In this post I will simply pick up from where I left off in the previous post. Again, the thoughts in this summary are a combination of personal reflections and notes from the Acts 29 Boot Camp session on developing elders, deacons, and members.
Once God has called someone to go and begin a new work, that "dude" must begin gathering people to join him in the mission God has him on. The mission is not to start a church. The mission is to make disciples of Jesus. And when disciples of Jesus are found, a church is formed. As the church begins to gather together, it will need to grow and be healthy (which are simultaneous terms). A healthy and growing church will have some form of structure and leadership.
III. Elders/Pastors are the Sr. Leaders under Jesus. "Elder" and "pastor" are synonymous terms biblically. They are also called "bishops" or "overseers". They lead the church by example and direct instruction. We see examples of functioning elders in the New Testament (Acts 20:28; Ephesians 4:11; 1 Peter 5:2).
Elders are men chosen for their ministry according to clear biblical requirements (1 Timothy 2:11-3:7; Titus 1:5-9) The lead pastor who founds the church must function for a time as the solo elder until a plurality of elders can be established. When additional elders are installed, the function of the elder is to lead the church and never represent factions, agendas, or disgruntled or pushy people within the church.
Are elders only men? Yes. From the book of Genesis all the way throughout the rest of the Bible it is clear that God created male and female completely equal, yet distinct in their roles, strengths and weaknesses. Meaning, they both have different strengths, different weaknesses, different roles, and when put together they function very well. They are made to compliment one another. In establishing the family, God gave the responsibility of headship (the one who is held responsible for the covenant of the marriage and the leadership of the family) to husbands. A drastic misunderstanding of this has caused much grief in recent days in the church, to the point where the gender-role pendulum has swung so far to one side then the other, that we have become completely confused as to what we should believe. God's church is a family. Just like in our nuclear families we are called to live with Christ as the ultimate head, and everyone answers to Him. Under Christ are Godly men, husbands who fear God and love their wives and kids the way Christ loves the church. He leads them and encourages them in the Scriptures, and he also receives from them and are encouraged by them as they function in the gifts God gave to each of them. All working together makes a strong family. All trying to lead or do the same things can be a disaster. We must learn how we are built to compliment one another.
Here is the key. Go to the Bible with a humble heart (that is very key). Trust God and His Word. He is good. And He acts with good purpose. So we must be okay with the fact that God has ordained that men are to serve in positions of spiritual leadership authority in the church. And we must understand that this is not because men are necessarily better teachers, or because women are inferior or less intelligent (which is certainly not the case). It is simply the way God designed the church to function. Men are to set the example in spiritual leadership -- in their lives and through their words. Why does God set up the family and His family (the church) with men as the Sr. Leaders? I don't know. But I trust He has good purpose for doing so. Why did God create women with more beauty and an ability to nurse children? I don't know. But I also don't argue with Him on those things. He has good purpose. He is the Creator. We are the created.
IV. Deacons are the Secondary Leaders under the Elders/Pastors. Although Acts 6:1-7 does not explicitly mention deacons, we can extract the biblical principle that when the senior spiritual leadership is overburdened to the degree that they are unable to simultaneously get time for prayer, Bible study, and care of needy people, they are free to appoint pastoral assistants to help alleviate some of their burden (read Acts 6:1-7). These pastoral assistants are deacons.
The Bible clearly supports female deacons, and the early Christian churches had female deacons. In fact, most churches are filled with female deacons even if they don't recognize them with the title. Unlike elder duties, the duties of a deacon are not stated in Scripture because a deacon is simply a servant that serves however they are needed. However, their qualifications and rewards are spoken of in Scripture (1 Timothy 3:8-13). You will notice in that section of Scripture that Paul lists some additional qualifications to include women deacons (Note: the word translated "wives" in verse 11 is more literally translated "women", and can mean either wives, women, or deaconesses. You can check this here.)
V. Church Members serve and lead under the elders and deacons. Church members are Christians who are devoted to their church and to ensuring it's health and growth by giving their time, talent, and treasure to the mission of their church. The Bible speaks of this community with many different metaphors:
- Christians are to work together like a family (1 Timothy 3:15; 5:1-2)
- Christians are to work together like the parts a human body (Romans 12:4-5; 1 Corinthians 12:16-17)
The early church had a recognizable membership. Like I mentioned before, there is no clear and direct statement of "church membership" or record of qualifications for membership, but that does not mean it is a bad idea to call people to covenant together in a specific location for a common mission.
I have argued in the past that because the Bible does not speak of local church membership, then we must not burden people with such an "extra-biblical" concept, and we must recognize that we are members of every church in town. I still believe in the principle of that statement (that we must recognize that we participate with the Church on a much larger scale than our local fellowship), while I would also ammend the statement as I continually grow in wisdom. While we do not find indisputable proof texts for local church membership, we do however find passages that imply that there was a recognizable (perhaps even "formal") membership or covenanting together in local gatherings.
Mark Dever writes: "Paul's formal exclusion of the brother in Corinth presupposes formal inclusion. Paul exhorts the Corinthian church to remove a brother from their ranks who was sinning in a way not even approved by pagans.
You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst….Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed… I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler - not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves (1Cor 5:2, 7, 12-13).
Paul is calling for the "exclusion" of this immoral brother, which would imply that it meant something to be "included" in that church. He would lose the privileges of membership previously conferred upon him. Formal exclusion presupposes formal inclusion."
I think the number one key for the church when it comes to membership is this. We must renounce the idea that church membership is equivalent to being in an exclusive club where you get a parking (or pew) pass and other privileges as long as you pay your dues and show up when the doors are open. Being a church member means you have enlisted as a missionary in God's army and you are now choosing to engage in the local church's mission in that specific community, and may even be called to engage in God's mission in another location someday and be sent out from that church as a church planter.
The goal is to convert church members into missionaries. Even better, if every Christian who desires to participate with a local church (Oasis for example) recognized themselves a missionary to begin with, then the misconceptions of membership would disappear. And instead of having a church full of "members" we would have a church full of "missionaries".
I really dig the term "missionaries" instead of members. That clearly sets the mindset of what we are to be doing, which is "being the church".
The term missionaries also takes the pride from church's who get caught up in how many "members" the church has. What is generally the 1st question you hear ministers/"members" ask each other when they see each other?
"How many members does your church have?" And it seems to be a contest of who has the most members. Does having 300 compared to 20 really matter? I think if we used the term missionaries that would elviate some of the competition.
After all being the church, being who Jesus called us to be, "missionaries" is the sole reason we were created. If we used this term instead of members, that would be a HUGE step in changing the mindset of the church!
Posted by: Jacynda Lynch | May 13, 2006 at 07:29 PM