Check out my new website: barnabasallie.org.
My Master’s capstone paper is an independent study in which I wanted to explore the relationship between leadership structure and the growth of believers in a local congregation. My conclusion is that a biblical structure of leadership shares a positive relationship with membership growth. Obviously, membership growth is defined as the growth of true, believing Christians—which may or may not relate with the growth of a local church’s attendees.
My paper addresses a few questions: (1) does Scripture provide a clear basis for leadership structure? (2) if yes, what is it? and (3) how does it relate with the growth of membership?
Since my paper is over 7000 words, I have decided to summarize 4 main conclusions here.
1. Scripture presents a basic paradigmatic structure: The fundamental presupposition and reasoning for my paper and research is that Scripture has outlaid a paradigmatic church leadership structure. In other words, the early church recorded in New Testament Scripture presents a structure that is meant to be adhered to.
This structure is not a coincidental result of the gathering of believers. Rather, the early church’s structure was deliberate and technical, reflecting the Spirit’s work through the early apostles and leaders.
For example, given that the early church apostles were Jewish, they would be well-associated with Sanhedrin terms such as high priest (archiereis), membership (bouleutés), and elder (prebuteros). Yet, we don’t see priestly language to depict Christians or ministers in the New Testament church at all, as Christ is the great high priest (Heb 4:14), nor do we see language of “official membership” in the church as well. Rather, Scriptures uses terms such as melos—member—in depicting the relationship of believers of a local body. On the other hand, eldership language is deliberately transferred to the local church from the Sanhedrin.
2. The nature of the church is familial, organic, and relational—both spiritual-paternal (relationship with God) and fraternal (relationship with one another). A key indicator of the church’s relational nature is reflected through the Lord’s Supper as a regular family meal. Organic membership growth is fostered through house churches (perhaps the modern equivalent would be small groups). Throughout history, the primary method of one coming to salvation is through personal relationships, and the early church was designed in a way to foster that.
3. Church leadership structure is as follows: (1) Jesus—Head and Chief Pastor/Shepherd of the Universal Church, (2) a plurality of elders that serve as human authorities of the local church, (3) deacons serving the local body under the elders, and (4) the congregation as a participating, organic body.
When it comes to church offices, the New Testament never uses poimen (pastor/shepherd) or poimaino (to shepherd) to indicate a role in a local church. Poimen/poimaino are generally used to depict Christ and spiritual callings (spiritual gifts). Thus, human authorities over the local body are elders, in which pastoring is one of their roles/functions. Early church bodies had no senior pastor as Christ was their chief shepherd. On a practical standpoint, I do not think this implies that the position of a senior pastor is unbiblical. The position of a senior pastor could be reasonable. However, the emphasis should lie in the fact that Christ’s rule took place the Spirit’s anointing and appointment of elders with or without a distinguished human representative.
Another significant point to note is the role of the congregation. In some churches today, the structure of the church allows a significant number of the congregation to play a passive role, reflected by a conformity to social norms and behavioral cues. Yet, the congregation is depicted as being “members of one another”, being intrinsically connected to one another via the Blood of Christ—devoting themselves to the service of God’s people.
4. Historical considerations: The last section of my paper was a brief historical survey that considered the problems of churches that deviate from the biblical church leadership structure outlined above.
The most significant problem can be summarized by a quote by Granfield, “the church patterned itself after the state.”[1] This quote is used in reference to the legalization of Christianity under Constantinople in 312. Yet, the problem lies with how some churches today pattern themselves according to cultural institutional structures that may not align with the biblical mandate. This problem has historically proven to be a hindrance to the growth of true believers.
For instance, the Roman Catholic church became a state institution that was a “highly centralized, bureaucratic, legalized society,” [2] deviating from the organic and relational structure between the members of the body. Perhaps the RCC succeeded in contributing to the numbers of people claiming to be Christian, but many would question the legitimacy of those believers.
Other modern problems with some evangelical churches would be a separation between “elders” and “pastors”. In some churches, “pastors” are those who engage regularly with the church congregation while “elders” serve as the board of trustees/directors—in which the elders have little or no connection with the general congregation while making important decisions. As you can tell, such a format is directly transferred from that of a business organization. I may not have a problem with a church operating with a board, but a biblical elder is a pastor, a spiritual father of the flock. When a church operates with elders who do not serve as pastors, the church may opt in a direction that is not biblically sound, thus being detrimental to the spiritual health of the body and deviating from the church’s mission.
If you are still interested in my paper, please check it out here.
[1]. Granfield, Patrick. “The Church as Institution: A Reformulated Model.” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 16, no. 3 (Sum 1979): 426.
[2]. Granfield, 426.
No comments:
Post a Comment