MARKS OF A NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH - How should a New Testament church function?

The word "church" in the New Testament does not refer to a building where professing Christians gather, or to a denomination. The Scriptures use this word to speak of those who have been "called out of the world by God". The New Testament Church is really an "Assembly" of "called-out-ones." Those who have been called unto the Lord Jesus Christ and out of this world (1 Peter 2:9). 

With the spread of the Gospel many "local assemblies" of Christians were formed. In the beginning the apostles provided teaching and guidance to the churches (Acts 2:42). While we do not have such men in the Church today, we do have their ministry in the inspired Word of God to guide us. This should lead us to ask, "According to Scripture, how should a local New Testament church function?" Let's consider this question briefly. 

The Berean Attitude Paul said of the Bereans, "they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so" (Acts 17:11). This must be our attitude as we approach the question under consideration. Our reasonings, experiences, and traditions must not direct our thinking, but must give way to God's Word. "What saith the Scriptures" must be our chief and only concern. 

Marks of a New Testament Assembly 

As we read through the New Testament we see four things which marked the early New Testament churches. These will still be present in any assembly which is functioning in accordance with God's Word today. 

1) The Scriptures will be its Charter. 
2) The Saints will be its Circumference. 
3) The Savior will be its Center. 
4) The Spirit will be its Conductor. 

Let's briefly consider these marks of a New Testament church.

1. The Scripture Will Be It’s Charter 

And they continued stedfastly in them apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers (Acts 2:42). 

Living by Faith 

Much has been written concerning the need for Christians to live by faith, and yet many have little idea of what it really means. Many view faith as a force by which we can make things happen which are normally beyond our natural ability. Others simply see faith as believing in the unseen and often speak of "blind faith". 

Biblical faith is related to God's Word. "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Romans 10:17). It is "believing God when He speaks". It is taking God at His Word. 

The Bible contains many accounts of individuals who took God at His Word, often doing what was contrary to human reasoning (Isaiah 55:8). The eleventh chapter of Hebrews records many accounts of individuals who took God at His Word and acted accordingly. 

Living by faith is simply living by God's Word and letting it guide our thinking and our actions, despite what the world around us may think or say. Despite too what our own minds and hearts may think and desire. 

We must not allow human reasoning to have greater weight than God's Word. Paul spoke of this when he said, "Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ (2 Corinthians 10:5). 

The word "imaginations" means our "reasonings." The reasonings of the natural man are contrary to God's thoughts. Thus we often rationalize, or explain away God's Word. What we really do is reject His Word. This rejection of God's Word results in disobedience. 

One of the most well known passages in Scriptures regarding disobedience is found in 1 Samuel chapter 15. Saul was instructed by God, through the prophet Samuel, to destroy all the Amalekites and all their animals. Rather than taking God at His Word, Saul disobeyed God and spared king Agag and the best of the animals. 

When confronted by Samuel, Saul rationalized his behavior by declaring his intention of offering the animals to the Lord. At this point Samuel tells Saul one of the great principles of Scripture regarding obedience to God's Word. 

"Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams" (1 Samuel 15:22). 

The great lesson for us to learn is that "when God has spoken on a matter there is never justification for deviating from His expressed will." Not even with good intentions! God wants us to obey His Word by faith, even when it means giving up some "good idea" of ours. God wants our obedience to His Word above all else! Even above "results!" In God's thinking, "the end does not justify the means!" 

Assembly Faith 

We generally think of "living by faith" with regard to the individual Christian; however, the Church, and in particular, the local assembly must also live by faith. If a local gathering of Christians is to function properly it must do so in accordance with God's Word. It too must live by faith! It too must be obedient! 

Like the reformers, the local assembly of God's people must say, "Solo Scriptura!" -"Only the Scriptures!" The ideas and practices of man must be set aside and the Scriptures, particularly the New Testament teachings on the Church, must be our sole guide for faith and practice. 

We must remember that "man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart" (1 Samuel 16:7). We tend to look at the external appearance of a church. We look at its size, programs and activities, and facilities to make our judgments. The Head of the Church, Christ, looks on the heart of the local assembly (Revelation 2-3). He sees its works, but also knows that despite all of its programs He may not have first place (Revelation 2:2-4; 3:20). He also sees beyond what the world would consider weak and appreciates obedience to His Word (Revelation 3:8). 

In the infant New Testament Church they "continued stedfastly (persevered) in the apostle's doctrine (teaching)" (Acts 2:42). The apostle's teachings are recorded as part of inspired Scripture for us today. These give us the PLAN for the Church. These show and tell us how the Church functioned in its purest state. Could we follow any better plan today? 

Are the Scriptures the sole guide for the local church where you fellowship, or have man's reasonings and traditions been given greater importance? Is there a willingness to change current practices if they do not conform to Scripture, or is the deviation from God's Word simply rationalized away? 

One mark of a New Testament church is that the Scriptures are its only charter. 

One, writing in 1904, said, "What Christians have to do in the present day of Church crisis and Church difficulty is to take their eyes off every man, and every system man set up, seek to learn what God says about His Church in His Word. I believe that today God would turn His people back again to the Holy Scriptures for light and guidance as to the Church." This is certainly no less true today! 

2. The Saints Will Be It’s Circumference 

And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers (Acts 2:42). 

The local assembly is to be made up of believers. We read of the early assembly, "And all that believed were together... (Acts 2:44), and "the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul" (Acts 4:32). 

The primary functions of the local assembly are given to us in Acts 2:42. They are teaching, worship, and prayer. Christians gather to be edified through the teaching of God's Word. 

They gather too for corporate worship as they remember the Lord in the Breaking of Bread. They also come together to pray as a church. It is not simply a gathering of individuals who pray, but the church comes together to pray together, as a unit (see Acts 4:23-31). 

The New Testament never presents the idea that the church is to be attractive to unbelievers, or to be a gathering center for them. This is simply the product of man's reasoning and has resulted in many local churches becoming worldly, and in a failure to go out with the Gospel. The unbelievers are invited to come in, while the saints fail to go out (Acts 1:8). 

In far too many cases the testimony of a local assembly has been lost, as over time the number of unbelievers became greater than the number of believers and eventually determined the direction the fellowship would take. 

Now there were no denominations in the early church. These came about as men became followers of men (1 Corinthians 1:10-17). Today the Body of Christ is divided into many different groups. Some have taken the name of a man (Lutherans), others have taken the name of an ordinance (Baptists), others have rallied around a phenomenon (Charismatics), still others have taken a name in accordance with their church structure (Episcopalians). The list could go on and on. 

In a New Testament assembly the only circumference will be saints-Christians who make a profession of faith in Jesus Christ as their personal Savior. As such, all believers in Jesus Christ are welcomed. 

The assembly will be a PARTNERSHIP of believers. The word "fellowship" in Acts 2:42 is a noun and comes from a root word meaning "partners" (Luke 5:10). The local assembly will be a partnership of believers in Jesus Christ. Each partner in the partnership will contribute to it as enabled of the Lord (1 Corinthians 12:18), and the partnership, the assembly, will care for the individual saint. It will truly be "One for all, and all for one". 

The idea of the local assembly being a supermarket to which saints come to get what they want, when they want it, and simply pay someone to manage it is foreign to Scripture. Such an organization is also the product of the natural mind. 

This partnership could be described as a family. A family made up of brothers and sisters in the Lord. As such the members of the family will be very close, such as we read concerning the early church, "And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul" (Acts 4:32). 

This spiritual partnership could also be looked at as a body, with each member of the body contributing to its operation as enabled of the Lord (1 Corinthians 12:18). This body, while organized, is not an organization, but an organism. It is a living and functioning body of believers. 

The only names given to those in this fellowship will be those which Scripture gives-brethren, brothers, sisters, saints, believers, etc.. There will be no titles or positions given to men which are not in accordance with Scripture. There will be none who are "over" the saints... There will be no special class known as the "clergy" All will be viewed simply as brothers and sisters in Christ and one's social status, education, or title will have no bearing on their place in the local assembly. 

Now while the saints are its circumference, and all Christians are to be welcomed, this circumference is not only "inclusive", but "exclusive" as well. As stated previously, those who make no profession of faith in Jesus Christ are to have no part in this partnership. However, there are professing Christians who may have to be placed outside the circumference as well. The local assembly is not to ignore sin and thus it may become necessary to administer discipline. In accordance with Scripture, individual believers may have to be placed outside the fellowship for a variety of reasons. 

So while the local assembly is to be "opened" to all believers, it is to be "closed" to unbelievers and those believers who are in need of discipline. [It should be remembered that the ultimate aim of such discipline is always restoration to fellowship (2 Corinthians 2: 1-8)]. 

Is your local assembly a partnership of believers or is it a supermarket managed by a supervisor? Does it recognize all believers in Jesus Christ as brothers and sisters in Christ with no special titles or positions? Is it open to all believers and closed to those who make no profession of faith in Christ? Does it administer discipline in order to maintain its testimony to the Name of Christ? 

One mark of a New Testament assembly will be that the Saints will be its Circumference. 

3. The Savior Will Be It’s Center 

And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers (Acts 2:42). 

The Church faces great dangers from without. There are many who would bring in false teaching concerning the Person of Christ and the way of salvation. However, there is also great danger from within. Paul warned the Ephesian elders of both of these dangers when he spoke to them for the last time. 

"For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them" (Acts 20:29, 30). 

There is always the danger that the saints will be drawn away from Christ. Even the church itself, with all its programs and activities, can take the place of Christ. 

This is exactly what the Head of the Church said to the church at Ephesus. He was well aware that they had all their doctrine right and protected the assembly from false teachers, but He then adds, "Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love" (Revelation 2:4). 

Later, speaking to the Laodicean church, a picture of the professing church at the end of the Church Age, He speaks of their blindness to their true condition. They thought things were wonderful, when in fact Christ was on the outside of the church looking in (Revelation 3:14-20). 

Remember Me 

Christ is to be the center of the church (Matthew 18:20). He is to have the preeminence in all things (Colossians 1:18). So that the saints would not get their eyes off of Him and unto other men or things, the Lord instituted the Lord's Supper and asked the saints to come together and remember Him in the breaking of bread (1 Corinthians 11:23-26). 

Now the breaking of bread was not a means of grace, nor was it simply added on to the end of another meeting of the local church. In Acts 20:7 we are clearly told that the early church came together on the first day of the week specifically to "break bread." They were to remember, or draw the Lord to mind as they partook of the bread and the cup. It was not some hasty thing which brought a special grace to the partakers. It was time of reflection and certainly as they reflected they worshipped! 

One mark of a New Testament assembly will be that they will come together on the first day of the week to take time to reflect on Christ and to respond with worship. It will be a time of giving to the Lord, unlike when it comes together to hear a message from the Lord. [Notice that Paul's preaching was in addition to the breaking of bread. The breaking of bread was not added to the end of Paul's message.] 

Now we must be aware that the mere formality of breaking bread on the first day of the week is not in itself evidence of spirituality. The Lord spoke of those who "draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me (Matthew 15:8). Worship is the overflow of a heart which has been occupied with Christ throughout the days preceding the first day of the week. Let us not assume, as Israel did with the ark, God's approval simply because of the presence of the bread and cup. 

However, let us not assume that it is not necessary to remember the Lord in the breaking of bread each Lord's Day, for the risen Lord Himself made His desire known very clearly (1 Corinthians 11:23-36). 

The Headship of Christ 

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God (1 Corinthians 11:3). 

Christ is to be the One to Whom the church gathers and as such it is to recognize Him as the Head of the Church (Ephesians 1:22; Colossians 1:18). No man is to take His place and put himself over the church. The Head of the Church has given gifted men to the Church to build up the saints (Ephesians 4:11), but these men are not to rule over the saints. Those whom the Holy Spirit raises up as leaders are to function among the saints, not "over" them as a special class (Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:2). 

The order of headship which God established in creation, with Adam as head of the human race, was lost in the Fall. The wonderful story of the Bible is that this order has been restored in "new creation" under Christ (1 Corinthians 11:3). This order of headship under Christ, with the man [the visible representative of Christ] being head over the woman [a picture of the church], is to be seen in the Church. [That this order does not imply inferiority of the woman can be seen in the fact that Christ, Himself God, voluntarily placed Himself under God in order to accomplish our redemption.] 

The mark of a New Testament assembly will be that it practices this order of headship in accordance with the teaching of the New Testament Scriptures. Men are to lead the local church, in guiding it (1 Timothy 3:1-11) and instructing it (1 Timothy 2:11-14; 1 Corinthians 14:34). 

This order of headship is also to be demonstrated in the church by the uncovered head of the man and the covered head of the woman. This was not simply a cultural practice, but is rather a reminder to the saints and a declaration to the angels of the wonderful story of redemption and the restoration of God's order in New Creation. [Keep in mind that the angelic hosts can not read our hearts as God does, but look on the outward appearance!] The uncovered head of the man and the covered head of the woman demonstrate the church's submission to God's order of headship. 

The Spirit Will Be It’s Conductor 

And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers (Acts 2:42). 

The early New Testament church came together to pray together. They were united in their prayer. 'They lifted up their voice to God with one accord" (Acts 4:24). There were no prayer books. No prearranged program as we see so often today. The assembly was like an orchestra and the Spirit of God was the Conductor. 

We might note here that the early Church prayed together (Acts 1:14; 4:22-31). Power came not from the number of prayers or the number of people who prayed, but from their unity in prayer. Many local churches today divide the assembly up thinking the more people who pray, the greater the power. The truth is, it is unity in prayer that brings power. Sadly, true corporate prayer is not a common practice in many local churches. 

When the church came together to worship, pray, or to hear ministry, there was freedom for the Spirit to use any brother to lead or edify the assembly (1 Corinthinas 14:26). However, despite the lack of a human leader and human organization there was order. 

"God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints" (1 Corinthians 14:33). The Scriptures give us the order for such gatherings. "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak" (1 Corinthians 14:34). "...let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course" (1 Corinthians 14:27). "For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. (1 Corinthians 14:31). 

Thus in the gathering of a local assembly there will be freedom for the men to lead the assembly in collective worship and prayer, and in the ministry of God's Word. However, they will pray or speak one at a time, and when gathered for the ministry of the Word of God no more than two or three will minister. 

In the early church the gifts of prophecy (direct revelation from God) and speaking with tongues (foreign languages) were present. With the temporary setting aside of the nation of Israel, the formation of the New Testament Assembly, and the passing of the apostles and prophets, the sign gifts have ceased. 

However, one may prophesy today by setting forth the mind of God on a matter as seen in the Scriptures, and when this is done the order of the gathering must follow that given in Scripture (1 Corinthians 14:26-40). The Holy Spirit is to be given freedom to use various brethren and all things must be done in an orderly fashion and to the edification of the church. 

When it comes to the teaching of God's Word, which is different than prophesying and the preaching of the Gospel (Romans 12:6-7), the Scriptures do not prohibit the selection of the teacher or preacher by the assembly. However, the Scriptural teaching regarding the silence of the women and the orderliness of the gathering must be followed. 

In addition to the Spirit's freedom to conduct the gatherings of the local assembly, He will raise up elders, or shepherds, among the Lord's people (1 Peter 5:2). "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God" (Acts 20:28).  These shepherds must meet the qualifications outlined in Scripture (1 Timothy 3:1-11). There is absolutely no man-made requirements for seminary degrees or ordination. These have been introduced into the Church through the reasoning of man and are foreign to Scripture and have no place in a New Testament church. In a New Testament church there will be no division between the "clergy" and the "laity", as such distinctions are not only foreign to Scripture, but contrary to its very teaching (Matthew 23:9). 

The Bible teaches the "plurality of leadership." No one man is to be recognized as "'The Pastor." The Scriptures never use the terms "elder or pastor" as titles. They are used to describe a mature individual or the work he is doing among the Lord's people. The question has been well asked concerning a one man leadership, "Where in Scriptures is there warrant for one man to be appointed the leader and authority over the church?" The truth is, there is no such warrant. 

The Scriptures also clearly teach that every believer in the Lord Jesus Christ has been given one or more spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 12:4). As such, every member of the local partnership of believers is necessary. To have one man do all the teaching or preaching is to say that there is only one individual in the local church with that gift. This, of course, prohibits the use and development of gift by others in the fellowship. [This does not mean that every man has the gift of teaching or preaching the Gospel, and thus the pulpit must not be assigned without consideration of gift.] 

We might ask ourselves, "Where also is the notion that the public ministry of the Word is to be confined to one man in a local church, and that is contingent upon him being ‘ordained' by some human authority?" What saith the Scriptures? 

Summary 

Remember the question when we began, "According to Scripture, how should a local New Testament church function?" We have seen four marks of a New Testament assembly which is gathering and functioning in accordance with God's Word. 

If a local assembly of Christians functions in accordance with God's Word these four things will characterize it. 

1) The Scriptures will be its Charter. 
2) The Saints will be its Circumference. 
3) The Savior will be its Center. 
4) The Spirit will be its Conductor. 

Many man-made practices and traditions have been brought into the Church which have no grounds in Scripture and are, in fact, contrary to its teaching. What man has interjected into the church has taken away the simplicity of the early church and added much complexity. Despite this obvious fact many today rigorously continue in their practices as if they were sanctioned of God. 

Despite the clear teachings of Scripture on these truths related to the operation of a New Testament church, many ignore them and consider them unimportant. Like Saul, they feel that what they are doing will certainly be pleasing to the Lord, and failing to understand that God desires obedience in all things, even in the operation of a local assembly of believers. 

Remember, there is never justification from deviating from God's revealed will. "Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice" (1 Samuel 15:22). 

A local church should search the Scriptures like the Bereans. "They received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so (Acts 17:11). 

A local church should live by faith, believing God when He speaks, including what He says about the operation of a local New Testament assembly!

-----------

By Steve Hulshizer

Spread The Word
2721 Oberlin Drive 
York, PA 17404

WHAT I HAVE FOUND - Introduction to New Testament Assembly Principles

It is my privilege in this little booklet to introduce the reader to assemblies of Christian believers attempting to gather according to the pattern found in the New Testament. I write with some hesitation, for my last desire is to exalt man or any group of men. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to share with others the blessing I myself have received from fellowship with this dear company of God's people. 

For six years I pastored churches in a major denomination, having also been born, brought to Christ, and reared in that denomination, by and large a gospel-preaching, Bible-believing denomination. However, personal study of the New Testament teaching concerning the church and the ministry led me to question deeply whether many of the traditions and methods of our churches were Scriptural. At the same time I was gaining an increasing awareness of these simple assemblies of believers, whose beliefs and practices matched to a surprising degree the convictions I was developing through searching the Scriptures. 

After much prayer and agonizing, I felt led of the Spirit-much to the dismay of some-to resign my position as pastor, leave my denomination, and begin to meet with a small group of these brothers and sisters. I have not once regretted this step, nor can I adequately express how greatly my family and I have been blessed by it. I feel it would be both ungrateful and selfish to keep this discovery to myself, particularly since many Christians, though sensing something amiss in their own church traditions, are wholly unaware of even the existence of these assemblies meeting in Scriptural fashion. 

These assemblies are sometimes referred to as "Plymouth Brethren" by others. However this is not a name adopted or recognized by themselves. For they consider themselves simply believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, gathered without denominational titles in His name alone. If the use of a label is necessary, the simple term "brethren" is preferred, since this is not an exclusive name, but one that can be applied equally to all true believers. For sake of convenience we will refer to them as "brethren" assemblies. The quotation marks and the absence of a capital "B" are meant to emphasize that this is not a denomination, nor is it to be mistaken for any denomination (such as the Church of the Brethren, Brethren in Christ, United Brethren, etc.). The "brethren" to which we refer are Christians attempting to meet in New Testament simplicity, recognizing their essential unity with all others in the Body of Christ, regardless of denominational or local church affiliation. 

In the early 1800's the Holy Spirit led numerous Christians to begin meeting in this way. (Plymouth, England was one of the first and largest centers of the work, giving rise to the misnomer, "Plymouth Brethren.") Despite their beginnings as a somewhat despised little flock, the "brethren" quickly made an indelible mark upon evangelical Christianity. Many of the themes commonplace to Bible-believing Christians today, such as the blessed hope of Christ's imminent return, the clear distinction between law and grace, the unique position of the Church in God's purposes, the future blessing of Israel, etc., are truths that were largely recovered from obscurity and popularized by "brethren" writers and Bible teachers. J. N. Darby, F. W. Grant, H. A. Ironside, William Kelly, C. H. Mackintosh, Samuel Ridout, W. E. Vine, and many others. 

It is impossible to overestimate the impact these godly and gifted men have had on evangelical beliefs through the years. I mention this, not to exalt these men or "brethren" as a whole, but because one hearing for the first time about these assemblies might mistakenly think they are another extreme sect, or even a cult, to be avoided. On the contrary, they have played a key role in the history of Bible-believing Christianity over the past two centuries, and they continue to hold without question to the fundamental doctrines of the faith: The deity of Christ, His sacrificial death, bodily resurrection and literal return, salvation through faith alone, the verbal inspiration of Scripture, etc.  

The assemblies are by no means perfect representations of New Testament Christianity, nor is their history without the imprint of human foibles and weakness, for they have had their share of unfortunate quarrels and divisions. No one is more keenly aware of this than "brethren" themselves. Many of the statements I make about them in this booklet are things they themselves would be very hesitant to claim. This is as it should be, for our Lord said, "He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory". But as a relative new- comer to the assemblies, I feel I am in a position to speak freely about what I have found without danger of self-aggrandizement. 

Since I write by way of personal testimony, I do not feel compelled to deal in a systematic way with the beliefs and practices of the assemblies. Rather, I want to comment on four specific characteristics that I have found particularly noteworthy and refreshing. 

1. Elimination of the "clergy" as a separate class of believers 

In the simplicity of the early Church, as any honest reader of the New Testament will affirm, there was no such thing as a professional "clergy." The thought of an assembly of believers being led by one man, with ministerial "credentials" and professional training, serving for a stipulated salary-all this is utterly foreign to the New Testament. Rather, the New Testament pattern is that the church is to be led, from the human standpoint, not by a solitary pastor, but by a group of men, normally designated 'elders" or "overseers" in the New Testament. Furthermore, the clear implication is that these elders generally are to be raised up by God within the local bodies, not hired or imported by the churches from without. 

This pattern the assemblies attempt to uphold, and it was this primarily that first attracted me to them. While serving in the traditional role of "pastor" of a denominational church, my study of the New Testament led me to believe that I was occupying essentially a non-Scriptural position. With the New Testament pattern in front of me, I began to see with new eyes some of the tragic results that have come as a result of churches embracing wholesale a non- Scriptural pattern of church leadership. Many local church pastors are godly and dedicated men, but the clerical system-this deplorable division of the saints into "clergy" and "laity"-has wreaked untold havoc in the Church of God. 

One famous coach defined the game of football as, "22 men on the field in desperate need of rest, surrounded by 50,000 spectators in desperate need of exercise." A similar state of affairs exists in most churches today, because of the notion that one must have professional credentials to publicly preach and teach the Word of God or to shepherd the flock of God. Thus the potentially mighty army of God is neatly subdivided into a handful of active duty soldiers and a vast company of spectators, "lay people," who cheer the soldiers on with their attendance at meetings and their financial support. 

Now in all fairness I should say that many pastors deplore this state of affairs as much as anybody. They see their role, not as monopolizing the work of the ministry, but as equipping the saints to share in the ministry. This desired result, however, rarely comes to pass, the reason being that the clergy-laity distinction is the great immobilizer of the saints. The perception is simply too deeply ingrained that certain elements of Christian work are reserved for a special "called" few. 

On one occasion, as I began to see the New Testament truth concerning these things, I shared my burden with some of the men of the church, suggesting that others besides the "pastor" should be involved, for instance, in preaching and teaching the Word in the public meetings of the church. One of the dear men, in all sincerity, replied, "But Pastor, we haven't studied like you have." My first reaction was to ask, "Why not?" For I can say without hesitation that 99 per cent of what I know of the Bible (and pitiably little it is), I have learned, not from theological seminary, but from personal study of the Scriptures and from the writings of godly men, the same resources every saint of God ought to be taking advantage of on a regular basis. In fact, many theologically-trained men would add their voice to mine in admitting that their seminary training, far from qualifying them to expound the riches of the Word of God, was a soul-withering experience from which they had to recover spiritually before being effective in ministering the Word. 

In the assemblies, the spiritual oversight of the flock is exercised by a group of mature, responsible brothers, and public ministry of the Word is shared among various gifted brethren. In addition, there is opportunity at the weekly breaking of bread meeting, as we will see, for any brother, including those who do not regularly minister in public, to share a thought from Scripture. While there are full-time workers among the assemblies-missionaries, evangelists, Bible teachers- the lion's share of the oversight of the assemblies and the public ministry each Lord's Day is in the hands of men who spend their weeks in secular vocations. 

What, then, is the quality of the public ministry in the assemblies, if handled primarily by men who have never had any formal training in theology or homiletics, and who have never been ordained by any church or denomination? I will give my opinion, and it is that the Bible teaching among the assemblies, while often lacking the polished style and spectator appeal (blessed lack!) of the professional, salaried ministry, is on the whole decidedly superior in content. After all, as another has put it, there is a vast difference between being "learned in the Scriptures" and being clever with the Bible. Unfortunately, the latter is the emphasis in many seminary classrooms and at the desks of many pastors, who are faced with preparing two or three "sermons" a week for audiences basically disinterested in the deep truths of the Word of God. 

In contrast, the average speaker in a "brethren" assembly may not know that the points in his outline should all begin with the saame letter of the alphabet, or even that he is supposed to have an outline at all. He has never been taught that he must have a catchy title, enticing introduction, and forceful conclusion. Being poorly informed about all this, he knows no better than to simply stand and unfold the Word of God, verse by verse, and line by line. His poor listeners, being used to no better, do not seem to realize they have been deprived, perhaps because their ears have been trained by long practice to delight in the truth of Scripture, not the packaging in which it is presented. 

Before we leave this topic (about which I have written in more depth in the booklet, "Is the One-Pastor System Scriptural?"), I must mention a most precious spin-off effect I have witnessed from this practice of sharing the public ministry among the men, and that is its effect on the families of the assembly. Who can measure the profound impression made upon a child, week after week, to see his father-not "the preacher", "the pastor", "the minister", but his father-standing and expounding the Word of God. Or rising at the prompting of the Holy Spirit to share a simple thought on the glories of Christ at the Lord's table. And is the blessing of it any less profound for the godly wife and mother sitting next to the child? Oh, is not the heart-cry of so many wives today, "If only my husband were more interested in spiritual things?" Is not the overriding need of the family today that of fathers and husbands who are willing and able to grasp the reins of spiritual leadership? Is not this need mirrored in the churches as well? 

The distressing thing about us as men is that, while we were created for spiritual leadership, we are by nature lax about assuming it. If women will take the spiritual lead, most men will be content to let them. If a professional pastor is available to do the preaching, teaching, witnessing, counseling, etc., most men will very comfortably slip into the spectator role. In the "brethren" assemblies, though, the men are encouraged, expected, and given the opportunity to exercise their gifts-there is no one else to do it! And they see this modeled before them by other men, whom they know to be neither seminary-trained, ordained, nor paid, ministering the Word, shepherding the flock, and doing other ministry work. It is beautiful to see how under these circumstances men rise to the occasion, with untold benefits accruing to the church and spilling over into the home. 

2. Obedience to the teaching of Scripture concerning the role of women in the assembly 

This leads us to another characteristic of the assemblies, one that many find particularly objectionable, and that is their literal obedience to the instructions of Scripture concerning the role of women in the assembly. These instructions are found in such passages as 1 Corinthians 11 and 14, and 1 Timothy 2. They are completely opposite to the spirit of the age; perhaps this is why they are so attacked, ignored, or compromised, even by professed lovers of the Word of God. 

The discovery that the wearing of headcoverings during meetings is prevalent among the women in the assemblies is a shock and offense to many. It places the assemblies a small step above snake-handling cultists in the minds of some! For our part, my wife and I found in this the final confirmation, as I shall explain, that we should begin to meet with these brothers and sisters. 

For years we had heard various explanations of the New Testament teaching on the role of women. Typically, these explanations focused on the local cultural situations that supposedly gave rise to the teaching, such as the alleged prominence of temple harlots in Corinth accounting for Paul's insistence on head coverings and the silence of women in the meetings. These explanations never quite rang true with us. For one thing, it never seemed right that a knowledge of ancient Greco-Roman social history should be prerequisite to a proper interpretation of Scripture, particularly where a culturally-based interpretation appeared to set aside the plain teaching of the passage. At any rate, whenever one of the sisters would rise to address the church in some way, and when, on one occasion, our Sunday School selected a woman to teach a mixed class of men and women, we had a gnawing feeling that all was not as it should be. 

This came to a head when one of the precious ladies of the church came to me, disturbed because she had been reading some of the Scriptural teachings in this area. She wanted to know if they meant what they said, and if so, why we were not obeying them! I told her this bothered me too, and that, although I wasn't sure about the proper interpretation of those passages, I would study the matter further and try to arrive at a conclusion. This was during the same period I mentioned earlier, during which I was wrestling with the other facets of the New Testament pattern for the church. My ultimate conclusion was that, yes, all of these Scriptures meant what they said, and only an approach to the Word polluted by tradition and the spirit of the age has kept the Church from taking them at face value. 

When someone suggests taking literally Scriptures relating to women in the churches, and suggests that women are, in fact, to "remain silent" in the meetings and are not permitted to teach, they are likely to hear the rejoinder: "Well then, I suppose you believe women should wear head coverings, too!" As if, of course, this were a ludicrous thought and the mere mention of it should send one scurrying apologetically for a more enlightened interpretation. In a sense, there is truth to that rejoinder, for to take one clear instruction to the Church literally and not another is patent inconsistency. But is the proper solution to take neither seriously? Is it not rather to submit to both-to all? 

Now, perhaps, you will understand why we rejoiced to hear of the wearing of head-coverings by the women of the assemblies. It evidenced to us that here at last were believers attempting to conform to the whole of the New Testament pattern for the church, not playing pick and choose. Here were assemblies not frightened off from obeying the Word of God by the fact that their obedience would place them squarely at odds with the prevailing views of worldlings and Christendom alike. 

The wearing of headcoverings is not something that is rigidly imposed in a legalistic spirit. In most of the assemblies it is done in a sweet, voluntary spirit by the women, who are its strongest proponents. Nor are visitors to the meetings made to feel uncomfortable or compelled to conform in this area. There is no yoke of bondage here. Most of the sisters delight in being allowed in this way to model before the whole church their submission to their "head,'' and thus the proper submission of the Church to Christ. And by their obedience in this small way, Christ is honored, families are strengthened, young girls are taught the beauty of womanhood, and men are challenged to spiritual headship. 

If anyone feels this to be oppressive, let him take the trouble to ask the sisters if they feel oppressed. Let him note their countenances as they explain the beautiful spiritual reality behind this outward expression. Let him observe the behavior of the daughters, and soberly compare their character, maturity, and spirituality with that of their peers. Let him trace in the home life, the marriage life, and the demeanor of the children the influence, not of the wearing of the head-covering itself, but of the dual spirit of joyful submission by the wife and active leadership by the husband which is taught, nurtured, and sustained by this outward symbol. Then let him ask his own heart if these are the fruits one would expect to blossom from an oppressive legalism. 

Let him conclude by inquiring of those who nicely set aside the commandment of God by the traditions of men, if the New Testament instructions to women in the churches applied only, in their literal sense, and to the specific addressees, in view of certain cultural exigencies? Where can the sisters today find authoritative instruction in light of our own cultural emergency? Was the need in first-century Corinth greater than today, with gender roles so hopelessly confused and godly womanhood under concerted and vicious attack such as the world has never seen'? If a clear word from the Lord was necessary then, is it not more so now'? Indeed it is. And those who are joyfully submitting to the teaching of Scripture in this area are shining like lights in the world in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation. 

3. Exaltation of the Person and Work of Christ 

I can say with gratitude that, even before I left the denominational church, "brethren" writers were the ones who taught me to glory in the Person and work of Christ Jesus. Books like Notes on Leviticus, by C. H. Mackintosh, Lectures on the Epistle to the Hebrews and Lectures on the Tabernacle by Samuel Ridout, began to foster in me a deep attraction to His Person and a solid doctrinal, rather than sentimental, appreciation of His work. In short, an appetite for Christ in His manifold loveliness that I had never before known. Since casting my lot with the "brethren", I have often had cause to give thanks to God for the constant upholding of the glories of Christ in these humble assemblies of the Lord's people, and to wonder that I was so long content with a shallow, insipid, and sentimental appreciation of Him. 

And can it be denied that this accurately describes the view of Christ usually presented in current evangelical preaching, teaching, and literature? Is it not rarely that the presentation of the Cross goes beyond the physical sufferings of Christ and the assertion that "He died for our sins"? The latter is a glorious truth, no question, and perhaps the extent to which sinners can comprehend the work of Christ, but it hardly exhausts the glory of the Cross for the saints. To borrow the imagery of the Levitical offerings, ought we to stop with the trespass offering-though it be a true and blessed aspect of Christ's work-and neglect those aspects of His mighty sacrifice unfolded in the sin- offering, the peace offeering, and the burnt-offering Ah, the burnt offering-highest and most beautiful of all the typical sacrifices! Christ's work presented, not as it affects man, but as it is viewed by God. Christ pictured, not as our sin-bearer, but as the devoted One who delighted to do the will of God, even unto death. And who in turn was the delight of the Father's heart, even-yes, especially-in His death. It is Christ through the eternal Spirit offering Himself without spot to God (Hebrews 9:14). Who can fathom the sweetness of that offering's aroma to God! Yet- let the reader be the judge-how often do most believers hear of these things? 

If current teaching on Christ's work is shallow and unsatisfying, teaching on His glorious Person is practically non-existent. While most-though by no means all-evangelical believers could, upon questioning, produce the orthodox answer that Christ is both God and Man, I fear that any deeper probing would most certainly produce embarrassing and disturbing results. What of the impeccability of Christ? Could He have sinned? Did His humanity struggle against temptation as we do? Did He lay aside certain attributes of His deity when He 'became flesh'?" What about His incorruptible manhood? Was it subject to sickness and death? How is His wondrous Person illustrated in the Tabernacle, the offerings of Leviticus, and other Old Testament types? Why are there four Gospels? Which aspect of Christ is particularly presented in each? Even where such questions can be answered with theological correctness, is there a real heart for Christ, a constant gazing upon Him, a deep and daily feeding upon this One who is the "Bread come down from Heaven?" 

I desire to tread carefully here, for generalities are always dangerous, and nothing could be more incongruous than boasting about one's apprehension of Christ, whether as an individual or as a group of churches. So I hope the reader will understand the spirit in which I write, and will forgive me if, as one who has been immeasurably blessed, I desire to share that blessing with others. For my personal observation is that, whatever weaknesses may certainly be noted in "brethren" assemblies, there is by and large a keener delight in and apprehension of the Person and work of Christ than can normally be found elsewhere. I understand if the reader should take issue with this statement, and I have never heard any in the assemblies claim this for themselves, but I cannot but speak what I have seen and heard. 

One of my first surprises after I began to meet with the small assembly of "brethren" was the arrival of a series of special meetings with a visiting speaker. My background had taught me to expect such events to be preceded by plenty of build-up and promotion. Crowned by the arrival of the travelling star preacher, who, if he were not a former professional athlete or other celebrity, would at least be a riveting speaker, primed to deliver an arsenal of dynamic, well-rehearsed sermons on a variety of topics. If such I expected, I was disappointed, for what I saw was an eager group of believers gathering, without coaxing or prodding, to hear an unpretentious servant of Christ give a few warm-hearted messages on the life of our Lord from the book of Mark. 

This same spirit I have noted since then, expressing itself in many ways. For instance, in a day when Christian bookstores are filled with trendy topical studies, Christian fiction, and secular self-help psychology coated with a thin Christian lacquer, among what other circle of believers could a book written a century and a half ago and entitled, Short Meditations on the Moral Glory of the Lord Jesus Christ, still have wide circulation? This simple fascination with Christ has much to do, I believe, with what we will mention next, the breaking of bread as practiced weekly by the assemblies. It is this practice of gathering weekly, under the leadership of the Holy Spirit alone, for the purpose of remembering the Lord in the way He requested that more than anything else, I believe, has given rise to this ardent zeal for the Person and work of Christ. As we sometimes sing at the Lord's Supper: 

Our song then forever shall be 
Of the Shepherd who gave Himself thus; 
No subject's so glorious as He, 
No theme so affecting to us. 

I say to my brothers and sisters in the assemblies, let us beware lest we be moved away from the simplicity of devotion to Christ. And, while we in one breath give thanks to God for our rich heritage in this, let us in the next confess that we, too, have drunk far too timidly of this vast reservoir. There are whole regions of Christ's glory that lie unexplored and unappreciated because of our laxity and dullness of spirit. How little we really know of Him! Let us confess our lack and then let us "follow on to know the Lord!" 

4. Weekly remembrance of the Lord through the breaking of bread 

While Scripture gives no hard and fast requirement concerning the frequency of the Lord's Supper, it is clear that the practice of the New Testament Church was to observe it each Lord's Day (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 11:1 7ff., etc.). Not only so, but it was the central focus of their gathering. This was another area I began to be strongly exercised about in my conscience as I studied the New Testament pattern for the Church. 

Acts 2:42 lists the breaking of bread as one of four items, along with the apostles' teaching, fellowship, and prayer, to which the early Church "devoted themselves" Of how many churches today can it remotely be said that they devote themselves to the breaking of bread'? In the church where I pastored, as well as most other churches I knew, the Scriptural phrase, "as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup", had been amended, for all practical purposes, to "as seldom as ye eat this bread and drink this cup". 

When told that "brethren" assemblies follow the New Testament pattern of observing the Lord's Supper each Lord's Day, a common reaction by those who have never witnessed this observance in its Scriptural simplicity and beauty is, "I wouldn't want to have the Lord's Supper every week!" Nor would I, if it were done in the fashion common to most evangelical churches today. Such a stale and staid ritual, encrusted still with remnants of Roman Catholic superstition (such as the necessity of the elements being "administered" by a "clergyman"), could hardly be expected to command the affections of the heart. Looking back on my years in the pastorate, I remember dreading even the paltry three or four times a year when the Lord's Supper was scheduled. But now, the breaking of bread has become a keen delight, to the point that I feel greatly deprived if forced by circumstances to miss it. 

Let me attempt to describe, for those who have never seen it, the typical breaking of bread meeting among the assemblies. The time varies, with some assemblies having this as their first meeting on Sunday morning, others preferring the evening hour. The saints gather with the Lord's table before them. In some cases they are seated in circular fashion with the table in the midst; in others the table is at the front of the gathering place. Perhaps the first thing the visitor notices is the simplicity of the meeting hall. "Brethren" are not known for their elaborate worship facilities. But the most striking feature of this gathering to one unaccustomed to such meeting is that there is no one officiating, presiding, or directing the meeting-no one, that is, other than the Holy Spirit. 

Soon, one of the brothers, as he feels led, will begin the meeting, perhaps by giving out a hymn. Then another brother may read a brief passage from the Scriptures which is in keeping with the purpose of the gathering. Yet another might lead in prayer. And thus the meeting continues, with different men of the assembly taking part-not professional "ministers," but businessmen, engineers, farmers, carpenters, and others, from every occupation and station in life. One will have a hymn, another a Scripture reading or prayer of thanksgiving, all centered around the Person and redeeming work of the Savior. The sisters play a vital part as they join in singing the hymns and in the silent prayer and worship which so largely sets the spiritual tone of the meeting. None of this is orchestrated or planned in advance, though occasionally visitors have been so impressed with the harmony of the thoughts expressed that they could scarcely believe it was not arranged beforehand. No, the only preparation for this meeting is the heart preparation of the brothers and sisters in self-examination and meditation on the Scriptures. 

After a time, one of the brothers will give thanks for the bread. Then he takes it from the table, and the believers pass it one to another. Thanks is then given for the cup, and it is distributed. Again, the men taking the lead in this are not chosen beforehand, nor do they have to be elders or deacons, or members of any other approved class. Truly, here is the priesthood of believers, not in word, but in deed. Shortly after the taking of the bread and cup, the meeting is usually closed, characteristically with a hymn. An offering is generally taken at some time during the meeting. There is a strong feeling among the assemblies that no offering should be taken in a meeting to which the unconverted are invited, not only because it may give offense to some, but because it is deemed improper for God's work to be financed by the gifts of unbelievers. Thus the collection is made during the breaking of bread meeting, for believers only, rather than the public preaching and teaching meetings. 

The Lord's Supper is often called the "Worship Meeting," and so it is. Some visitors might think the mood rather solemn, for there is little outward demonstration. There are often extended periods of silence, but these are not awkward times of "waiting for someone to say something," but times of rich reflection and meditation. "What a sight!" writes John Ritchie, the dear old Scottish saint. "Every eye is fixed on Christ; every heart is satisfied". 

Recently, at the invitation of a friend, I spent a Saturday evening at a Christian gathering in the local convention hall. By the time I arrived, the crowd of perhaps four or five hundred was well into the "praise and worship" time of the meeting, swaying to the driving pulse of the music and expressing their praise in very demonstrative ways. The speaker for the evening, a very popular Christian leader, took the platform, He delivered what amounted to a shallow motivational talk, consisting largely of a string of anecdotes, laced with humor that at times bordered on irreverence. I left with a deep concern about what I had just witnessed. 

The next morning, being the Lord's Day, found me with thirty or forty saints humbly gathered around the Lord's table. No dynamic speaker, no trendy music, no ostentatious display. In short, nothing to appeal to the flesh at all. Just the Lord's people humbly remembering Him in the way He requested. I could not help but feel that this, while falling far short of the previous night's gathering in entertainment value, breathed far more the authentic spirit of the New Testament Church. 

Yet many of those who had been present on Saturday night would surely look at this little meeting with a mixture of pity and scorn. "How dry! Where's the emotion?" they say. Could it be they don't see the dear saint of God sitting there head in hands, even after several decades of faithful service to Christ, shaking his head in amazement as he contemplates the astounding grace of God and the preciousness of the One who died for him? Do they not notice, over here, a godly father and husband, pausing to wipe the tears from his eyes as the little group sings: 

When we see Thee as the victim, 
Nailed to the accursed tree, 
For our guilt and folly stricken, 
All our judgment borne by Thee, 
Lord, we own, with hearts adoring, 
Thou hast loved us in Thy blood; 
Glory, glory everlasting 
Be to Thee, Thou Lamb of God! 

Somber? No joy? Who but one who has known it can describe the inestimable sense of satisfaction, the deep welling up of joy within as the heart looks utterly away from itself and fixes its gaze upon Him in whom all Heaven finds its delight, and upon the vast incomprehensible work which He has so perfectly wrought. Here truly is rest for the conscience, fullness for the heart, and joy-not a joy that can be easily expressed, but "joy unspeakable and full of glory". 

Yes, whether it is the Scriptural pattern for church leadership, the role of women in the churches, the prominence of the Lord's Supper, or any other area of church life, we will invariably find that following the pattern laid down by the Holy Spirit in Scripture produces blessed results. We are fools to think otherwise. The New Testament instructions to the churches are not impractical, outdated things to be swept under the rug by exegetical sleight-of-hand. Rather, they are precious lamps lighting the Church's way through this dark age, and those who can say with the Psalmist, "I turned my feet unto thy testimonies", will surely find them a more trustworthy guide than the opinions and traditions of men. 

Some Final Words 

I pray that in my desire to share the blessing I have received, I have not unwittingly painted "brethren" assemblies in larger than life strokes. No doubt, a thousand booklets this size and more could be written on their weaknesses, defects, and mistakes. Anyone seeking perfection, or anything near it, among any group of saints this side of glory is bound for disappointment. These few pages are nothing more than the personal testimony of one who, like the lepers in Elisha's day, has found great spoil and cannot in good conscience hold his peace. My God bless and use them for His own glory. 

---------------

By Mark Frees

Published by:

Spread the Word

2721 Oberlin Drive

York, PA 17404

IS THE ONE-PASTOR SYSTEM SCRIPTURAL?

In the summer of 1990, while pastoring a denominational church in rural Mississippi, 1 felt led to teach a Bible study series on the New Testament pattern for the church and its leadership. We were not very far into this study before I began to seriously question the scripturalness of many of our church practices and traditions. Most troublesome was the question of whether or not my own position as the Pastor of a local church was a scriptural one.

I had always assumed that the one-Pastor system, being the pattern followed in the overwhelming majority of churches today, was founded upon Scripture. But as I began to earnestly study the Scriptures on the issue of church leadership, one disturbing question kept intruding itself-a question I present here for the sober consideration of the reader. Where in Scripture is there warrant for one man to be the spiritual leader and authority over the local church?

Never mind that this is the pattern unquestioningly followed throughout Christendom today. Where is it in Scripture? As I searched the length and breadth of the New Testament, it became obvious to me that such a pattern was nowhere to be found. Rather, I found that the primary role in shepherding the New Testament churches was exercised, not by a solitary Pastor, but by a plurality of men, described as “elders” or overseers.

“And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed” (Acts 14:23).

“From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the church.... He said unto them... Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood” (Acts 20:17-28).

“Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons” (Philippians 1:1).

“For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order t he things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee”(Titus 1:5).

“Is any sick among you? 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” (James 5:14).

The quotation above from Acts 20 makes it clear that the “elders” and “overseers” are the same persons, and that it is they who are given responsibility to shepherd, or pastor the church of God. (“Shepherd” is the literal meaning of the word “pastor.”) So while others besides elders may exercise a pastoral gift-Bible teachers, for instance, there is no hint in Scripture of anyone claiming to be “the Pastor” of a local church and assuming a position of oversight apart from and superior to the work of the elders. We read nothing of a “Senior Pastor,” or “Presiding Elder.” Such titles, in fact come perilously close to blasphemy, since Christ Himself is spoken of as “the Chief Shepherd” (1 Peter 5:4).

The apostle Peter confirms that the terms “elders” and “overseers” refer to the same persons, and that their work is that of pastoring the flock:

“The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:  Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind” (1 Peter 5:1-2).

So when we read in Ephesians 4:11 that God has given “some as pastors” (literally, “shepherds”), can we not assume that this refers primarily to these elders, or overseers, and not to a one-man office about which the rest of the New Testament is completely silent. Nor is all this mere wrangling over terminology.

The point to be fixed clearly in the mind from the above scriptures is that, in the New Testament, churches were never shepherded by one man, whatever his title or designation, but by a plurality of men. Further, the clear impression given by these scriptures is that elders were generally raised up by God from within the local church, not hired and imported from outside-and certainly not from the ranks of a professional “clergy”.

This Gives Rise to Another Question

Where in Scripture is there any such thing as a servant of the Lord contracting to receive a stated salary from a church? The New Testament clearly sets forth the principle that those who preach the gospel are entitled to “live from the gospel” (Matthew 10:9-10; 1 Corinthians 9:14; 1 Timothy 5:17-18), but there is never any indication that this involves a stated salary, but rather, free will gifts:

“Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things” (Galatians 6:6).

“Now you Philippians know also that in the beginning of the gospel... no church shared with me concerning giving and receiving but you only. For even in Thessalonica you sent aid once and again for my necessities” (Philippians 4:10-16).

“Bring Zenas the lawyer and Apollos on their journey diligently, that nothing be wanting unto them. And let ours also learn to maintain good works for necessary uses, that they be not unfruitful” (Titus 3:13-14).

The only case in Scripture of a “minister” receiving a fixed salary occurs in Judges 17-a situation filled with compromise and idolatry!

But did not Jesus say, “The laborer is worthy of his hire” (Luke 10:7)? True, but the briefest glance at the immediate context, where these laborers are instructed to carry neither purse nor scrip, and to “eat and drink such things as are set before you”-shows that a fixed salary was the last thing our Lord had in view. Yes, the Lord's laborer is worthy of his hire, but who is it that “hires” him? In whose employ is he--the church's or the Lord's? Surely the Lord's, but the system of a salaried pastorate implies otherwise. I cannot help but believe that the present-day “Pastor search” process, complete with resumes, salary negotiations, trial sermons, and the like, is a grievous offence to the Spirit of God. Again our urgent question must be: where is all this in Scripture?

Where also is the notion that the public ministry of the Word is to be confined to one man in a local church, and that it is contingent upon him being “ordained” by some human authority? On the contrary, we read:

“Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted” (1 Corinthians 14:29-31).

Regardless of one's view concerning the nature of the gift of prophecy and its validity for today, it is abundantly clear that the practice of one man monopolizing the public ministry of the Word was utterly foreign to the New Testament churches.

Sad Consequences

So when confronted with the plain teaching of Scripture, I could not escape the conclusion that the oversight of the local church is to be exercised by mature brethren raised up by the Holy Spirit from within the church. And that public ministry of the Word is open to any brother who has been divinely gifted for it. In contrast, most churches today entrust the spiritual leadership of the congregation and the vast majority of the public ministry to a solitary Pastor, who is chosen from among the professional “clergy,” imported from outside the church and promised a fixed salary for his services. Can the reader-with his New Testament open before him-deny that this is a drastic departure from the scriptural pattern? Indeed it is, and it has had predictably severe consequences on the spiritual life of churches. The following are only some of the problems that are created or aggravated by this unscriptural one-Pastor system:

(1) Perpetuates the deplorable distinction between “clergy” and “laity.” No more pernicious device of the devil has ever been deployed than this utterly unscriptural distinction. Pastors today grieve about being unable to involve the “laity.” without ever considering that it is the very system of dividing Christians into two classes that is to blame.

The answer is not to “involve” the laity, but to abolish it! Away with the idea that Christian work is the province of a special few!

(2) Causes believers to neglect their own responsibility for witnessing to the lost, encouraging the brethren, in-depth Bible study, visiting the sick, etc., out of a conscious or subconscious assumption that these are “the Pastor's Jobs.” Often the only one visibly working for Christ in the community is the Pastor, whose witness is impaired by the fact that he is perceived as paid to do so, And how rare is serious Bible study outside of the Pastor's study! There is a widespread delusion that only the “ordained” Pastor is qualified to mine the riches of God's Word, and that only he is responsible for using the Word to encourage the brethren and warn the lost. As a result, men who have been believers in Christ for thirty or forty years and “by this time ought to be teachers” are still being spoon-fed them- selves. (Hebrew 5:12) In our churches today this is not the unfortunate exception. It is the norm. Of all the damage wreaked by the unscriptural system of handing over the ministry of the church to a single professional (or in larger churches, a staff of professionals), this debilitating effect on the men of the congregation is perhaps the most tragic.

(3) Leaves little or no room for the exercise of spiritual gifts, other than the Pastor's, in the gatherings of the church.

(4) Leads to churches being built in the flesh, as programs, promotion, and the Pastor's personality must replace the spiritual gifts of the body.

(5) Produces widespread discouragement among Pastors, who are trying earnestly to fill an unscriptural role.

(6) Denies Pastors the fellowship in the ministry they so desperately need. Usually the difference in spiritual vision and ministry responsibility between the Pastor and the congregation is so wide that his only meaningful fellowship is with other Pastors, who are not fellow-laborers in the same field, but have their own fields to worry about.

(7) Tends to negate the presidency of the Holy Spirit in the church. Though the Pastor may earnestly seek the mind of the Spirit, his perception is clouded by his own personality, desires, etc. How much better, when formulating plans or making a decision, for the elders as a group, along with other spiritual men, to come before the Lord in prayer until the Holy Spirit speaks and brings them to a consensus, as in Acts 13:1-3.

(8) Since one man is given responsibility for the entire ministry of the church-and since no one man has all the gifts-Pastors are forced to spend much of their time doing ministry they are not supernaturally gifted to do, or else that ministry goes undone.

(9) Creates a situation where one person, the Pastor, can turn a doctrinally sound church into a heretical church overnight. Having multiple elders, while not providing absolute immunity from doctrinal error, is a powerful check against heretical teaching.

(10) Leads to a paralyzing shortage of national Christian workers in many mission areas, because of the assumption that these workers must be professionally trained and imported from outside the church. Where is the confidence that the Lord has already supplied the body with the leadership gifts needed?

(11) Puts undue pressure on the Pastor's wife and children, as they are forced to live in a “fishbowl” environment as “the preacher's” family.

These are but a sampling of the consequences that I believe can be laid squarely at the feet of unscriptural beliefs and practices concerning the ministry.

Some Objections Answered

Objection 1: The proper role of a pastor is not to assume the entire ministry of the church, but to mobilize and equip the saints to do the work of the ministry. Therefore, most of the problems you have listed are results, not of the single-Pastor system itself, but of the abuse of that system.

Reply:  Since the single-Pastor system is universally beset with these problems, the burden of proof lies on its defenders to prove that the system itself is not at fault, particularly since it is a system with no warrant in Scripture. The concept of a church led by a Pastor-equipper who mobilizes the saints to do the work of the ministry sounds attractive, but the experience of thousands of frustrated Pastors testifies that it simply does not work. There is simply too deeply ingrained a perception in the minds of the congregation that Christian work is for a special few. The clergy-laity gap is the great demobilizer of the saints. Anyone trying to abolish that gap is doomed to failure while clinging to a system where one man, professionally trained and credentialed, is viewed as “the Minister.” Incidentally, those who espouse the concept of the Pastor- equipper normally have a very limited notion of what the “work of the ministry” includes. For instance, even the Pastor who makes equipping the saints an emphasis of his ministry will normally call a fellow clergyman-not someone from the congregation-to fill the pulpit when he is away.

Objection 2: The approach you have suggested would produce incompetent church leadership at best, and doctrinal mayhem at worst.

Reply: This is a serious charge because it I implies that the Holy Spirit is incompetent in placing the proper leadership gifts within each church. Is it seminary training that qualifies a man for leadership in the church, or the gifts of the Spirit? We have often been guilty of giving lip service to the latter, while placing greater weight on the former.

Objection 3: The word “overseer” is singular in 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:7 where the qualifications of the overseer are described. This suggests at least the possibility of “overseer” being a one-man work.

Reply: It is a most natural use of language to employ the singular when describing the qualifications of a position. For instance, I might say, “A United States Senator (or even, the United States Senator) must be a man of integrity. honor, etc.” without in the least implying that there is only one United States Senator, or even one per state! To stress Paul's perfectly explicable use of the singular here, while ignoring the overwhelming evidence of the rest of the New Testament, would be a strange and twisted exegesis. At any rate, a closer look at Titus 1:5-7 rules out the possibility that Paul was advocating a one-pastor system. How can the use of the singular “overseer” in verse 7 possibly imply that each local church is to have only one overseer, when two verses earlier Paul had introduced the subject by reminding Titus of his instructions to “appoint elders [plural I in every city”? To my mind, this is conclusive.

Objection 4: Were not the “Pastoral Epistles” addressed to single individuals?

Reply: This objection is based on the common misconception that Timothy and Titus were each “Pastors” of local churches. This is simply not true. To quote from the Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary: “Though these letters do furnish worthwhile directions for pastors, the addressees were not Pastors in the usual present-day sense of that term. Rather, they were Paul's special envoys sent by him on specific missions and entrusted with concrete assignments according to the need of the hour”.

Objection 5: What about the leadership role of James at Jerusalem (Acts 12:17). Epaphras at Colossae (Colossians 4:12). And Epaphroditus at Philippi (Philippians 2:25)?

Reply: This objection, which I have heard used in defense of the one-Pastor system is a patent example of reading the Word of God through the distorting lens of tradition. James, the Lord's brother, was an apostle (Galatians 1:19). Not a Pastor. Epaphras was an evangelist. The “fellow bond-servant” of Paul who brought the gospel to the Colossians (Colossians 1:7). (Strange that if he were “Pastor” of the church at Colossae. he is never seen as present there, but always with Paul elsewhere!

(Colossians 4:12; Philemon 23) Epaphroditus is simply described as one of Paul's fellow-workers who was sent by the Philippian church as a minister to his needs. All this is evidence for the one-Pastor system?

Objection 6: Do not the “angels” of the churches in Revelation 2-3 refer to Pastors (e.g. “To the angel of the church in Ephesus write...,” etc.), and is there not one per church?

Reply:  No person reading the New Testament apart from preconceived notions would ever imagine that the “angels” of Revelation 2-3 refer to Pastors. Although the Greek word angelos may be translated “messenger,” in every other occurrence of the word in Revelation-and it occurs 76 times!-it unquestionably refers to literal angels. If it does mean “messenger” in Revelation 2-3, it still could hardly be stretched to mean “pastor.” In every case where the New Testament uses the phrase messenger of...” (e.g. “messenger of Satan,” “messengers of John,” etc.), it always describes by whom the messenger is sent, never to whom. In other words, “the messenger of the church in Ephesus” would not likely mean a messenger sent to the church, but a messenger sent by the church, perhaps as part of a delegation to minister to the apostle in his exile on Patmos and to receive instructions from him.

Objection 7: Perhaps the many New Testament references to multiple elders are due to the fact that, while each church had only one elder or overseer, each city had several different churches. For instance, when Paul writes to “the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, including the overseers and deacons” (Philippians 1: 1), there may have been a number of congregations in Philippi, each with their own overseer, or Pastor.

Reply: This reasoning may seem to answer certain passages, but it utterly falls apart in view of others, such as Acts 14:23 (“So when they had appointed elders in every church...), James 5:14 (“Let him call for the elders of the church”), etc.

Objection 8: Even if it can be proven that the New Testament churches had multiple elders that would not necessarily be normative for the church today. After all, everyone agrees that believers in the Jerusalem church sold their goods and had all things in common, yet who suggests returning to that pattern today?

Reply: To say that the pattern of the New Testament church is not normative for us today is tantamount to saying that God has left us without any pattern at all. Distressing thought! Has God really left us at the mercy of human ingenuity in deciding how the ministry of His Church is to be ordered? Rather, let us say with the Psalmist, “I esteem right all Thy precepts concerning everything” (Psalm 119:128). In regard to the selling of goods by believers in the Jerusalem church: (1) The passage in question, Acts 2:42-47, does not say that all those who believed sold all their possessions. This was not “Christian communism” as it is sometimes pictured. The use of the imperfect tense in verse 45 implies that from time to time, as necessary, they sold their goods to distribute to brethren in need. (2) I, for one, am not prepared to say that the example of these early Jerusalem saints is not the norm for believers today, particularly in light of the words of John's epistle:

“But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him” (1 John 3:17).

Objection 9: You cannot deny that God has through the years mightily blessed many Pastors and churches who have used the one-Pastor system, and continues to do so today.

Reply: No one would think of denying this. Yet the problems mentioned above cannot reasonably be denied either. And who would claim that the fruitfulness of the Church as a whole is anywhere near the divinely intended level? Besides, it is a mistake to think that because God graciously blesses someone operating under a certain set of beliefs or practices, that He thereby endorses those beliefs or practices. God has, for instance, greatly used many preachers, teachers, and missionaries who have held to the teaching that Christians may lose their salvation. Yet few who are taught in the Scriptures would suggest that this view therefore has God's sanction, or that it is unimportant to uphold the scriptural teaching of Salvation. Praise God, He does not require us to be perfect in our interpretation of Scripture before He will use us. If so, who could hope to be used? But as we are given further light on the Scriptures, it is our duty and our Joy to conform our beliefs and practices as nearly as possible to the Word of God.

Objection 10: A multiple-elder system might well solve some problems, but at the same time it would create a whole new set of problems of its own.

Reply: This I willingly admit. When, however, you are operating under a scriptural pattern, the problems that arise are scriptural problems. That is, they are problems that have been anticipated in Scripture and for which guidance is provided in Scripture. Also, let us not forget that, quite apart from the question of what problems might be solved or created, we ought to follow the New Testament pattern simply because it is the New Testament pattern. We conform to the authority of Scripture as a matter of principle, not for pragmatic reasons. But when we do so, we invariably find God's way to be the best way.

Objection 11: Surely you don't think all the problems you mentioned would vanish if our churches simply changed their pattern of leadership?

Reply: Unfortunately, no. Not overnight at least, particularly where the clergy-laity mentality has been firmly entrenched for decades. But even in such a case a return to the New Testament pattern, if wholeheartedly adopted by the local church, would certainly produce a dramatic effect. The manifold problems and unscriptural attitudes nurtured by the false clergy-laity distinction could at least begin to be resolved. In other situations, where a fresh start is possible (such as on the mission field, in new churches, or with new converts), these problems can be avoided altogether.

What shall we say then? The one-man pastorate, far from having the sanction of Scripture, is essentially a “Protestantized” holdover from the Roman Catholic clerical system. For those of us who claim the Bible, rather than tradition, as our authority, it is time to fervently search the Scriptures to see if these things are so (Acts 17:11).

I would that every reader of this booklet might share the blessing I have found by “turning my feet to His testimonies” (Psalm 119:59) and choosing to meet in fellowship with those who gather in New Testament simplicity and order. I have written more about this in a small booklet entitled, What I Have Found: My introduction to “brethren” assemblies. * A free copy may be obtained by writing to the publisher of this booklet.

By Mark Frees

Published by:

Spread the Word

2721 Oberlin Drive

York, PA 17404

-------------------

Spanish version of this article