Church Oversight by Dick York

Part five of a six-part series on the Church by Dick York


Until now, we have spent time and words making the point that the Church is not an organization. However, that certainly does not mean that there is no organization in the Church. It was not long after the Church became a visible, identifi able entity on the day of Pentecost, that organization became an imperative to avoid chaos and dissention within the ranks of the new believers.1 When those who had possessions were driven by the love of God that was shed abroad in their hearts by the Holy Ghost 2 to meet the needs of the impoverished among them, they laid their wealth at the apostles’ feet so that distribution of it could be made.3

This was immediately an enormous and unexpected responsibility that had to be dealt with. The apostles were perceived by the crowd to be the leaders of this new movement, and therefore the logical administrators of this service.

The apostles did not see themselves as the administrators of material goods and services, but as those who should continue to do what they had been called of God to do, preach the Word. The solution was to delegate this responsibility to others, and the amount of organization that was necessary to alleviate the crisis was implemented. Seven men were chosen by the believers and appointed by the apostles to address the present need. At that time they were given responsibilities but no titles were ascribed to them.4 In subsequent times, those appointed to such tasks became known as deacons because the Greek word for “servant, waiter, attendant” is diakonos, which best describes their office.

As time went by and apostles were sent out5 to proclaim the Gospel throughout the then known world, groups of believers sprang up in every place. Within those new churches there was a need for cohesion. So those members who were most mature among them were appointed to be overseers of each local assembly,6 and they were known as bishops. When the apostle Paul wrote a letter to the church at Philippi he addressed it to “all the saints in Christ Jesus, which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons.”7 It seems evident that among the saints there were bishops and deacons. It must be noted that these are plural words; there was more than one. It would appear that, contrary to the traditional concept in which a bishop is charged with the responsibility of many churches, this single church had plural bishops. It is also noteworthy that there is no mention made of the pastor. There were saints, deacons and bishops; bishops more commonly being referred to as elders.
These three make up the complement of this and every other church in a biblical context.

In our day, when we think of church government, most of us would envision something not unlike State or Federal government––a pyramid with the highest ranking officer at the top in some ecclesiastical headquarters. Under him, supervising broad regions or districts, there would be subordinates to whom, in turn, lesser officers are subordinated, men responsible for the smallest division, the local church. Under their authority would be the local officers such as trustees and deacons.
In different organizations these officers may carry different titles or job descriptions, but the system would be similar; it is a corporate structure. In the Catholic Church it would be the Pope at the top and the parish priest at the bottom. In other denominations it may be a president at the top and the local pastor at the bottom.

In this day of independent mega-churches, the church itself may be a corporate structure with the pastor at the top and an echelon of lesser pastors under his control. This system is so widespread and has such tenure that it goes largely unquestioned. Even among those who have the curiosity to wonder about it, there is the sense that it is so obdurate that to question it would be quixotic. It seems that it is so well accepted by men of letters who are theologians, professors and pastors––inteligent men of academic renown––how could some ordinary “layman” see things differently and be right?

That’s what tradition is all about. It is a systematized way of thinking in which men are trained to be its perpetuators. It is that system that confers the degrees that gives them their recognition and rewards their conformity, a ladder by which men can climb to dizzying heights of importance. Many good and godly men are in the ranks of the religious tradition, but that does not make it conform more closely to the biblical norm.

If one is mentally committed to the prevailing religious system, it is likely that he will have no problem interpreting scripture in the light of his preconceptions, and he will fi nd validation for the system in the Bible. But if he searches the Bible without prejudice he will not find it there. Biblically the Church is not a human organization, nor is it a corporate structure, nor does the Bible use the term church government.
If someone were to ask, “Who fi rst comes to mind when you think of church government?” What would your answer be? For many it would be “The Pastor.” It is commonly understood that the pastor is the man responsible for the welfare of the people. He is the one to whom all in the congregation are accountable. It is he that is expected to do the preaching and the teaching, as well as set the agenda and articulate the vision of the church. In the normal course of things, he is the top of the pyramid locally.

It is probably not a well known fact among a majority of professing Christians that the word pastor appears only once in the New Testament, and on that occasion it is in a list of gifts, not necessarily identified as part of church “government;” it is not an office, it is a gift.8 However, on sixteen other occasions the word shepherd is translated from the same Greek word [poimhn poimen], eight times referring to the people who look after livestock in the fi elds, and eight times referring to the Lord Jesus. But the word is not used in reference to an “office” in church government.

It is a common practice in modern churches to hire and fire pastors. Most frequently they are selected from outside the local congregation through a process of audition. Sometimes they come directly from a seminary. Their qualifications would normally include, but not be limited to, academic status, experience in this line of work, speaking ability and reputation. Salary would be negotiated along with vacation schedule and other normal considerations for an executive position. Then upon approval, probably by vote, he would be hired to be the CEO of the local church. Hearkening back to where these traditions spring from, he would now be equivalent to the parish priest.

Biblically the most common term to appear in the structure of local church oversight is “Elder.” That word in itself does not designate an office, nor is it a title; it is a description of the man who holds the office. The office holder is a bishop, which means overseer. There is no record in the New Testament of “pastors” being hired from abroad, but scripture would indicate that these elders were appointed from within the assembly.

As the apostle Paul went about establishing the early churches, he had as his co-workers, Timothy and Titus. In the letters he wrote to both of these young men he set forth the qualifi cations of bishops. To Titus he wrote, “…set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: if any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to fi lthy lucre; but a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy temperate; holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.9
In this short list of qualifications is a wealth of knowledge about those who are to oversee the operation of the church.

Titus was to go to every city on the Isle of Crete, and there he was to ordain elders. He was not instructed to ordain men to be elders, he was to ordain men who were elders; and when they were ordained they would be bishops. Conspicuous for its absence in this list is anything about formal academic training. There is no reference to degrees or titles. There is not even any mention of what gift or ministry they might possess.

Some may point to the fact that those to whom this scripture refers have been taught, indicating that there has been formal seminary training or the equivalent. That, obviously, would be very unlikely in that first generation of the church. Christian seminaries are a product of a much later and more religiously advanced generation. This teaching should occur in the congregation of the saints.

Concerning gifts and ministries, since the bishop must be able to exhort and convince, some would say he has the gift of teaching. If our minds are conditioned to think in formal terms this would seem logical, but it is not only formally trained teachers who are able to instruct and apply wisdom. The qualifications had to do with age, marital status, family condition, character, integrity, reputation and wisdom. These were elders, men of life experience, not young men who, by virtue of schooling had earned a title.

They were men who had successful first marriages that produced children who were obviously well trained and honored their parents. They were blameless––not faultless––which means any shortcoming is confessed, dealt with and reconciled in a timely and honorable fashion so that no blame can be attached. They were not self-willed, which means they were not stubborn about having their own way or requiring their own agenda to prevail. They did not demonstrate anger, but exercised self-control. They did not retaliate, or “get even” or coerce, which is what a “striker” does. They loved people and demonstrated hospitality. These were marks of maturity that qualified a man to oversee the assembly. In short, they were good examples that could be followed; fathers not corporate executives.

The apostle Peter, in his first epistle gave counsel to those who were elders:
“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; neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.” 10

Peter called himself an elder. We know that by ministry he was an apostle, not a pastor, but he was an elder; and he was writing to those who were elders. It is obvious that this was a reference to their age as well as their position in the congregation, because he went on to say,
“Likewise ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility.”

Peter contrasted elder with younger. The oversight of the church rested upon the old men who were to accept that responsibility willingly and not by constraint. It was not something they were to do for money, but because they had a mindset to do it. They were to feed the flock, but they were not to see themselves as lords or bosses, but examples. The atmosphere in the church between young and old was one of humble submission.11 And Peter was able to promise them that when the chief shepherd (this is one of the places where [poimhn poimen] applies to Jesus) shall appear, they would be rewarded.12

The characteristics that identified those who qualified as bishops should be the aspiration of every man in the church, young or old; and, as is applicable, of every member male or female. The character qualities that are required in elders are simply traits that should be evident in the Christian life: blamelessness, vigilance, sobriety, good behavior, hospitality, a good reputation in the community, patience, absence of covetousness or greed;13 these are all derivatives of the fruit of the Spirit.14 Why would any believer not aspire to such qualities as these.
Some of the qualifiers are obviously masculine, such as “the husband of one wife.” Others are the products of time and maturity, such as marriage, children, wisdom, life experience, reputation and age. But character knows no age. Solomon said, “Even a child is known by his doings, whether his work be pure, and whether it be right.”15 Therefore, every male who reaches maturity should, ideally, be a qualified elder who could potentially hold the office of a bishop to oversee the church. Bishops, as has been said, are elders who have been appointed to an office. Not all elders are bishops, but all bishops are elders.

Many of these men may have the gift of pastor, but others may not, as in the case of Peter, who was an apostle. There may also be younger men, who are not in oversight who have a pastoral gift. We will speak more of gifts and ministries later on. However, for now, let it be emphasized that there is a difference between gifts, which are given by the Spirit to every member of the body, and offices, which are appointments based on maturity and character.

Paul speaks of the elders ruling over the church;16 some have used this terminology to justify authoritarianism and autocratic governance in what they see as their “pastoral office.” This is what Peter was inveighing against when he said, “not as lords.”17 But rule is what the elders do. They set the standards and are the example. They instruct by means of correction and admonition. They do in the church what fathers do in the home. The writer of Hebrews said,
“Remember them that have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end (outcome) of their conversation (lifestyle).”18

He also exhorted those to whom he wrote to obey them that have the rule and to submit because they are watching for your souls, and must give account. This is obviously a serious responsibility that cannot be taken lightly. It is not simply a position one is employed to fill, it is a relationship entailing love, mercy, compassion and patience. It is fathers caring for their family. These are not hired strangers, but men who are an intimate and long-standing part of the assembly.
The oversight of the church is always stated in plural terms. Elders are always plural. We are to obey them. They watch for our souls. There is no one at the apex of the pyramid. That is Jesus’ place. He is the head of the Church. And He is the head of the local church. He is the chief Shepherd.

There is a reason why those who oversee the local assembly are always plural, and we are able to understand what that reason is by the report in Acts 20: 13-38.
Paul, on his way to Jerusalem, being in Miletus, a town not far from Ephesus, called the elders of the Ephesian church. And when they came, he reminded them of how he had faithfully and fervently ministered to them the whole truth of the Gospel, keeping nothing back; and that he was now free from the blood of all men.19

Then he preached to them this warning:
“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 has purchased with His own blood. 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. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn everyone night and day with tears.” 20

No one man owns the church. The Lord purchased it with His own blood. It is evident from Paul’s tearful warning that not every elder will be faithful. Some will join the wolves and seek to draw the church after themselves. Where there is a plurality, there is a defense. But where one “pastor” is in authority, if he is corrupted, or deceived, or in error the whole church may well be led astray. If his motives are self-centered, or if his agenda is designed to gratify his desire for a following, it can mean disaster for the many who may be affected by it. Or if he is deficient or immature, an impediment to the spiritual growth of the whole church is the result. Jesus spoke a parable unto His disciples, “Can the blind lead the blind? Shall they not both fall into the ditch?”21

Many modern movements, sometimes described as “revivals” have plagued the Church, often swelling the numbers but leaving the churches spiritually weakened. Pastors are bombarded with literature, invitations, exhortations and peer pressure to introduce their congregation to the latest church growth scheme with the promise that it will lead to “revival.” When the pastor is convinced, the congregation follows, even though, in some cases, reluctantly, and the whole church is moved a little more off center. Can it be that the great falling away, of which we have been warned in scripture, will be the result of religious “revivals?”

What Paul did not want to see at the helm of the church at Ephesus or any other church, was a man pursuing his own promotion. Oversight of the church is not meant to be a personal success story, or a climb to prominence. It is to be the nurturing of the saints until together we come unto the perfect man, the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.2

(Endnotes)
1 Acts 6:1
2 Romans 5:5
3 Acts 2:44,45; 4:35-37
4 Act 6:2-6
5 Acts 13:2,3
6 Acts 14:21-23
7 Philippians 1:1
8 Ephesians 4:11
9 Titus 1:5-9
10 1 Peter 5:1-3
11 1 Peter 1:5
12 1 Peter 5:4
13 1 Timothy 3:2,3
14 Galatians 5:22,23
15 Proverbs 20:11
16 1 Timothy 5:17;
Hebrews 13:7,17
17 1 Peter 5:3
18 Hebrews 13:7
19 Acts 20:17-27
20 Acts 20:28-31
21 Luke 6:39
22 Ephesians 4:13