Four cities

Four Cities: Patterns of Church Leadership

There is a church on the south side of the city that uses the word “Antiochian” in its name. I thought it was strange when I first saw it; I had never seen the word before, and did not know what the implications were. Nobody had ever made much of a point about anything distinctive about the New Testament church in Antioch, except that disciples were first called Christians there.

But there is something distinctive about the church in Antioch. The leadership at Antioch appears to have been comprised of prophets and teachers.

“Now there were at Antioch, in the church that was there, prophets and teachers; Barnabas, and Simon who was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.” Acts 13:1

Neither apostles nor elders are mentioned at Antioch, while the church in Jerusalem appeared to be lead by a combination of apostles and elders.

“And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, it was determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue.” Acts 15:2

The church in Antioch sent representatives to Jerusalem to settle an issue; the church in Antioch appears to accept the authority of the apostles and elders in Jerusalem. So a contrast is apparent between Antioch and Jerusalem. Jerusalem is lead by a number of apostles and elders, yet Antioch is lead by prophets and teachers. Antioch is about four hundred miles away from Jerusalem, yet it sends men to Jerusalem to settle a difficult issue. The prophets and teachers of Antioch deferred this issue to apostles and elders. Prophets and teachers were not able to settle this issue on their own.

Yet the church at Antioch is the beginnings of Christianity in the non-Jewish world. Antioch was a city of a half million people; it was the third largest city in the Roman Empire. The disciples of Jesus Christ are called Christians first here. The apostles Barnabas and Paul were sent out from Antioch on the first missionary journey into the Greek world. This church appears to be strong; Paul considered it to be his home, returning to Antioch after the first and second journeys. The disciples here were good examples. When prophets indicated that a famine is coming over the entire world, the disciples here sent money to the believers in Judea. Antioch is a good church, yet it is led in a different manner than the church in Jerusalem.

Paul and Barnabas started churches together throughout the southern part of Asia Minor on their missionary journeys, but with a different pattern of leadership than Antioch. They appointed elders in each of the cities as they returned from preaching further up country. Paul continued to do this on his journeys. He spent about three years in Ephesus teaching; when he passed by on his way to Jerusalem later, he called the elders of Ephesus to meet him. Paul clearly placed the responsibility for the leadership of the church in the hands of the elders.

“Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.” Acts 20:28

Paul gave Timothy and Titus a similar leadership pattern for the churches, instructing them on appointing elders in the churches.

Ephesus is a contrast to both Jerusalem and Antioch. Jerusalem was led by apostles primarily: James the Lord’s brother, Peter’ and John being the pillars. Antioch was led by prophets and teachers. But Ephesus was led by elders without apostles.

Corinth illustrates a fourth pattern for leadership. Corinth does not appear to have strong elders, or a definite set of apostles, or prophets, or teachers. Paul taught there for a year and a half; he sent some of his co-workers at times. Apollos preached there for a time. False apostles also preached there. Corinth seems to be divisive, with difficulties dealing with spiritual gifts. The problems in Corinth are the subject of two of the longer epistles in the New Testament. It is apparent that there is little leadership; Paul had to make a point that they should be able to find at least one wise man who can settle issues between Christian brothers.

Now the course of the history of Christianity has emphasized a form of the pattern illustrated by Jerusalem. By the second century, primary leadership in a region or city rested in the hands of a single bishop, with elders giving assistance. The hierarchical pattern of leadership in Christianity quickly became dominant, eventually leading to the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches.

The Protestant Reformation brought changes, but often the same pattern of leadership continued in different forms. The Lutheran Church restructured the doctrine, but kept much of the familiar outward patterns. Even the more congregational churches typically emphasized a single leader in the local church, with some role for elders/deacons.

For the most part, leadership in Christianity is based on a single executive model, whether in a hierarchical system or in a congregational system. But this model relies upon the single executive being like James, the brother of Jesus. After everyone had presented their case in Jerusalem, with much debate, James spoke. The issue was settled, not by organizational authority, but by the wisdom in what James said, using Scripture to resolve this issue. The writings of some of the early church fathers emphasize the godliness of the bishops: their genuine qualifications to lead. The lives of these bishops confirm these statements; some of them willing going to martyrdom.

But history gave us centuries of singularly unqualified individuals leading the church. Today, there still does not seem to be a mechanism to filter out the unqualified, in any branch of Christianity. Corrupt leaders look much like the good, until their sins are revealed.

It is the strong, independent personalities that typically succeed in our paradigms. The Esau’s tend to inherit from Isaac, not the Jacob’s. The Esau’s have received the household of Abraham for the most part.

We have become more like Corinth; a leaderless city plagued by division, and unable to get past the problems of carnal men within the church. We say we have the Holy Spirit, but we cannot judge right from wrong.

There are two other paradigms for leadership, mostly lost in the passage of time. One is the elder-based leadership, with no single individual exercising a dominant role. I have watched a church near me with a truly elder-based leadership become a church with a dominant cleric in about twenty years; the people tend to return to the familiar. There are some religious cultures that have held onto an elder-based leadership, but this is primarily in isolation. The elder-based leadership paradigm tends to give way to a single bishop/pastor, just as it did in the beginning.

The other paradigm is similar to the elder-based leadership, but with a significant difference. The elder-based paradigm was based on men of character leading the church, having been given responsibility for the individual members of the church. Their qualifications are character; the spiritual gifts are secondary. But the paradigm illustrated by Antioch depends on the qualifications of spiritual gifts. Two gifts are singled out in the leadership in Antioch: prophecy and teaching. The disciples in Antioch were lead by men who were gifted to teach Jesus Christ, and by men who were gifted to reprove, rebuke, and exhort. Their disciples became known as “Christians”, “little Christ’s”.

Antioch is an interesting example; certain they could have appointed elders and deacons at some point. The church in Jerusalem did. Paul did on his missionary journeys. But in this beginning phase of the church in Antioch, in a time of rapid growth, and shifting paradigms, this small group of gifted men made disciples of Jews and Greeks in an urban environment.

One of the significant things to notice is the way that these men dealt with issues. Acts 13 begins with them fasting and ministering to the Lord; this is how they did things. When the Holy Spirit said to set apart Barnabas and Paul, they fasted and prayed more, before sending them out. When issues over Jewish law arose, they sent men 400 miles to Jerusalem to let the apostles and elders there settle the issue. They have learned to let the Holy Spirit confirm direction.

Normally leaderless committees are a great way to keep anything significant from happening. But Antioch does not have a committee of prophets and teachers; it has a community. They have learned to do things together. The prophets judge the prophets; the prophets judge the people. The teachers teach Jesus Christ; the prophets make certain men are listening. The two gifts work together. Neither works well alone.

The fullest expression of the working of the gifts is in Ephesians 4.

“And He gave some apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some shepherds and teachers…” Ephesians 4:11 Interlineal Translation

Certainly the roles of elders and deacons have apostolic authority, both in Jerusalem and in the Mediterranean churches. But the leadership in Antioch illustrates the effectiveness of just these two gifts alone, even without shepherds. We have emphasized the role of shepherds, but the shepherd lacks a particular gift. He cannot see. He does not know the heart of his sheep; he may come to know them, but he cannot see the darkness that has taken hold within individuals. He will be there to deal with the train wrecks, but prophets can see the deception and pain before it destroys. The paradigm in Ephesians 4 lists prophets as second to apostles. So does I Corinthians.

“And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helps, administrations, kinds of tongues.” I Corinthians 12:28

The Corinthian church had these kinds of gifts, but they did not have what Antioch had. The prophets and teachers were a community working together at Antioch. Corinth was a free-for-all, without significant leadership, without anyone to judge between brothers. Antioch was an urban mix of Greeks, Syrians, Romans, Jews, and others in a large prosperous capital of the region. So was Corinth. The cultures were not particularly different. What is different is the community of significant gifts. Christians would be afraid to go to church while lying to the Holy Spirit in Antioch. Antioch had a unified community leading it; Corinth had chaos. Both had gifts; but Antioch made disciples.

The Antiochian paradigm illustrates the effectiveness of objective truth working with subjective truth. Objective truth alone can become lessons in role-playing. Prophets are needed to reprove, rebuke, and exhort before the train wrecks.

Gifts work in community, real community expressed in time together. Prophets need other prophets to confirm their message. Prophets see things no one wants to express, especially the prophets. But prophets also need a framework within which to work; if no one knows the difference between right and wrong, how can you reprove them.

The Antioch in Acts 13 only existed for a short time probably, but it illustrates something that we can use today. A community of the greater gifts can do what the gifts without community cannot do. A handful of the spiritual, working together in a common task, submitting to one another, helping one another, can make Christians, little Christ's, out of believers.

Antiochian community can be a realistic paradigm; all it takes is a few with the greater gifts.

An alternative to building

We need a vision; a vision for the direction of the church. We need to decide how we will “do business” in this world. The choice is ours to choose a direction. In the parable of the talents, the good servants invested with the intent of getting a return for their master’s wealth. They had not been instructed in what to do, only that they were to do business with what he gave them until he returned. We need a vision for how we will invest.

Conventional wisdom for churches holds that churches grow by building. But the buildings are hardly going to be of value to our returning Lord. The only rationale for building is in the purpose that the building serves. In the normal course of investment, choice must be made between investments, weighing potential return with potential risk. Most investments offer some potential for return; some just offer more. But there are other possible investments.

A big addition to a church will usually come with a big loan. A $2 million dollar building loan will cost about $10,000 per month to service the debt; for twenty years the church will be committed to this expense. This is an investment choice, one that carries an inescapable long term commitment.

But the same money could be invested in other ways. An alternative investment using the same amount of money can address the work of the church in a different way. Instead of a building, an investment can be made in staff.

We are accustomed to certain roles within church leadership. Usually it is a mixture of salaried and volunteer staff. Usually salaried staff is seminary-educated; volunteer staff usually is not. The usual responsibilities generally are more than what salaried staff can accomplish in a normal week. Volunteers fulfill many functions within a church, but these are almost always part-time, primarily on Sunday. We have a paradigm for staffing, just as we do for many other aspects of the church. Usually a church of a certain size can afford a certain number of salaried staff, and a certain size of debt.

There is another paradigm: one that comes from Ephesian 4. The work of Christ in the church comes through the four-fold ministries of apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors and teachers. (I count four looking at an interlineal translation; some count five.) Now today, the concept of apostles is normally avoided, so setting it aside for the moment, we have still have a need for these roles. We have usually limited the primary leadership of the church to a small number of salaried pastors, seminary educated. Evangelists are usually limited to traveling preachers, preaching in churches to primarily churchgoers. Prophets are usually silenced, told only to speak safe things, even in groups that accept the role. Without getting into other issues, we are left with a small number of salaried pastors trying to equip the church, without the support of the other roles, and being fully tasked already. Few pastors have time to spend with all of those under their care; usually they must deal with crisis management.

Some have tried to fill the role of the pastors and teachers with elders, seeing a New Testament pattern that supports this concept. But this usually does not change the dynamics of shepherding the flock, for these men do not have much time to devote to the sheep. The realities of our economy require responsible individuals with families to work full-time jobs. Even when elder/shepherds are attempting to share in the work of the pastor, they cannot give more than a few hours a week to the task.

The consequence of the normal paradigm is that the roles of Ephesian 4 go substantially unfilled. The church does not have enough pastors and teachers. The church does not have evangelists working among them. These two roles in particular simply require time. The number of pastors and teachers should be proportional to the number of sheep. If there are not enough shepherds, the sheep will stray. The normal paradigm for staffing does not work to fulfill Ephesians 4.

The alternative is to invest in staff, instead of buildings. The $2 million dollar building loan requires a monthly payment of $10,000. If this money were invested in staff instead, a focused effort could be made to fulfill the equipping work of Ephesians 4. Two salaried individuals could be brought into the labor. Assuming that the existing staff can handle the normal requirements of the church, and the difficulties of crisis management, these two individuals could focus on other tasks.

First, a church needs an evangelist to manage the front door, figuratively speaking. He should have no other responsibilities other than evangelism. He should not be the director of evangelism or director of anything. He should not be responsible to make Christians witness; he is to evangelize himself. He must be one given by Jesus Christ to the church to do this. He must have the gifts and calling of an evangelist. He should not be required to fill the pulpit, or teach classes, or have revival meetings. He should be in Starbucks, at the community center, at whatever place he finds someone to listen. For all of our talk about the importance of evangelism, we have not been willing to pay someone a full-time salary to do it. We are called evangelicals, but we will probably have a difficult time finding this individual. I have known some; leading people to Christ is a normal thing for them. But they have had to support their families doing something other than what Jesus Christ made them to do because we will not pay the workman what he is worth.

Second, a church needs someone to manage the back door, figuratively speaking. We need someone to disciple those who come to our church; we need a shepherd who is not burdened with other tasks. Again, this pastor is not to be the director of anything else; we are not to steal him away from his work. He is only responsible to build relationships with the new people in the church. Most churches actually have many who pass through, seeking a place to call home. In the course of a year, dozens have come through, willingly walking in the front door, and soon leaving by the back door. The problem is not finding people; it is keeping the ones that God sent to us. This pastor needs to be sent by Jesus Christ to do this work; he also needs to have the gifts and calling of God upon him. He and his wife will need to share in a common task, a full-time task, where the workplace is primarily in the homes of others. Like the apostles of the early church, they may be teaching from house to house, sharing meals with new disciples, building up the faith face to face.

This paradigm is about investment. A $2 million investment will give us a nice building to use or it will give 20 years of focused labor by two or three sent by Jesus Christ to equip His church. The essential point is that this investment of what is “spendable income” can complement the work of those who lead the church now. Those who lead the church now are fully tasked with what is necessary. There is no one who has the time to evangelize 40 hours a week. There is no one who has the time to disciple 40 hours a week. The existing leadership can provide an opportunity for these individuals to work at what Jesus has sent them to do. They can do what the existing leadership desperately would like to see done.

Now this is a paradigm shift for me as well. I would be the last person to suggest hiring more staff. In my mind, this is the work of the elders and the body. But the reality is that workmen need to earn a living at what they do. If they cannot, they must in good conscience find something that will support their family. In the early church, Paul instructed churches to give “double honor” those who ruled well, especially those that work hard at preaching and teaching. Working hard at preaching and teaching takes time, time that could have been spent tending to their own business. Paul understood this, and wanted these men to be given twice what other elders were given. A workmen is worthy of his wages. Even if these roles in Ephesians 4 were fulfilled by those within the church as it was often in the New Testament church, they should be compensated. Usually, these men have careers, good careers. They are probably earning salaries that reflect their abilities. We should want to invest in the best workmen we can find; we should pay at least what they can earn farming or teaching or practicing law.

In some cases we can find these gifted individuals within the church itself; in some cases we may need to bring them in from elsewhere. Whether they are seminary educated or not, they need to be capable workmen. The gifts and calling of God should be evident. The work is significant. These tasks should not be limited to the leftovers of anyone’s day.

As far as the rest of the gifts of Ephesians 4, the role of the prophets as we know it does not require this approach. (See the next blog for an alternative.) Paid prophets are almost always a bad idea. If we are allowing prophets to speak, they do not need 40 hours a week to do this. It does not take long to speak to the heart of a man. They can serve well by working with their hands, tending their own business, and walking humbly before their God. They don’t need to be paid to intercede. The apostles should be paid; those who are sent by God with the gospel should be supported by His people. We are doing this, at least in part, through the missionaries we support. Missionaries are the apostles sent by God to preach, just as Jesus sent out His twelve apostles. “Missionary” is just a word from Latin corresponding to “apostle’, an equivalent word from Greek.

We have a choice to make in the direction of the church. If we choose the normal thing, and obligate ourselves financially for buildings, we will not have the possibility of paying any other type of workmen. We need to set a priority; there are no “and’s” in life, only “or’s”. We need a vision for what we are doing.

This is not normal; we only see larger staffs in large churches, and usually then they are fully tasked with the administration of a larger church. We seldom see this type of commitment to evangelism; evangelism is something that everyone is supposed to do but few ever do. We seldom see this type of commitment to discipleship; again this is something that is supposed to happen automatically. But if the work of Ephesians 4 is a reality; if Christians can be equipped to grow into a mature man, then this type of investment is reasonable. The Master would enjoy seeing the fruits of this investment.

Change of subject

I started this blog with something I wanted to write about. The process of writing almost daily was good; some of the things that were written about the teachings on the kingdom of God were new to me.

Having finished another topic that took 1100 pages, I started writing on the Sermon on the Mount separately. Now that I have gotten into that, I want to pursue the teachings on the kingdom of God in that format, not in a blog at this point. A blog in my mind should be more limited in scope, something that I was not able to do very well with my topic.

So having written a few short things based on various ideas, I want to change my subject in this blog, and use it to publish more limited thoughts.