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.