Church Governance

Seeing as this is a sight dedicated primarily to the spreading of truth that leads to revival, I would like to put something to you.If scripture is our pattern for living then we need to look if 'revival' is part of the book of acts Holy Spirit manifesto of Church life. If indeed it is, then what were the steps taken in the light of that moving of God to channel it. If any of you have listened to revival fire about the guy interviewing that old fellow from the Hebrides, the comment was:'The reason that the Hebridian revival failed and faltered is because the leadership did'nt know what to do with it, did'nt know how to structure it...'This sight is as I said dedicated to hungering and thirsting for God to pour out himself, I believe that is the river, but what of the banks that Rev 22:2 alludes to(trees don't grow in the river), Their fruit is for the healing of the nations.Other examples for thought:POwer/Pattern Phil 3:10,17Wine/Wineskin Luke 5:37-39Mesaage/Model 1 Thess 1:6-7Mystery/Administration Eph 3:2-9They are of equal importance and priority. For a river without banks becomes a marsh and wine without a current, new wineskin is spilt, so the church clearly needs God's pattern. I believe that 'revival' is in the scriptures, Acts 8:1-8, God was most definitely moving, but what do the Apostles do, they send down Peter and John to set things in order to get a church going.I don't know how many of us are even a position to have any say about how churches are run, but my personal conviction is that the days are so short that God wants a church that is built according to his pattern, for then we will be able to say 'The Lord is there' Eze 48:35I know that this is talking about revival at a corporate level and not a personal one.I would appreciate to hear some of your opinions.

I would suggest you read, Cycles of Revival by Richard Owen Roberts. He identifies the OT pattern and then relates it to the NT. In the NT he identifies revival as beginning in Act 2 with Pentecost. Mr. Roberts then comments that he sees no indication of declintion. It is a wonderful article.I think his book, Revival addresses the question about the "banks of the river". From the web page:"Not scheduled meetings, not an emotional high, but "the extraordinary movement of the Holy Spirit producing extraordinary results." So says the author of this challenging book on a topic too casually discussed, too infrequently experienced, too often misunderstood. Roberts includes historical information on revival, as well as practical guidance in making the effects of revival endure. Written for all those concerned about their spiritual condition, this book is a clarion call for God's Spirit to move upon His people. A must for everyone who is longing for genuine revival."I have not finished this next article, but it may address some of your questions as well, Re-Examining Revival.God bless,Matthew

'The reason that the Hebridian revival failed and faltered is because the leadership did'nt know what to do with it, did'nt know how to structure it...'Thank God that they did not know how to structure it. The body's structure is called a skeleton, and was designed to be invisible. You can only define the skeleton when the body is dead.

Thank God that they did not know how to structure it. I am not sure why you said that, please elaborate.

ZekeO,My question to your original post would be:Do you have a definite "pattern" of church governance in mind?After all, almost all churches / denominations / groups would like to think that their own model of church government is the most biblical and most appropriate. I have no doubt that church government and administration will inevitably play a role as the church grows. But is there really a "divine pattern" by which all Christian groups are to universally follow? How detailed is this "divine pattern"?My two pennies.

Hi SamAfter all, almost all churches / denominations / groups would like to think that their own model of church government is the most biblical and most appropriate.there are some denominations which believe that the Spirit continually developed 'patterns'. They would claim that their patterns are part of the ongoing revelation rather than 'the most biblical'. The most obvious of these is the Roman Catholic but many hold the doctrine to one degree or another.I have no doubt that church government and administration will inevitably play a role as the church grows. This innocent little comment is dynamite; although I think you are quite right. :-)

I have no doubt that church government and administration will inevitably play a role as the church grows. But is there really a "divine pattern" by which all Christian groups are to universally follow? How detailed is this "divine pattern"?As the ever-insightful Mr. Bailey noted, this is powder-keg territory.As for universal divine pattern for church government and conduct of services, we obviously must obey any and all of God's commands to us, including those pertaining to these areas of our lives. Particularly notable would be the requirements Paul gives for being an elder or deacon given in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1.

Hey Zeke!That was a very important comment you made about revival. I had honestly never thought about that before, but when you said that the first scripture that came to mind was: 1 Corinthians12:28And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, GOVERNMENTS, diversities F46 of tongues.The ability of church administration is a gift of the spirit. It is not something that can be assimilated by everyone easily. Ultimately, revival is still in the hands of the Spirit of God. Like I said though, I have never given this much thought and so the words of a bible commentary may be more fruitful: Helps, governments - It does not appear that these mean distinct offices: rather, any persons might be called helps, from a peculiar dexterity in helping the distressed; and governments, from a peculiar talent for governing or presiding in assemblies.Governments-the powers which fit a man for a place of influence in the church; "the steersman's art; the art of guiding aright the vessel of church or state." (Easton’s)I believe that such people exist although they may not be privy to that fact. The gift of administration is not really a “showcase” gift such as prophesy, tongues, or healing (no, I do not think anything is wrong with those gifts) and so it is not as earnestly coveted and nourished. I suppose one question would be does the Spirit guide our current election system for church governance?James

To add some other thoughts:I heard it said that what you get saved into is more important that what you get saved out of. An example of this would be, a group of African pastors dressed in three-piece suits on a sweltering hot day. Where did they get that from, what model of Church and more importantly what scriptural precedence is there, that a pastor must wear a suit? To take it a bit further to wear a penguin suit. It came from when the missionaries arrived on the continent and that is what they wore and followers were either encouraged to do the same or it was seen that following this ‘new’ God required you dress in this way. They were birthed into an environment where to be holy meant wearing a suit as an outward sign of an inward work. My burden is that if the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim 3:15) then what is the truth. What is the truth in the way GOd wants things done at corporate level.When I say Church government, I mean Elders, Deacons, and Congregation. At a broader level, Translocal Apostolic/Prophetic teams ministering into Church life, addressing the very foundations of it. When someone comes into our church there should immediately be a sense that what they are seeing is a correct display of Christianity, not just an echo of the culture where we live. We are all leaders of others in some form or another if we tolerate emphasis and bias which is not wholly in line with scripture our disciples will then go forth and propagate that very same error.What are we as the church here for, why haven’t we just been zoomed into heaven. We want to see the Lord return; therefore we forcefully and violently advance His kingdom (Matt11: 12). This is done practically and measurably by:Preparing a BridebyDiscipling all nationsbyPlanting New Testament Churchesby Raising and releasing LeadersbyMobilizing the Priesthoodby Seeking and saving the lost.The Whole Church is Gods 'A' plan for reaching the nations of the earth.

Thank God that they did not know how to structure it.I am not sure why you said that, please elaborate.HI ZekeOI'm sorry I missed this question. Revival is a sovereign act of God. It is a flowing of the River which is beyong any human cause or control. There is an instinct in human beings to feel safer when they can control things and this touches much church life. It seems to make good sense but it is actually a confession of unbelief. Jeremiah brought this indictment against the organisers of his day; For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water. (Jer 2:13 KJV) Apparently the attempt to conserve and store blessing came under the same judgement as those who turned from the only true source.That was why I made the comment. Paul had no strategy and structures, and the early church organisation was minimal.

Sam'sI have no doubt that church government and administration will inevitably play a role as the church grows. My comment This innocent little comment is dynamite; although I think you are quite right.Keiththe reason I drew attention to Sam's comment above is that the 'growth' of a church will have a great effect on its need for structure/governance. By growth I mean both in size and maturity.The Patriarchs had no organisation; they had a family. Their relationships were sufficient to maintain order and unity. When they descended to Egypt they had no elders; there was no need. However, while in Egypt they 'grew' and by the time Moses is sent as their deliverer his commission is to Go, and gather the elders of Israel together, and say unto them, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared unto me, saying, I have surely visited you, and seen that which is done to you in Egypt: (Exo 3:16 KJV) A larger group of people need more than the simple structures of family. It is interesting that the earliest elders mentioned in the Bible are actually Egyptian elders (Gen 50:7) Incidentally it is amazing how frequently words for 'elders' have become part of necessary government; senator is latin for elder, alderman in Old English for elder.The Jerusalem apostles acted as elders to the church in that city but when the need arose they appointed 7 men that we usually call 'deacons'. The key to both these patterns is 'when the need arose'. This is why I said that Sam's comment which included the phrare 'as the church grows' is extremely important in the context of patterns of church government.A church can be a church without elders or deacons, but as it grows there will be the need for some recognition of those who will fulfil these functions. And they are 'functions'; not titles but 'recognised functions'.The church became fixated with titles and office by the end of the 1st century (see Ignatius) and the problems continues. The KJV uses the word 'office' 45 times. In every instance it is an imposition of the translators; the word and the concept is missing from the Scripture. Apostle is not a title or office it is a function. Pastor, evangelist, prophet, teacher are all the same. these 'job descriptions' were never 'job titles' in the Bible period, only later. Paul was never called 'the apostle Paul' he was Paul who was an apostle. Apostles were not part of a fixed structure they were necessary functions in the church.BTW if want to use Paul's full title you will find in it 2 Peter 3:15. It is a title I would recommend to us all. It is difficult to criticise a brother if you put this full title before his name. :-D

Ron (Philologos) said:The key to both these patterns is 'when the need arose'. This is why I said that Sam's comment which included the phrare 'as the church grows' is extremely important in the context of patterns of church government.I fully agree. My opinion is that the biblical evidence did not present us with a rigid, fixed, and unchanging structure by which all churches must universally follow.Any Christian group that attempts to advocate one single form of government and condemn all others run the risks of elitism and exclusivism. Those who know my church background will know that I am saying this out of personal experience from painful lessons learned in history.I might also add that I believe those Christian groups who thought they have absolutely no need for structure at all are probably overly idealistic.

https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=1962&forum=42#12731Invisible vs Visible Church thread..Any Christian group that attempts to advocate one single form of government and condemn all others run the risks of elitism and exclusivismThis is sort of similiar to my question on another thread. A church group I attended growing up claims to be part of the restoration of the True Church and that their church government is The Church. After studying it, I did get an uncomfortable feeling about this teaching. I do believe there needs to be a government in the church whereby we disfellowship members and recognized those that are in the church but its a stretch to say our way is the "true biblical way" and therefore makes us THE Bride.

One more thing.. my "uncomfortable feeling" was caused by the Word of God and not being able to reconcile verses like Ephesians 2:19 and many others in Colossians ch. 1-2 where its written that we are made into this One Body "in Christ" and "In Him". I might add that The Church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets and Christ being the chief cornerstone (ephesian 2:20)

There is an aspect of church governance which is usually not focused on - walking under authority. The centurion saw and understood the glory of the authority of Jesus. For revival to come the Lordship of Jesus is not compromised both individually and corporately. Power in ministry and subsequent church growth is made manifest when the house is in order. It is puzzling for me to see the board of elders, for example, kicking out a pastor from the church. Father Nash was booted out because the elders wanted a younger pastor. The same things are still happening today. Kind of off tangent but I believe this is still part of church governance.

The Patriarchs had no organisation; they had a family. Their relationships were sufficient to maintain order and unity.Ron, I agree 100%. That is one of the things that should mark a NT church. To maintain a sense of family, where…44All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. 46Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.Acts 2:44-47One of the hardest things I believe is to maintain that sense of family within a congregation of believers. We are going through a Church expansion here, and the Eldership team has been emphasising family. Without it we miss the true environment, where God the Father can manifest his care amongst the people. Maintaining that where you have a 1000 members takes effort, my mind boggles at 5000, 10 000. Phew. There are so many challenges when the lost are brought into our Churches, but one of them is restoring trust in the family model. Broken marriages, cause many folk to grow up with a tainted sense of family, from personal experience, relating to authority figures in this way can seem rather vulnerable.There is a teaching by Bob Mumford on the Hebrew and Greek model of governance, which I found helpful in understanding Hebrew thought. I don’t have any information on that particular teaching, but seeing as the Jews were the ones who wrote most of the NT it is helpful in understanding what they wrote and why they wrote it. What I can remember is that the Jews thought in the concept of a Father exercising authority over his family, not as government exercising control over subjects.It is puzzling for me to see the board of elders, for example, kicking out a pastor from the church.Accountability for those decisions is important to maintain credibility, I don’t know if those elders where making that decision on there own, or in relation to an external group. From reading the NT I see that Paul’s relationship to ‘his’ churches was one of relationship, and whatever happened in those Churches was based upon a trust that what Paul said must be true. 17Join with others in following my example, brothers, and take note of those who live according to the pattern we gave you. Phil 3:17 Talking to the church in Philippi.13What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. 2 Tim 1:13Paul with his team elected elders in those Churches. Not the board of elders within that church.Then they returned to Lystra, Iconium and Antioch, 22strengthening the disciples and encouraging them to remain true to the faith. "We must go through many hardships to enter the kingdom of God," they said. 23Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church. Acts 14:21-235The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you. Titus 1:5So Paul spoke very directly into the lives of those churches, but in the local congregation the elders are they highest authority,17The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor…1 Tim 5:17So what happens in that Church is up to them. It may seem contradictory, but friendship and love is what under girds it all. The elder, To my dear friend Gaius, whom I love in the truth. 3 John: 1These are not concrete stones, that are immovable, but are frameworks of relationship. It certainly highlights the need for open, honest and transparent communication within the body and with those that our churches relate to.

Ron,You saidThat was why I made the comment. Paul had no strategy and structures, and the early church organisation was minimal.Can you be so sure that Paul had no statategy and did not introduce organisation?ZekeO's post shows organiseation in the epsitles.Dropping in this thought for response..What works best elders,leadership group,no leadership group or one leaderAs Sam implied, body governance is it to idealistic? :-o

If I may weigh in on this issue, it seems clear from reading Acts that Paul did have a pattern (an organic one to be sure, but a pattern nonetheless). It primarily involved apostles on a trans-local level in relationship to local churches run by elders and deacons. The elders, however, were not hired or elected by the local body but, rather, were appointed by the apostles who laid the foundations of the church.Somehow we've managed to get things all backwards. Instead of apostles from without appointing leaders from within, the churches I grew up in would rely on deacon boards from within to hire a pastor from without - not unlike the way a Board of Directors hires a President or CEO. It's a business model ill-suited for the church, in my view. And it probably has a lot to do with why so many pastors experience forced exits from churches.ZekeO, judging from what you've written on this thread and the fact that you're from South Africa, I'm thinking you must be from an NCMI church. Am I right?-A Canadian NCMI'er

ZekeO, judging from what you've written on this thread and the fact that you're from South Africa, I'm thinking you must be from an NCMI church. Am I right?Did I make it that easy:-D. NCF Church to be precise.Its been great coming here to this site and fueling ones passion for God by the material on it. I think as much as you have the pattern, without the Spirit of God pulsating through everything we do, it can become pointless.-A Canadian NCMI'erMay we all embrace the call to the nations.Zekep.s. British Columbia, who on the team do you guys relate to?

Hi ZenasIf I may weigh in on this issue, it seems clear from reading Acts that Paul did have a pattern (an organic one to be sure, but a pattern nonetheless). It primarily involved apostles on a trans-local level in relationship to local churches run by elders and deacons. The elders, however, were not hired or elected by the local body but, rather, were appointed by the apostles who laid the foundations of the church.The difference between organism and organisation was the point of my posting. The addressing of Paul's letters are interesting; Elders and deacons in Philippi and an interesting reference to an unnamed individual who was the recipient of the letter; I beseach thee, true yokefellow (4:3 note the singular)but no reference to such in Ephesus, Colosse, Thessalonica, Rome, Corinth etc. The apostles function as elders in Jerusalem supplemented later by the Seven. No reference to elders in Antioch. Timothy and Titus have no designated titles but they do have 'projects' delegated by Paul and clearly are his agents in the localities where we find them. But these roles were not necessarily transferable to other locations; even Paul did not press his 'apostling' on all (1Cor 9:2)Life develops and as it does structure develops with it. Structure, however, cannot guarantee life. I see a the amazing diversity of 'life' in the record of the early churches, not the pattern of an organisation.I believe in elders functioning corporately as an oversight. I I can see no biblical justification for the office of pastor in a local setting; the function of pastor-ing was fulfilled by the oversight. The pattern of delegating the material care functions to 'deacons' has no real biblical authority. The Acts 6 instance appointed the Seven 'over this business' ie the organised support of the Hellenist widows. This did not put the 'deacons' in charge of the 'funds' but gave to the Seven a carefully designated area of responsibility that the 'elders' were unable to administer without neglecting their primary responsibilities of prayer and the word. It is significant that when the 'relief' was sent from Antioch to Jerusalem it was sent 'to the elders' and not to the 'deacons' in Jerusalem. (Acts 11) The hierarchical structure adopted by some of layers of submission from saint to elder to pastor to apostle, has no basis in the scripture. And as I mentioned in an earlier post there is no use of functions like apostle, prophets, evangelist, pastor-teacher as titles or offices in the scriptures. There was noone who was 'the pastor' or 'the apostle' in the way we often use the term today.