Biblically speaking...

[Pete Vecchi]

I know that the Bible says that Jesus Christ is the head of the church. There is no question about that.

But Biblically speaking, who is the representative of Christ that is supposed to be the earthly head of local congregations regarding spiritual matters and matters of how the congregation should fulfil the mission of the local church?

The senior pastor?

The church board?

The congregation by majority vote/consensus?

The District (and/or District Superintendent)?

The Denomination?

Tradition?

Other?

What do you think?

[Tami Martin]

I'd say this is a situation that, past bishop or overseer, Eph. 5:21 would be a better model to follow than playing the who's the boss game.

This reminds me of similar discussions I've had with folks: "Yes, Christ is the head of your marriage, but who is in charge when Christ isn't?"

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Pete, that would be a little hard to answer. Speaking on an earthly level, I would think, that the pastor is the shepherd of the flock, with guidance from the COTN, the board members, and sometimes, it is necessary for the membership to agree or disagree about something. But, really, that just goes back to the direction of God, instruction the shepherd and his helpers, who are supposed to be sanctified, and working under the leadership of the Holy Spirit.
Maybe, others will give their opinion.

[Rance Gould]

I know that the Bible says that Jesus Christ is the head of the church. There is no question about that.

But Biblically speaking, who is the representative of Christ that is supposed to be the earthly head of local congregations regarding spiritual matters and matters of how the congregation should fulfil the mission of the local church?

The senior pastor?

The church board?

The congregation by majority vote/consensus?

The District (and/or District Superintendent)?

The Denomination?

Tradition?

Other?

What do you think?



Pete, I truely believe that the Holy Spirit Himself is the answer to your question. My reason is biblically sanctioned. What do you think?

[Pete Vecchi]

Pete, I truly believe that the Holy Spirit Himself is the answer to your question. My reason is biblically sanctioned. What do you think?

Yes, the Holy Spirit is a good answer, but He indwells different human beings, and different human beings have different ideas, yet can still claim to be (and sincerely believe that they are) following the Holy Spirit. Perhaps my question should have been phrased as to who the human representative of Christ should be.

Example: Denomination says to have special offerings for 10-12 different things per year. Senior Pastor thinks that 10-12 is too many for the congregation, but wants to have 5-6 of them. Church board members want to have only 3-4. Congregation in general says only 1-2 should be taken.

Denomination, Pastor, Church board members, and (hopefully) congregation members claim to be being led by the Holy Spirit.

Who is the human authority that should be followed?

[Pete Vecchi]

I'd say this is a situation that, past bishop or overseer, Eph. 5:21 would be a better model to follow than playing the who's the boss game.

This reminds me of similar discussions I've had with folks: "Yes, Christ is the head of your marriage, but who is in charge when Christ isn't?"

Yes, but at some point decisions have to be made when there is no general agreement. Then who is the human representative of Christ?

[Pete Vecchi]

Pete, that would be a little hard to answer. Speaking on an earthly level, I would think, that the pastor is the shepherd of the flock, with guidance from the COTN, the board members, and sometimes, it is necessary for the membership to agree or disagree about something. But, really, that just goes back to the direction of God, instruction the shepherd and his helpers, who are supposed to be sanctified, and working under the leadership of the Holy Spirit.
Maybe, others will give their opinion.

So, is this then saying that the Pastor should have the final "say-so" after consulting the denomination, the district, church board, and the congregation members? This almost sounds similar to the President of the United States asking the members of the Cabinet for advice, but then ultimately having to make the final decision personally.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Pete, I was not thinking in terms of simple decisions, that the pastor could make alone, or discussing with the board members. I was thinking of something difficult, that might need some advice like the advisors that a President would have. But, ultimately, it still boils down to the Holy Spirit, if the decision is actually made via a time of prayer and fasting.

[Tami Martin]

Yes, but at some point decisions have to be made when there is no general agreement. Then who is the human representative of Christ?

As I'm not a pastor, I can only go with the only example I know of: my marriage.

So many times we get asked this question. What do we do when a decision needs to be made but we're not in agreement? We don't wait for the crisis to decide what we'll do. Either a decision lines up with our vision for our lives together or it doesn't. If we can't agree, it's a "no."

A pastor who effectively communicates his vision and works with a board/DS/whomever in sharing where the church is going should have fewer situations of "we can't agree on what to do."

If a pastor is appropriately proactive, these reactive, crisis situations aren't a problem.

[Wilson L. Deaton]

Example: Denomination says to have special offerings for 10-12 different things per year. Senior Pastor thinks that 10-12 is too many for the congregation, but wants to have 5-6 of them. Church board members want to have only 3-4. Congregation in general says only 1-2 should be taken.

Denomination, Pastor, Church board members, and (hopefully) congregation members claim to be being led by the Holy Spirit.

Who is the human authority that should be followed?

I think the answer is impossible because I happen to believe the nature of the decision determines the answer....

For example:
In my opinion issues that direcly involve spritual nurture should be left to the pastor. (On Wednesday should pastor deliver a bible study to whole congregation, initiate small groups, or conduct an old-fashioned prayer meeting?)
Administrative issues belong to the board or their appointed committee or individual: (Which lawn service should we contract with?)
Major decisions that involve the entire congregation and need the support of the entire congregation should be made by the entire congregation. (Should we build a new facility or not?)

Generally speaking, I think our Manual tends to follow this pattern...

Wilson

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

We use to let some of those offerings, sort of sneak by. It is hard for the same people to have to give in all of these offerings. But, we did, always take the missionary offerings.

[Pete Vecchi]

I think the answer is impossible because I happen to believe the nature of the decision determines the answer....

For example:
In my opinion issues that directly involve spiritual nurture should be left to the pastor. (On Wednesday should pastor deliver a bible study to whole congregation, initiate small groups, or conduct an old-fashioned prayer meeting?)
Administrative issues belong to the board or their appointed committee or individual: (Which lawn service should we contract with?)
Major decisions that involve the entire congregation and need the support of the entire congregation should be made by the entire congregation. (Should we build a new facility or not?)

Generally speaking, I think our Manual tends to follow this pattern...

Wilson

This is getting more to the idea I was trying to ask. I often try to ask things a bit "generically" at first in order to not unduly influence answers by stating my own opinion when I am looking for unbiased opinions of others.

Several things have made me ask this question. One of the most recent was an old letter I found from the early 1970's written to a church board (for a church where I've never been a member) from a resigning music leader and spouse. Among other things, the letter seemed to indicate that the music leader thought the church board was trying to dictate the style of music for the church (they wanted basically only "southern" music).

I recently read something about another church where church board members seem to be trying to call the shots with things such as types of programs and dictating whether or not to have services on Wednesday evenings and/or Sunday evenings.

I recently received a letter from the denomination talking about the denomination wanting all pastors to be preparing for the 100-year anniversary of the Church of the Nazarene with special services, saying that more information about how to be doing this will be following.

I recently heard about a church where board members are finding things missing in the church after a pastor resigned and left.

I recent;y heard about a pastor who talked to the church board about the fact that Sunday evening services were becoming in essence, "Us four and no more" (i.e., sparsely attended and only by a few people who had normally been in the morning services). When the pastor asked the question about whether having Sunday evening services had outlived its usefulness in the current neighborhood and culture, a church board member responded by saying something along the lines of, "That's of the Devil."

OK. I've given a number of situations. Yes, we want the Holy Spirit to be in charge. Yes, the Bible says that Jesus Christ is the head of His body, the church. But here on earth, we have human representatives who have to lead.

What does the Bible say about how God has structured His earthly local congregations as to whom should be the final decision-maker?

I know that Wilson has brought up a great point about the different types of situations (i.e., spiritual, administrative, and major decisions that need congregational support), but all too often the lines between those different needs seemingly overlap. For instance, deciding which snow-removal service should be used when it snows overnight Saturday and unless the snow is quickly and efficiently removed from the church lot, it may keep a lot of people away from the service and away from hearing the Word of God. That seems to be a combination of spiritual and administrative.

To me, in the end, it seems as though the Bible says that the senior pastor is the one who should direct the affairs of the local church. I say this based primarily on Scriptures from 1 Timothy 3 and 5, and from Acts 20, which seem to indicate that elders and overseers have the responsibilities to shepherd the flock of God, to preach and teach the truth to the church, to direct the affairs of the church, and to guard the flock against doctrinal error.

So, I have stated my opinion as to what I believe the Biblical answer is.

Now, what do others think?

[Tami Martin]

To me, in the end, it seems as though the Bible says that the senior pastor is the one who should direct the affairs of the local church. I say this based primarily on Scriptures from 1 Timothy 3 and 5, and from Acts 20, which seem to indicate that elders and overseers have the responsibilities to shepherd the flock of God, to preach and teach the truth to the church, to direct the affairs of the church, and to guard the flock against doctrinal error.

But didn't Paul also enjoin Timothy to gather around himself several trustworthy men who could do the "business," so that Timothy could devote himself to the preaching of the Word?

Translated into 21st century America (sorry to all my overseas friends, but that's all I know!), it sounds like the senior pastor, functioning as the bishop or elder or overseer, should have as his main concern the proper teaching of the Word and the guarding against error. As shepherd, he or she should probably also have the equiping the saints job too. But the regular business can be done by others freeing up the elder/bishop/overseer to more completely do HIS job.

I've seen too many micromanagers who think that the pastor (I've never been a part of a church that had more than one) was in charge of EVERYTHING. Things might have run smoothly, but one thing never got done: no one else was ever equipped for ministry.

[Ryan Scott]

I think we need to remember that "head" in this biblical sense is more in the vein of "source" than "leader." Christ is and remains the head of the Church. The Church is called (literally I believe) the body of Christ. We do create administrative leadership positions within our culture, but perhaps we need to re-establish more emphasis on community and less emphasis on human individual leadership.

[Pete Vecchi]

But didn't Paul also enjoin Timothy to gather around himself several trustworthy men who could do the "business," so that Timothy could devote himself to the preaching of the Word?

Translated into 21st century America (sorry to all my overseas friends, but that's all I know!), it sounds like the senior pastor, functioning as the bishop or elder or overseer, should have as his main concern the proper teaching of the Word and the guarding against error. As shepherd, he or she should probably also have the equiping the saints job too. But the regular business can be done by others freeing up the elder/bishop/overseer to more completely do HIS job.

I've seen too many micromanagers who think that the pastor (I've never been a part of a church that had more than one) was in charge of EVERYTHING. Things might have run smoothly, but one thing never got done: no one else was ever equipped for ministry.

Yes, I agree. I think we should try to understand the difference between the pastor "directing" the affairs of the church, and the pastor "doing" the affairs of the church. It seems to me that part of "directing" should be include the equipping of the saints.

At the same time, pastors shouldn't have to be "paperclip counters." The reality is that I, Like Tami, have never been part of a Nazarene church with more than one pastor. I've seen church boards take 4 months to approve the purchase of a vacuum cleaner. I've known of pastors who have had to pay the church's electric bill out of pocket because, even though the money was in the treasury, the church treasurer didn't get the payment sent out in time. I've seen churches where the board decides it should rely on the 70+-year-old neighborhod man who's not part of the church to continue providing free lawn care and snow removal service, even though that man's health had not been good over the past year and several times the lawn went unmowed way too long and/or the church lot never got plowed out after it snowed. I've known of church pastors, staff members, and other church workers who were supposed to be paid by a certain time have to wait to get paid because even though the church had the money, the treasurer wasn't there to sign the checks on time and/or money hadn't been transferred from the interest-earning account to the checking account in time for the checks to be written on time.

All of these things are probably not supposed to be the "responsibility" of the senior pastor (or only pastor in a small church). But they certainly can reflect poorly on the overall ministry of the church. So, as part of the "directing" the affairs of the church, shouldn't the senior pastor have a major say in how these types of things should be addressed?

[Tami Martin]

When you're dealing with the sorts of folks you're describing here, Pete, how things get done is the least of the problems. Or maybe just a symptom of the problem.

This is just another example of "What do we do when we're dealing with people who claim to be Christians but aren't?" In a marriage, it hardly matters who is in charge if Christ is not the head. Fight it out amongst yourselves. It's not that different in a church.

I'm not all that sure we should spend all our time focused on how to mop up the blood of the bloody nose. Shouldn't we stop the bleeding? Or maybe find out what's causing the bloody nose so they won't happen again?

Deciding that the pastor is the person responsible for this decision or that does nothing to address the real concern: churches full of lostand/or carnal people parading around as if they were Christians.

[Pete Vecchi]

I've seen church boards take 4 months to approve the purchase of a vacuum cleaner. I've known of pastors who have had to pay the church's electric bill out of pocket because, even though the money was in the treasury, the church treasurer didn't get the payment sent out in time. I've seen churches where the board decides it should rely on the 70+-year-old neighborhood man who's not part of the church to continue providing free lawn care and snow removal service, even though that man's health had not been good over the past year and several times the lawn went unmowed way too long and/or the church lot never got plowed out after it snowed. I've known of church pastors, staff members, and other church workers who were supposed to be paid by a certain time have to wait to get paid because even though the church had the money, the treasurer wasn't there to sign the checks on time and/or money hadn't been transferred from the interest-earning account to the checking account in time for the checks to be written on time.

Deciding that the pastor is the person responsible for this decision or that does nothing to address the real concern: churches full of lost and/or carnal people parading around as if they were Christians.

First, I want to say that I genuinely appreciate this dialogue, and I also hope that others will join in.

I want to make sure that I don't give the wrong impression, so that's why I quoted myself above Tami's quote. I can see from what I wrote how it can easily be understood to seem that situations such as the ones I described are talking about "lost and/or carnal people." But looking back on all of the (true) situations I've mentioned, I must honestly say that the people were, from all I could tell, saved, and not lost. It also appeared that they were honestly trying to do the right thing. For instance, I well remember the vacuum cleaner issue had to do with making sure the church got a vacuum cleaner that was the best price for the needed quality. It was people honestly trying to get the best product for the job, but at the same time having other priorities in life than being experts on vacuum cleaners and having time in otherwise busy lives to research these things. Were mistakes made? Most likely, but even the most Spirit-filled people can make mistakes.

I guess that I just want to make it clear that I am not necessarily talking about people being carnal. However, I am talking about them being human.

For instance, in the situations I mentioned above about bills or staff not being paid on time, I didn't then, nor do I now see it as "carnal" or sinful. I can see that church treasurers sometimes have to work full-time and can't always accomodate their schedules to regular banking hours. With the snow remaoval and lawn care, I can see that trustees hope to maintain good rapport with a neighbor and save church money at the same time. That doesn't seem carnal, but rather trying to be loving and trying to be good stewards.

However, there are other sides to those issues--is is more important to be loving to the neighbor and frugal with God's money, or is it more important to make sure that ice and snow are removed from the parking lot and walkways so that people can safely come onto the property for whatever reasons--inluding attending services where God's word is preached and where the fellowship of believers occurs?

Is it more important to be a good steward or to be aware that the church custodian can't do his/her job properly without the proper equipment?

I guess that what I'm saying is that any of these issues may seem as though they can be carnal, or seem as though they can be of the administrative variety, but in reality there are spiritual applications. In cases such as this, different spirit-filled people may have different paradigms through which they are viewing the issues, and the different paradigms might cause differences of opinion as to how to best proceed.

In the local congregation, decisions such as these must ultimately be made by someone. Sure, it's great to try to rally everyone into agreement, but that's simply not always going to happen before a decision has to be made.

So again, my question goes to this: does the Bible seem to indicate that directing the affairs of the local church is the responsibility of the Pastor, and if so, do things such as these fall into the catagory of directing the affairs of the church?

[Dennis Bratcher]

What does the Bible say about how God has structured His earthly local congregations as to whom should be the final decision-maker?

I think this is working with an assumption that needs to be questioned. Why does God need to tell us this? Does he not trust us to organize the Church "in culturally conditioned forms"? Note that the Manual even says that it is the Church that "organizes itself," without appealing to biblical models.* Why would we assume that what the Bible says about church organization 2,000 years ago (which is very little) would work well in a modern context? Is "authority" really that important in terms of what the Bible is about?

Could it not be assumed that passages like Philippians 2 already address the issue of authority and how it is to be used? If these guidelines were followed, it would not matter much how the authority were distributed in your examples. If they are not followed, it would not matter much how authority were distributed in your examples either.

In other words, the issue is not really authority or who has the power, but how it is used within the context of a Christian community (Phil. 2:3-4). Of course, human beings being the way they are (human) there must be a structure of authority as a practical necessity. But I find no model in Scripture for how that should be done beyond the sketchy examples of apostolic leadership. And most of those relate to ministry (preaching, pastoring, feeding the hungry, etc.) not to running an organization in making decisions about what kind of music to sing or what color of carpet to install in the sanctuary. It is another example of God trusting us as people of God to actually be the people of God in the world as we live out the principles of the Gospel.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis Bratcher

*The Church is a historical reality, which organizes itself in culturally conditioned forms; exists both as local congregations and as a universal body; sets apart persons called of God for specific ministries. God calls the Church to live under His rule in anticipation of the consummation at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. – from Article 11 of the Manual.

[Tami Martin]

Well said Dennis. My father is fond of saying that God gave us a brain and He expects us to use it.

[Hans Deventer]

I think this is working with an assumption that needs to be questioned. Why does God need to tell us this? Does he not trust us to organize the Church "in culturally conditioned forms"? Note that the Manual even says that it is the Church that "organizes itself," without appealing to biblical models.*

In fact, Bresee already stated in the first Manual in 1898:

On the 30th day of October, 1895, they met together, and believing that the Lord Jesus Christ had ordained no particular form of government for the Church; so that whatever polity, rules, regulations, rites and ceremonies are adopted and approved by common consent and authority, not being repugnant to the Word of God, may be acknowledged as sufficient to constitute a true Church of God; they formally organized the Church Of The Nazarene by the adoption of Articles of Faith and General Rules.

[Dennis Bratcher]

One of the most recent was an old letter I found from the early 1970's written to a church board (for a church where I've never been a member) from a resigning music leader and spouse. Among other things, the letter seemed to indicate that the music leader thought the church board was trying to dictate the style of music for the church (they wanted basically only "southern" music).

Just as an aside to the main question. I have seen at least one feud between a pastor and a music director over what kind of music should be part of the service of worship. Theologically speaking (there are other practical issues as well), it is always the pastor who should have ultimate responsibility for everything that happens in a service of worship. He or she should always be the primary "worship leader." That is part of his or her responsibility as an ordained minister (of course, there are lots of other factors to consider here).

And that extends to other forms of worship, such as weddings or funerals (sometimes we forget that a wedding in Church is a service of worship, a sacrament in Catholic churches, which is what separates it from a civil ceremony). Again, while there are always practical and pastoral considerations, the pastor is the leader of worship, not a worship team, or a music director, or the bride, or even the family. It is not a matter of power or control (although it can become so on either side), but a legitimate exercise of ministerial responsibility, whether by an ordained elder, a licensed minister, or a lay pastor. Unfortunately, as mentioned in another thread, we evangelicals have sometimes slipped into the notion that the pastor's only responsibility in worship is to preach the sermon (and perhaps lead the pastoral prayer).

Grace and Peace,

Dennis Bratcher

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

This may sound strange, but we had very little problems with decisions that had to constantly be tabled until the next board meetings. And, we went to two churches, where we followed a pastor, where the church ended up splitting.

It has a lot to do with the pastor's ability to lead, and whether or not, the board members are actually sanctified. OR, it may have to do with the age, and experiece, or Spiritual growth of those on the board.

We were at four churches, from March 8th of 1968 through October 9th, of 2005.
Two were following big church splits, and two we went through a building program.
At the last one, we changed from a transient type church of young military people, to an integrated church. Some, come one service, and never return, now. Well, that's their problem. The church is a very spirit filled church. and, we have to endeavor to win souls, one at a time. We have seen great spiritual growth-some from superstitions that the people were raised with, and some from family members that tell them, they are going to a white church, and don't want them to attend there.

If we always counted numbers, to feel sucessful, we would have been "of all men, most miserable." It took me quite a while, to measure progress in spiritual growth, and consider the young military person's background, and consider the other races background, etc. and delight in the growth.

[David Parker]

I wonder to what extent we as Westerners have imprinted our values of democracy and corporate managment into our churches. If true, it seems from the Bresee quotes and the manuel excerpt that that is perfectly fine for Nazarenes. And perhaps it should be.

However, what about: "And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ;" Eph 4:11-12

The pastor/elder/overseer role is clearly one of shepherd of the flock. The mentions I recall of deacons are support roles to aid in serving/cleaning. I see no reference to democratic congregational values in the church and nothing supporting managment by church board.

As I understand the history of church government, this church board/congregational model is relatively new and perhaps unique to Western Evangelicals. The Roman, Eastern and Anglican models are certainly non democratic. And even among some Evangelicals there is a move toward an episcopal structure.

Perhaps we need to focus on getting back to a Biblical model of church government rather than trying to justify support for a democratic/church board centered system.

[Dennis Bratcher]

Perhaps we need to focus on getting back to a Biblical model of church government rather than trying to justify support for a democratic/church board centered system.

The problem is that there is no "biblical model of church government" to get back to, since the NT was written before there was an organized church and therefore there was no need for government. All the things mentioned in the epistles relate to ministry, not about the decision making process of an organization. None of those things in Ephesians (or the other passages) will answer the issues raised in the original question.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis Bratcher

[Ian Gentles]

The problem is that there is no "biblical model of church government" to get back to, since the NT was written before there was an organized church and therefore there was no need for government. All the things mentioned in the epistles relate to ministry, not about the decision making process of an organization. None of those things in Ephesians (or the other passages) will answer the issues raised in the original question.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis Bratcher

Wasn't it mostly leadership by apostles? If this is so dosent that mean a more controlled from the top type of government ?

http://iangentles.livejournal.com

[Hans Deventer]

Wasn't it mostly leadership by apostles? If this is so dosent that mean a more controlled from the top type of government

Ian, we must distinguish between where the Bible describes how things were done, and where it says how we should do things.

[Ian Gentles]

Yes Hans, was trying to stir the pot a little! ;)

[Dennis Bratcher]

Wasn't it mostly leadership by apostles? If this is so dosent that mean a more controlled from the top type of government ?

Except we have to keep in mind that there was no "government" because there was no organization to govern. The apostles' primary concern throughout the NT was to care for people, not to manage an organization. Their leadership was in things like taking up a collection among the churches in Europe to aid the church in Jerusalem, in teaching the people concerning the Faith, or in dealing with breaches of morality orperversion of the Faith.

In 1 Timothy, probably the most practical NT book in terms of church leadership, the focus is on teaching (1:3, 2:7, 4:6, 11, 13) and spiritual leadership (2:1, 4:13, 5:20). Even when the writer moves to qualifications for leadership, the context is still teaching and spiritual leadership (3:2ff, 5:17).

The same is true of Titus, which also lists requirements for church leadership. The focus is always on faithful proclamation of the Gospel, sound instruction in the Faith, and concern with the practical ethics of Christians (1:7ff, etc.).

Nowhere in any of this is there any concern with "government" related to the decision making process of an organization. I think it is imperative that we keep this in mind when talking about "biblical models" for church government.

Now there are certainly what we call leadership principles to be found throughout Scripture, that is, the ethics and values that should guide leadership among the people of God. But that is not the same thing as government, and can be applied to whatever model of polity we follow. In fact, much of what Pete asked originally has to do with leadership principles and ethics not with government.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis Bratcher

[Richard Call]

Acts 15 is the Jerusalem counsel: The apostles faced a major decision together regarding the admission of the Gentiles in the church and the problem of the Judaizers. They consulted together with the help of the HS.

I am a retired pastor and have faced major decisions in my pastoral assignments. When this happened I first consulted my board, then my DS along with, when necessary, the District advisory board. The biblical pattern in Acts 15 is a mutual decision made with prayer. That's the way it should be.

[Pete Vecchi]

The biblical pattern in Acts 15 is a mutual decision made with prayer. That's the way it should be.

But doesn't Paul seem to indicate that the decision made in Acts 15 was wrong?

[Mark Metcalfe]

I don't know if there is another way to get email notification on a topic other than to post a reply, so this is all this reply is about. Mark

[David Parker]

The problem is that there is no "biblical model of church government" to get back to, since the NT was written before there was an organized church and therefore there was no need for government. All the things mentioned in the epistles relate to ministry, not about the decision making process of an organization. None of those things in Ephesians (or the other passages) will answer the issues raised in the original question.



The early church might would be surprised to hear they were not organized. If so, then it is amazing what the early church in the first centuries accomplished in evangelization and church growth without organization. Might make one question our current forms.... And the existence of a divide between ministry authority and organizational decision making is an interesting concept. Would love to hear more on the subject as I am sure you are more informed than me on the subject. But perhaps that is another thread.

The original question asked for Biblical views on "who is the representative of Christ that is supposed to be the earthly head of local congregations regarding spiritual matters and matters of how the congregation should fulfill the mission of the local church

The senior pastor?

The church board?

The congregation by majority vote/consensus?

The District (and/or District Superintendent)?

The Denomination?

Tradition?

Other?

What do you think?"

My precise response would be that, of those listed, only the pastor and tradition are "Biblical" and that trying to apply Biblical guidance to an extra Biblical form is difficult. I have witnessed significant problems with the church board system and am simply hoping there is a better, perhaps more Biblically based model. However, Pete didn't ask for a critique of denominational/democratic forms, so I probably should have kept silent.

Anyway, I admit that I am not as informed on the subject as many of you and I will withdraw from debate in order to learn what I can from each of you.

[David Parker]

I don't know if there is another way to get email notification on a topic other than to post a reply, so this is all this reply is about. Mark

At the top of each thread, there is a drop down menu labeled "Thread Tools". Choose "Subscribe to this Thread" and then it will ask you to choose your notification choice. This will subscribe you without having to post.

[Richard Call]

Pete, Give me a scripture that says Paul regretted the decision in Acts 15 and said it was wrong. Thanks

[Jon Twitchell]

I don't know if there is another way to get email notification on a topic other than to post a reply, so this is all this reply is about. Mark


Under the "Thread Tools" dropdown menu, choose "Subscribe to this thread."

If your "Subscription settings" are set to email notification, then you will get emails. :)

(Edited to say... I see I was a couple of posts too late... oops)

[Eric Frey]

Acts 15 is the Jerusalem counsel: The apostles faced a major decision together regarding the admission of the Gentiles in the church and the problem of the Judaizers. They consulted together with the help of the HS.

I am a retired pastor and have faced major decisions in my pastoral assignments. When this happened I first consulted my board, then my DS along with, when necessary, the District advisory board. The biblical pattern in Acts 15 is a mutual decision made with prayer. That's the way it should be.

Who made up this council?

[Dennis Bratcher]

Who made up this council?

Acts 14:26 From there they [Paul and Barnabus] sailed back to Antioch. . . 14:27 When they arrived, they called the church together and related all that God had done with them. . . 14:28 And they stayed there with the disciples for some time. 15:1 Then certain individuals came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." 15:2 And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to discuss this question with the apostles and the elders. . . .

15:4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders. . . 15:6 The apostles and the elders met together to consider this matter. . . . 15:7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said. . . 15:12 The whole assembly kept silence, and listened to Barnabas and Paul. . . 15:13 After they finished speaking, James replied. . . 15:22 Then the apostles and the elders, with the consent of the whole church, decided to choose men from among their members and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leaders among the brothers, 15:23 with the following letter. . . 15:28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us . . .
Paul and Barnabus and other members of the Church at Antioch were appointed as representatives to go to Jerusalem to consult with the other apostles and elders, which included Peter and James. The Council made decisions that they felt were made in harmony with the leading of the Holy Spirit that were then communicated back to the Church at Antioch by representatives from the Council.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis Bratcher

[Pete Vecchi]

Pete, Give me a scripture that says Paul regretted the decision in Acts 15 and said it was wrong. Thanks

There is not a specific lone Scripture reference that says "Paul thought the decision of the elders in Jerusalem was wrong." But in his writings, he stresses over and over again freedom from the Law and its regulations. The book of Galatians seems to indicate that it wasn't just circumcision, and Acts 15 seems to indicate that circumcision was just a part of the bigger question of whether or not the Gentiles should be "required to obey the law of Moses" (NIV, Acts 15:5).

Of the issues that the Jerusalem Council said the Gentiles should abstain from (food polluted by idols, sexual immorality, the meat of strangled animals, and blood), we would probably only say that 1 of the 4 is still relevant today.

The whole food issue was the subject of a disagreement between Peter and Paul as Paul notes in Galatians 2:11-14. From there through Galatians 3, Paul talks about faith vs. observance of the Law, ending the 3rd chapter in verse 25 by saying, "Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law" (NIV).

Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 address the issues of eating meat sacrificed to idols (although not specifically mentioning that the meat may have been sacrificed to idols in Romans 14, it is generally understood that the meat Paul was referring to was often sacrificed to idols). While Paul cautions people to act in love and to not put stumbling blocks in other people's way by abusing freedom in Christ, he is also quite clear that it is not sinful in and of itself to eat meat that had been sacrificed to idols.

Basically, I would sum it up by saying that Paul's writings generally seem to indicate that Gentiles were saved by grace apart from the Law, and that the Jewish Law should not be imposed upon the Gentiles once they are Christians.

The ruling handed down by the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 seems to indicate that the Jewish Christians expected that the Gentile converts to Christianity should follow at least these 4 aspects of the law.

This is why I said that Paul seems to indicate that the decision made by the Council in Acts 15 was wrong.

[Dennis Bratcher]

The early church might would be surprised to hear they were not organized. If so, then it is amazing what the early church in the first centuries accomplished in evangelization and church growth without organization. Might make one question our current forms.... And the existence of a divide between ministry authority and organizational decision making is an interesting concept. Would love to hear more on the subject as I am sure you are more informed than me on the subject. But perhaps that is another thread.

Just a further clarification. I did not say that the early church was not organized. I said that they were organized for ministry, not for "government." That came much later than the time frame of the NT. The comments responded to a suggestion about a "biblical model of church government." I simply suggested that there is none, which leaves it up to the church to decide how to govern an organization.

As you go on to suggest, when it comes to spiritual or ministry issues Scripture does clearly place that responsibility on the apostles (and elders, about which we have no information), which by virtue of ordination now falls on ministers. The rest is our responsibility to organize according to "culturally conditioned forms." Whether a corporate board model (Nazarene), a democratic/representative or congregational model (Presbyterian), or an episcopalian model (Methodist) is best is certainly open to discussion, without arguing that any specific one is the biblical model.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis Bratcher

[Richard Call]

The congregation per the Manual of the Church of the Nazarene...if you are speaking locally. If you want to know who made up the Jerusalem council read Acts 15. James was the "presiding elder."

[Richard Call]

Pete, thanks for the info. It seems to me that the prime issue in Acts 15 regarding the matter of the Gentile conversions to christianity was circumcison. There were other cultural issues among the Gentiles aside from the matter of circumcision. Circumcision to the Jew was a covenant sign. A tie to the old law of Moses. The other issues had to do with former cultural practices that identified the Gentile believers with idolatry. Circumcision was placed as a forbidden issue by the apostles. However, they developed their own Covenant of Conduct, viz, the meat offered to idols, sexual immorality and drinking blood of strangled animals...all paga practices. This would break the ties to the old life of pagan worship. Therefore, it seems to me that Paul would give full regards to these issues which had nothing to do with Jewish law. Rather, with the pagan worship practices.