesn’t necessarily mean we’re supposed to follow that example.” And that’s a valid argument for a lot of things.

So, are there commands in the New Testament, particularly in the letters, concerning elders? And the answer is yes. Paul and the Apostles gave explicit commands concerning elders in the church.

Some people think that the earliest epistle written was James. It may have been written around 45 AD, or sometime before the Jerusalem Council. Turn there with me for a moment. James, chapter 5, verse 14. This is a section talking about how to respond in various seasons of life. Look at verse 14. This is the instruction—Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.

There are debates about how some of that is supposed to be applied today, but all I want to point out is that James’ first instruction is, “Call the elders.”

James knew that the church in Jerusalem had elders, and he knew they played an active role in caring for the church. And so, he encourages the believers to call the elders in that distressing time.

Skip over one book to First Peter, and go to chapter 5, the last chapters. First Peter chapter 5.

We are pretty confident that Peter wrote this letter from Rome. He calls it Babylon in his letter. And he was writing to believers scattered across the Roman Empire and enduring persecution. They needed to be comforted, and they needed to be encouraged to entrust themselves to God.

And along those lines, First Peter 5 has some very clear commands. Look at verses 1 and 2—So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: [2] shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly.

“Elders,” Peter says, “shepherd the church.” Take care of them. Peter is writing to churches across the Roman Empire, and he commands elders to do their job. If your church doesn’t have elders, there’s no one to be obedient to that command.

And then in verse 5 he gives the other side—Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble."

Again, that command can’t even be obeyed if a church didn’t have elders, or if a believer wasn’t committed and connected to a local church.

You should also know that this is not the only time in the Bible Christians are commanded to submit to the leaders. The word “elder” isn’t used, but the idea is there when you read Hebrews 13.

Verse 7 says to imitate your leaders. Verse 17 says obey them and submit to them because they will give an account for your soul. Again, those commands assume a leadership structure. And since this letter was written to Jews, the assumption is that those leaders were the elders, the teachers.

You see the same thing in First Thessalonians chapter 5, verse 12. Turn there with me if you want. First Thessalonians chapter 5, verse 12. Again, the word elders isn’t used here, but that’s the structure that Paul would have had in mind. That’s the leadership structure he chose for the churches he planted.

Look at the command. First Thessalonians 5:12—We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, [13] and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work.

Again, that assumes there is some kind of leadership structure in place. Those leaders, it says, labor among the church. And they are over the church.

The clearest commands we get, though, for elders in a church is what we find in what some call the pastoral epistles. That is First and Second Timothy and Titus, and they come right after First and Second Thessalonians.

Timothy served in the church of Ephesus as Paul’s apostolic representative. Paul continued to travel on his missionary journeys, and he left Timothy behind to check on things and to finish things up.

In First Timothy 3, Paul gives specific requirements for selecting a man for leadership in the church. In chapter 5, he talks about the elders who rule well being honored, which is the same as we saw in 1 Thessalonians.

Look with me now at Second Timothy. Second Timothy chapter 2. This is the last letter we have in our Bible that Paul ever wrote. If Paul’s view of church leadership had evolved or changed, this would be the time to prove it.

What does Paul want Timothy to do? What should he dedicate himself to in order to make the churches strong. Look at Second Timothy chapter 2, verse 1—You then, my child, be strengthened by the grace that is in Christ Jesus, [2] and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

What did Paul want Timothy to do? Find faithful men. Whatever I taught you, teach it to them. Entrust it to them. And then, they are to teach it to the next generation of faithful men. What does Paul want? He wants the church to have its own recognized group of leaders.

One final verse, and then we’ll end there for today. Go over just a couple pages to the letter to Titus. Titus was written about a couple years before Second Timothy. And we see the exact same leadership structure being commanded.

Look at Titus chapter 1, verse 5. Titus 1:5— This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you.

Paul had to move on from Crete, but he left a church in various towns. What is he asking Titus to do? “Finish what I started, Titus. Get things squared away. Straighten things out.” How does he do that? By appointing elders in the church.

Well, I hope you’re convinced by now. God’s design for a local church is that it be under the leadership of elders.

I’m not saying if you don’t have elders, you’re not a true church. And I’m not saying that you’re in sin if you don’t have elders. What the New Testament shows us, however, is that a church on the path to being healthy and strong and protected, is a church that has, or is seeking to have, elders in the role of leadership.

In the weeks to come, we’re going to be looking more closely at some other features about elders. And we’ll look at questions like: What are the requirements for being an elder? What’s the difference between the elders and the pastors? What are the elders supposed to be doing? What kind of authority do the elders have?

For now, though, I just hope you have the big picture. God intends His churches to be under the leadership of elders. This has implications for the way we do missions and church planting.

But more immediately for us, it has big implications for the way we do church here as First Bilingual Baptist. We want to be faithful to God’s pattern for a church, and we want to keep growing in our ability to do what God has called us to do.

Our church is a local manifestation of the body of Christ. And we are here to (1) edify and affirm one another in the faith, (2) evangelize the lost, and (3) meet regularly for the preaching of the Word and the practice of the ordinances.