How the Church Was Organized
Reprinted from The Spiritual Sword
David R. Pharr

In the late 1800s William Lucias Butler preached a sermon on “God’s Way Under Protest,” dealing with the ambition of many to be “leading men,” rather than “serving men.”  “Leading men do not find places in the church big enough for themselves; hence, if they join the company of Christ’s followers, they make big offices and fill them."[i]  The history of apostasy from early times through Catholicism and Protestant denominationalism affirms the correctness of Butler’s observation.  Practically every sect has invented some organizational structure which suits the purposes of men, but which largely ignores the simple and serving organization in the apostolic pattern.

The Kingdom of Christ

The New Testament church is defined both as the universal membership of the saved and as those members organized into local congregations.  It is the term “kingdom” that best conveys the governmental structure of the church universal  (Matt. 16:18f).  As a kingdom, it is ruled over by a King, and that King  has all authority (Matt. 28:18-20).  The absoluteness of Christ’s authority is also emphasized in that he is the “head of the body” (Col. 1:18; Eph. 2:20-23; 5:23; cf. I Pet. 3:22). The King’s authority is never surrendered to any man or group of men.  When men—whether conventions, councils, bishops or popes—presume to have control over the body of Christ they are in contempt of the King of kings (cf. Luke 19:14).

It should be emphasized that a kingdom is not a democracy, but a monarchy.  It is well in earthly affairs that the governed should have a voice in the government, but citizens in the kingdom of Christ do not “vote” on its policies.  All matters pertaining to the church universal are settled in heaven (Psa. 119:89).  No convention is ever called to amend its constitution; no delegates are ever received with petitions for change; and no member is privileged to question its polity.

The apostles were commissioned as Christ’s “ambassadors” (II Cor. 5:20; Luke 10:16; Jn. 13:20).  With the guidance of the Holy Spirit (John 16:13), they were His agents in the establishment and structuring of the church (Matt. 18:18; I Cor. 11:2; 14:37).  Through New Testament instructions and examples they continue to guide the kingdom/church throughout the ages (Matt. 28:20).  The apostolic office was temporary.  The New Testament apostles continue their administration in the church, but that administration is only through the Scriptures.  They have no successors.

Local Congregations

Paul’s address to the church at Philippi is an example of the proper organization of a local congregation.  “Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons” (Phil. 1:1).  Since Paul (and the other apostles) taught the same in every place (I Cor. 4:17), it follows that the organization at Philippi was the typical arrangement of all New Testament congregations.

The church at Philippi had a membership which included “all the saints . . . at Philippi.”  The very fact that a letter could be addressed to them shows that they had a corporate identity.  In being baptized into Christ, one is baptized into the one body of Christ (I Cor. 12:13).  This is the same as being saved and added to the church (Acts 2:47; cf. v. 38).  Therefore every Christian is a member of the universal church of Christ.  However, New Testament Christians were also members of local congregations.

These congregations were not loosely defined affiliations.  Membership rolls could be identified.  For example, Acts 13:1 gives the names of certain ones who were “in the church that was at Antioch.”  Local churches had times and places of meeting (Acts 11:26) and congregations could be identified by their meeting places (Rom. 16:5; Phile. 2).  One who came to a new city would “join himself” to the church in that place (Acts 9:26), and letters of recommendation were appropriate (Rom. 16:1-2).  The point to be made is that there was no practical difference between first century congregations and present day churches of Christ.

The epistle to Philippi made specific reference to “the bishops and deacons.”  These were the men who were qualified and chosen to provide leadership and service.  Bishops, also called elders, were to be appointed in every place (Acts 14:23).  Without elders/bishops a congregation was not “set in order” (Titus 1:5).  Every reference to the leadership of a congregation indicates a plurality of bishops. The oversight of a congregation was not vested in an elder, but in an eldership.

Terminology

Three Greek words are applied to the same office.  “Bishop,” from episkopos, indicates an overseer.  According to Acts 20:28 the bishops of a congregation are to accept the responsibilities of  oversight (cf. I Pet. 5:2).  “Elder,” from presbuteros, indicates maturity, but is applied to the same men who are bishops (Acts 20:17, 28; Titus 1:5-7; I  Pet. 51-2).  “Presbytery” (I Tim. 4:14) refers collectively to the elders, comparable to “eldership.”  “Pastor,” from poimen, means “shepherd” (Eph. 4:11).  Elders/bishops serve as pastors in that they “shepherd the church” (Acts 20:28 NKJV; cf. I Pet. 5:2-3).[ii]  It is popular today to call a preacher the “pastor,” but New Testament pastors were the congregation’s overseers.  The term should not be applied to a preacher unless he is also a scripturally qualified elder.

In overseeing the congregation, elders have responsibility and authority to “rule” (Heb. 13:17; I Tim. 5:17), but not as dictators (I Pet. 5:3).  They are to shepherd the flock (Acts 20:28; I Pet. 5:2); to watch for souls (Heb. 13:17), to  “take care of the church” (I Tim. 3:5), and to manage the distribution of funds (Acts 11:30).  In guarding against false teaching they must “exhort and convince the gainsayers” (Titus 1:9).  Some are more involved in teaching than others, but all share in the supervision of the church (I Tim. 5:17).

Men do not assume the eldership for themselves.  They are to be chosen according to qualifications which have been defined by the Holy Spirit (Acts 20:28) and recorded in passages such as I Timothy 3:1ff and Titus 1:5ff.  Of course other texts should also be considered, such as Matthew 20:25-28 which shows the servant spirit which should characterize any leader, as well as those which imply the abilities needed to fulfil the duties.

Deacons are specially assigned servants.  The word itself, diakonos, is sometimes applied to any servant, male or female, but is particularly applied to men who meet certain qualifications (I Tim. 3:8-13) and who are assigned various duties.  It seems likely that the seven men in Acts 6:1ff were deacons in that they were “appoint[ed] over this business” to “serve” needy widows.[iii]

Autonomy

In its work and worship the organization of each New Testament congregation was complete in itself.   Though one in the common faith,  and though united under Christ as the one head, and though cooperative and caring toward one another, these congregations were autonomous.  Each governed its own activities.  There were no national, district, or universal offices.  The bishops/elders/pastors of a local church never had authority over other congregations.  Peter’s instructions were to “feed the flock of God which is among you” (I Pet. 5:2, emp. added), not the flock in other places.

In both Catholicism and Protestantism the biblical principle of local autonomy has been largely disregarded.  Further, the terms which originally pertained to the simple organization of apostolic congregations have been misapplied, being assigned to positions never found in the New Testament church.  Some denominations have what is called an “episcopal” form of government, unscripturally appropriating the Greek word for bishop (i.e., Roman Catholic, Episcopal, Methodist, etc.).  This refers to a hierarchy which is over several, or all, of their congregations.   In these churches a bishop has jurisdiction over the congregations in his diocese, with, in turn, some even higher authority governing all the dioceses.

Other denominations profess a “presbyterian” government (from presbuteros, i.e., elders), but in addition have imposed district offices, synods and other central governments.  Even otherwise independent fellowships (Baptists, et al) surrender some degree of their autonomy in their state and national conventions.

In the past century several attempts were made to create a national organization of churches of Christ under the guise of missionary societies, but sound brethren refused to abandon the biblical and cherished principle of local autonomy.  In keeping with the scriptural pattern, churches of Christ are not governed by councils or conventions.[iv]

As is so often the case with civil government, high offices in religion tend to be self-serving, wasteful and abusive.  For example, local members may lose control of funds and property,  and in many cases monies are applied in ways contrary to local wisdom and conscience.  Even doctrinal positions may be forced on the churches, without regard to what members may themselves find  in the Scriptures.  An especially egregious example of this is the current pressure from some denominational leaders to force acceptance of gay and lesbian ministers.  Further, it goes without saying that the higher the offices, the greater the enticements of  political ambition and corruption.[v]

The divine order is that local churches have no ecclesiasticism between themselves and their Lord.  Each local body enjoys a full and complete relationship with the head.  “Each church is the whole church in miniature, the manifestation of the whole in a given community."[vi]  Every duty assigned to the people of God can be accomplished under the local administration, including home and foreign benevolence (Acts  6:1ff; 11:28ff), edification (Heb. 10:24), evangelism (Acts 5:42; II Tim. 2:2), missions (Acts 13:1ff), discipline (I Cor. 5:1ff), and worship (Acts 20:7).

Further, in the Bible system each church must answer for itself.  This is made clear in the letters to the seven congregations addressed in Revelation, chapters 2 and 3, where each would stand or fall on the basis of its own actions.  A self-governing church of Christ can remain faithful even if all other churches should apostatize.  No organic connection will bring it down with the rest.  Local autonomy serves, therefore, as a “safety valve” against apostasy.  History has shown, however, that the more denominational hierarchies expand their power, the more they tend to ignore Bible truth.

Autonomy does not mean that there can be no voluntary cooperation.  New Testament congregations sent financial aid to others for benevolent and missionary purposes (Acts 11:28-30; Rom. 15:26; Phil. 4:15ff; et al).  Such assistance does not require assessments from denominational headquarters, but rather comes from caring and liberal individual churches, who decide for themselves when and how to assist others.

Proper, Possible, Practical

Always the first issue should be what is proper.  The only proper church government is the organization authorized in the Bible.  One should not be satisfied to be part of any organization for which he cannot find scriptural authority (I Pet. 4:11; II Tim. 3:16f; I Cor. 4:6 ASV).

That such organization is possible is evident both in the fact that such existed in the days of the apostles and that it is demonstrated in the thousands of autonomous and scriptural churches of Christ today.  Such congregations work and worship in places throughout the world under the headship of Christ and under the guidance and assistance of their elders and deacons.

Questions are raised, however, as to the practical effectiveness of the simple New Testament order.  It is always a mistake to imagine that improvements can be made on Heaven’s plan, but some will argue that elaborate establishments are necessary in order to accomplish the church’s mission.  The fact is, however, that the first century church, without any of the complicated machinery of modern denominations, carried the gospel to the whole world (Col. 1:23).

Endnotes:
[i] Wm. L. Butler, Biographies and Sermons, (Nashville: F. D. Srygley, ed. & pub., 1898), p.103.

[ii] Observe that Peter places the shepherds of a local church directly under “the chief Shepherd,” who is over the universal flock/church (I Pet. 5:4).  This further affirms that Christ is the only authority over the church, that elders oversee congregations, and that there is no hierarchy in between.

[iii] The noun diakonos is not used in the text, but “serve” is translated from the verb form of the same word.

[iv] Some argue that the Jerusalem meeting of Acts 15 is a precedent for councils, but that meeting was under the auspices of the apostles, who were spokesmen for Christ himself.  This exemplifed the gathering and agreement of two or three (apostles) provided for in Matthew 18:18-20.

[v] Even in local situations a Diotrephes may arise (III John 9f).  Such can do immense damage and elders are cautioned against being “little tin gods” (I Pet. 5:3 Phillips).  Obviously fleshly ambition and selfish control is amplified when it is exercised beyond the local level, whether by denominational officers or brotherhood busybodies.

[vi] Everett Ferguson, The Church of Christ, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1996), p. 344.

Back to Articles Menu
Carolina Messenger
Spiritual Sword