Church Organization
government Hierarchical structure,
church leadership, head of the church, pope, bishop, deacon layman, servant, minister,
apostle, evangelist, preacher, hierarchal
Structure of the Congregation of Our
Creator
|
Major Threads |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The question
of organization and/or government within the congregation of believers has been
a subject of discussion for quite a while. On one hand, it appears that the
ministry is given authority to dictate to the lay members. "Obey those who rule over you, and be
submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account."
(Heb 13:17abc)
On the other hand: 'And
He said to them, "The
kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those who exercise authority
over them are called benefactors. 26 But not so among you; on the contrary, he who is greatest among you,
let him be as the younger, and he who governs as he who serves." ' (Luke 22:25-6)
Scriptures
There is really only one
scripture that seems to directly address a structure of authority for the New
Testament believers. That is I Corinthians 11:3. "But I want you to
know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the
head of Christ is God."
Based on this there is no separate category of "minister" to which
everyone in the congregation reports.
This seems to be at odds
with Hebrews 13:17 quoted above. This conflict is resolved by looking at the
original Greek and by simply thinking about it a bit. Let's consider that
Hebrews was a letter probably written by Paul to believers in Judea. Whoever
the author was, he undoubtedly knew who the "rulers" were and he
knew generally what they were telling the congregation to do.
This letter was written to
known believers being taught by known 'rulers'. It is probably safe to say
that Paul did not know any of our church pastors or what they are saying. In
Galatians Paul says, "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach
any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be
accursed" (Gal 1:8). It is apparent that no minister has any exemption
from this and no "authority" to dictate anything but what is
taught by the word of God. Of course, if someone is preaching the word of
God, why would anyone want to be contrary?
If the ministry is giving
direction based on their own understanding or their own mind and not trusting
in what the word of God says, no one is required to automatically fall in
line or believe. The same holds true if they are directing in areas upon
which the word of God does not speak in word or principle. Because a minister
says something is so, does not eliminate an individual's responsibility for
their actions.
The translation aspect of
Hebrews 13:17 involves an examination of the Greek words "peitho", translated 'obey' and
'hegeomai', translated 'rule
over'. The primary meaning of "peitho"
is actually 'persuade' according to Thayer's lexicon. The exhaustive Liddell
and Scott lexicon agrees with that stating, "prevail upon, persuade, usu.[usually] by fair means". Now
it is fairly obvious that the Hebrews were not being asked to persuade their
'rulers'. So this is not likely the intended meaning here.
The secondary meaning of
"peitho" is 'be
persuaded'. Again Liddell and Scott agree and state, "to be prevailed on, won over, persuaded".
This definition certainly makes sense in the context of Hebrews 13:17 and
Galatians 1.
Within the general context
of persuasion, "peitho"
can carry the meaning of 'obey'. If this meaning were intended, there would
be something in the context that would make that apparent. However, neither
the context throughout scripture nor the context here, supports an
unquestioning 'obey'. (See James 3:3 for a valid example.) We have already
seen what Paul said about those who preach another gospel. We are to tremble
at the word of God (Isa 66:2). Believers do not automatically obey the
commandments of men (Mark 7:7, Col 2:22, Acts 5:29). However, everyone is due
our respect as a fellow human being. This disallows arrogance toward anyone,
especially not the 'rulers' of the congregation.
The word in Hebrews 13:17
that is usually translated 'rule' is the Greek word 'hegeomai'. The primary meaning according to Thayer is 'to
lead'. Again, Liddell and Scott support this and say, "go before, lead the way".
These 'rulers' are leaders that are to help map out the ways of God for the
main body of believers, by example. 'Rule
over' in Hebrews 13:7 & 24 is the same word.
The context in Hebrews 13:7
particularly lends itself to the concept of leader, since the exhortation is
to "follow". Actually, this carries weight with every other use of
'hegeomai' in the chapter. It
is generally accepted in translating, that multiple uses of a word in close
proximity will carry the same meaning. Hebrews 13:7 being the first use in
this general context, the meaning of 'lead' is established by its immediate
use of the concept 'follow'. The literal translation would probably be
'imitate', but certainly follow is connected to that meaning as well. One
sees the example of the leader and does the same. One sees how the leader
walks and conducts himself accordingly. The follower seeks to emulate the
leader. He is a willing participant. There is no thought there of simply
doing what the leader says or being dictated to. The leader 'goes before',
shows the way and sets the example
. This is an entirely different
concept from a ruler giving orders. The example is the conduct of the leader,
what is discernable from close contact. Example is not primarily concerned
with abstract concepts or the mental perceptions of the leader.
This word 'hegeomai' has a secondary meaning
of command, as in leadership of a military/governmental organization. When
translating, context and priority (primary meaning vs. secondary meaning,
based on frequency of appearance in the language) are the deciding factors in
assigning meanings. If Hebrews had intended us to draw the secondary
military/governmental connection, it would typically have included some
reference to the military or government in the context. It does not. Instead,
there is an exhortation to 'submit' meaning 'resist no more', or 'yield' to
the leadership. In the military not much time is spent encouraging the lower
ranks to submit. They would find themselves in the brig very quickly if they
did not submit.
This scripture in Hebrews
really agrees perfectly with I Corinthians 11:3 and Luke 22:25-26. The
authority invested in the leadership is to teach the ways of God, especially
by setting the example. The veteran sets the example for the novice. This is
not a difficult concept to understand. It revolves around visible and
discernable conduct not beliefs that really have no affect on ones daily
life. There is no place for someone who promotes himself or some personal
opinion and claims it is God's will when it is not. One who does that takes
the name of God in vain and will be held accountable. (Deu 18:20, Ex 20:7)
At the same time, the
membership should seriously consider what the leadership says. In a typical
church organization the pastor is supposed to be a professional in
understanding the word of God. They were established for the perfecting of
the saints (Eph 4:12), to lead the way in the ways of God. If in doubt, a
true servant of God will welcome free inquiry regarding scriptural examples
or principles and patiently explain the word of God. The explanation will
make sense. Any leader who seems to stray from the path as defined by
scripture, should be watched very carefully. He probably doesn't know the way
and like the blind leading the blind, everyone may fall in the ditch.
There are other scriptures
that seem to indicate the ministers are rulers. I Timothy 5:17 is one of
them. The word used for 'rule' in that verse is 'proistemi'. Again, it means to 'set or place before' or
'preside'. Liddell and Scott treat it as a compound word 'pro' meaning 'before' and 'histemi' meaning 'stand'; a leader.
One who presides at a meeting is not necessarily superior to all attendees.
Things need to be organized, meeting place prepared, possibly scripture reading determined, a
study leader or speaker designated. The easiest way to handle this is
to make someone responsible. This leader is presiding in the business of the
congregation, not in their routine lives.
On the other hand, one
should respect the position of the one presiding. He is there so things can
be done decently and in order, not to promote chaos and contention. If those
who are not presiding have complaints, they should petition through standard
means.
Other scriptures that seem
to place the ministry in a ruling position above the congregation are
similarly misunderstood. A careful reading and translation will not support a
dictatorial ministry. They lead by example. It should be the goal of each
member to walk in the way of God on their own two feet, with understanding,
not blind obedience.
"These were more
fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with
all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these
things were so." (Acts 17:11)
"Brethren, join
in following my example, and note those who so walk, as you have us for a
pattern." (Phil 3:17)
"Let no one
despise your youth, but be an example to the believers in word, in conduct,
in love, in spirit, in faith, in purity." ( I Tim 4:12)
Why were the translators confused?
The simple answer we would suggest,
is a conflict of interest and or blind acceptance of tradition. Generally
speaking, those who were knowledgeable enough in the ancient Greek language
to do a translation were theologians. They had their own ideas about what the
Bible "says". Many were church leaders, ministers or heavily
involved in the religious community themselves. In translating the way they
did, they were solidifying their own position, even if subconsciously. We
wouldn't say they were slanting the Gospel with the intent of deceiving.
Given their background, human proclivity to trust in itself and the
proclivity of the general population to want some human to tell them directly
what to do, it was easy for the translators to choose words that elevated
their own status.
They were probably also
victims of their upbringing and the teaching of those who went before them.
The Protestant reformation put a different slant on many things and respect
for the word of God was elevated. However, just because there was
improvement, doesn't mean that every problem was corrected. It's not unusual
when remodeling a house to tackle the areas that are most in need. The
relatively minor things are put off. The same approach in the area of church
reform shouldn't be hard to imagine.
What is the 'Church'?
According to Webster's New
World Dictionary of the American Language the primary definition of 'church'
is: "a building set apart or consecrated for public worship, esp. one
for Christian worship".
The Greek word used in the
New Testament, translated 'church' "ekklesia", carries
a significantly different meaning. Its primary meaning according to Thayer's lexicon is "a gathering
of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an
assembly". Liddell & Scott say, "assembly duly summoned less general than sullogos". ('Sullogos'
is "assembly, concourse,
meeting of persons, whether legal or riotous").
The 'church' (ekklesia) has
no connection to any particular building. It is a group called together
'summoned' for a purpose, not just any crowd, like sullogos.
Whenever the English New Testament refers to the church it is referring
to the body of believers, either locally or universally. No subset of
believers, e.g. elders, the ministry or the legal entity under which the
congregation/ministry conducts its business, is intended. Certainly no
building is intended. "A group of worshippers", which is roughly
equivalent to "ekklesia",
is listed sixth in Webster's possible definitions of 'church'. The English
word 'church' is really a very poor fit for the concept intended in the
original Greek text.
Other New Testament words
The concept of 'church' intended by the New Testament writers is not
the only concept that is clouded in most English versions. One needs to
examine a number of Greek words, because many lose their true meaning in
translation. Unfortunately, this may seem a bit tedious. However, it is
essential if one is to understand the original intent of the New Testament
writers.
"So when they had appointed elders
in every church, and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in
whom they had believed." (Acts 14:23)
Elders were chosen from among the congregation in every congregation.
Actually 'appointed' (Gr. cheirotoneo)
is defined by Thayer as:
1) to vote by
stretching out the hand
2) to create or
appoint by vote: one to have charge of some office or duty
3) to elect,
create, appoint
The Liddell & Scott primary meaning is: "
stretch out the hand, for the purpose of giving one's vote in the assembly"
The possibility that Paul unilaterally chose the 'elder(s)' in any
congregation is remote. Young's Literal translation reads, "and having appointed to them by vote
elders in every assembly, having prayed with fastings, they commended them to
the Lord in whom they had believed." Based on this, it seems the
whole group including Paul and Barnabas chose the local elders. Another
possibility is that Barnabas and Paul chose them by vote. This would make for
a very odd election involving only two people. If that were the case, it
seems the action would have been described as something other than "cheirotoneo", to vote by
stretching out the hand.
As indicated above, the meaning of this word can be 'appoint'. However,
this meaning is apparently rare, since it is listed last of the tertiary
meanings of "cheirotoneo".
There would need to be some context that would indicate voting was not
intended. There
is really nothing here that does so. The entire congregation chose the
elders. As such, it makes a certain amount of sense that they were also
responsible to the congregation.
Paul told Titus to 'appoint' elders.
"For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order
the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded
you--" (Tit 1:5). Although some might assume that Titus was
therefore to do this unilaterally, there is really no indication here of
exactly how he accomplished it. The
'command' was to set, place or put elders in each city. Titus could have
accomplished that in numerous ways, including having the local congregation
"vote by stretching out the hand". That is more than likely the
example he saw in Paul. Why would he do it any differently?
What is an Elder?(Greek;
presbuteros)
The term 'elder' appears frequently
throughout the scriptures. The typical word for 'elder' in Hebrew is 'zaqen'. Its primary meaning is simply 'old'. Ezra often uses
an Aramaic word to convey the same meaning. 'siyb'. Its primary meaning is 'to be gray'.
Titus, Paul's assistant, was left in Crete
to 'set in place' elders. Also the twenty-four surrounding the throne of God
are called 'elders' (Rev 4:4). This shows a great diversity and yet
uniformity at the same time. Typically an older person, an elder was
primarily trustworthy and of upright character. He was someone to whom others
would go for advice.
In the New Testament, the Greek word used
is typically 'presbuteros',
i.e., elder, of age. This term also carries with it the concept of senior or
respected leader of the people. It is
used frequently in New Testament era Greek and Hebrew writings to refer to
the elderly, respected people in the community and leaders of the community.
They may or may not be appointed somehow or other to a particular official
job. There is not dictatorial authority implied. What is implied is that the
person is of high character and in a position to influence for the good of
the community.
The use of the term 'elder' or 'presbuteros' undoubtedly comes from
the Jewish community where the New Testament congregations formed. Certainly
Elders in Israel had a certain amount of authority. In Acts 6:12 they, with the Scribes, forcefully
brought Stephen before what was probably the Sanhedrin, the high court of
Judea. The rulers in Judea were also called elders (Acts 4:8).
However, because the Jews in New Testament
times vested civil authority in their elders, doesn't necessarily mean that
elders in the congregation of believers would have 'authority to rule'
the congregation. The civil elders had certain civil responsibility. The
elders in the congregation administered the affairs of the congregation.
There were obviously some problems with the leadership in Israel, otherwise
they would not have crucified Jesus. There came to be problems in some New
Testament elders too. The Head, the Messiah, is able to resolve these things.
A believer will do what he can and wait
on the Messiah for the rest. Depending on the situation one can vote with
ones feet, i.e. note divisive or offensive people and walk away.
The gentile countries evidently had a
particularly bad reputation. "And he said unto them, The kings of the
Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon
them are called benefactors. 26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is
greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he
that doth serve." (Luke 22:25-26) Evidently the leadership in
Judea was not quite so bad.
In any case, the congregation of believers
used the same moniker for their leaders as the Jews did. If there had been a
radical difference between the elders of the synagogue and the elders of the
believer congregations, it seems some note would have been made in Acts or to
at least Timothy or Titus. Alternatively, an entirely different name would
have been used.
'The term "elders" is usually
used in the sense of authorized or ordained religious leaders, but in one
instance at least, it has a purely community connotation, and means roughly
"town fathers"'. (p 180, The Jews in their Land in the Talmudic
Age, by Gedaliah Alon) This also reflects the station of 'elders' in the
believing community.
"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: 2 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; 3 Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being
ensamples to the flock." (I Pet 5:1-3)
This is
probably as good a summary as any of the responsibility of an elder to the
congregation. Feeding the flock seems to involve at least teaching the
"council of God", i.e. the instruction of God (Acts 20:27-28). They
were to take "oversight". This assumes that if something were not
happening in a godly way that they would at least speak up, if nothing else.
This is certainly what Paul did when he found out about the man living with
his father's wife (I Cor 5).
Although the
congregation evidently chose the elders, those chosen may not have been
overjoyed at the appointment. They are exhorted to willingly help the
congregation. We assume the rest of the congregation was not as well founded
in the word of God as those chosen were. They shouldn't begrudge the other
believers their time or whatever it took to support the congregation. Neither
should they seek any monetary gain that could conceivably come their way. They
should be anxious to serve without seeking anything in return. Their reward
would come from their Creator. Their best work would be done by setting the
right example.
The 'elder'
would exemplify "For whoever desires to save his life will lose it,
but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel's will save it"
(Mark 8:35). His efforts to help would be on a volunteer basis, not for hire.
Bishop (Gr.
episkopos)
The bishop
assured that the functioning of the group went smoothly. An 'Overseer' (Gr.
episkopos) is "a man charged with the duty of seeing that things to be
done by others are done rightly, any curator, guardian or
superintendent". (Thayer) Liddell & Scott say "one
who watches over, overseer, guardian".
The overseer
was not necessarily involved in a visible function in the congregation
himself, but in making sure things ran smoothly and that someone did what was
necessary. In the New Testament congregations, it seems to be the title of a
local facilitator.
This is very
similar to 'Elder'. An elder was also to be taking oversight of the
congregation. This would not necessarily mean someone who has direct
responsibility for the congregation, but apparently someone besides each
individual in the congregation who had to "give account" or explain
the progress of the congregation and likely his part in it. We saw this in
Hebrews 13:17 explained earlier.
"Obey [be
persuaded by] those who rule [preside over, maintain decorum and
order] you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those
who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that
would be unprofitable for you." Those who presided had to answer to
God not only for their own conduct, but evidently to some degree for the
congregation over which they presided, their stewardship. I suppose this
shouldn't be a big surprise. Both stewards and teachers will be judged (Jam
3:1, Luke 16:2). Besides facilitating the meeting of the congregation, it
makes sense that this individual would probably end up teaching too.
Actually, the
designation of 'bishop' is not often used. It appears the term refers to an
office probably filled by an 'elder', which term is used fairly often. Paul
describes qualities someone who fills the position of a bishop must have in I
Timothy 3:1-7. In short, he must be a good teacher, honest, gentle and not
greedy for money.
Minister (Gr:
diakonos)
"of
which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God which
was given to me for you, to fulfill the word of God" (Col 1:25)
"His
mother said to the servants, "Whatever He says to you, do
it."" (John 2:5)
"Yet it
shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let
him be your servant." (Mat 20:26)
These three
examples all contain the same Greek word (diakonos) translated either
'minister' or 'servant'. Actually there are a number of Greek words that are
translated 'minister'. All of them include the meaning of servant. English differentiates
between the leader of the congregation who is designated a 'minister' and
domestic help, usually intended by 'servant'. There is no such clear
differentiation in the Greek language.
The leader of
the congregation was therefore expected to serve the congregation just like
domestic help would serve their master or employer. The minister Paul was the
servant Paul. The
definition generally accepted is "one
who executes the commands of another, esp. of a master, a servant, attendant,
minister
" (Thayer's Greek English
Lexicon of the New Testament).
"as you
also learned from Epaphras, our dear fellow servant, who is a faithful
minister of Christ on your behalf" (Col 1:7).
In this case,
'fellow servant' could just as easily be translated 'fellow slave'. The master is Jesus
Christ. The ministry fills in for Christ by serving the congregation, the
body of Christ. So while the minister is to care for the congregation, the
real master and caregiver is Jesus Christ. The minister is responsible first
to Christ then the congregation.
"For if I
still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ." (Gal 1:10b)
Deacon
(Gr. diakonos)
If you're
paying attention you will notice that the same Greek word is used for a
deacon as is used for a minister. I Timothy 3 seems to contrast the diakonos
with that of a bishop, although the qualifications are very similar. The
function highlighted in I Timothy 3 seems to be more in line with the deacons
chosen in Acts 6.
Throughout the
New Testament this term is used of women and servants who attend to the needs
of others. Although in some cases, such as that of Stephen, some 'deacons'
were effective beyond 'waiting on tables' (Acts 6:2), attending to people's
needs seems to be the main function of a deacon. They did the grunt work
necessary, so the elders and the congregation could concentrate on teaching
and learning.
Paul was not
ashamed to label himself or others with this title (Col 1:25, 7). It is apparent He was not
very concerned about status or rank.
Apostles &
others
"And God has appointed these in the church: first
apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of
healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues." (I Cor 12:28)
"And He
Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some
pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry,
for the edifying of the body of Christ" (Eph 4:11-12).
For the conduct
of the business of the Gospel and the effective teaching or upbringing of the
babes of Christ, there was a structure of authority and accountability within
the leadership of the ministry. First (Gr. proton) was the
Apostle. 'Proton' carries with it the meaning of chief as well as first in
order. Certainly
the account in Acts 6 shows that lacking some other direction the
congregation looked to the Apostles to iron out the business that pertained
to the congregation. They set in place deacons to handle the problem. The
deacons did what was necessary on behalf of the Apostles. The ultimate
authority remained with the Apostles. The deacons reported to the apostles in
particular and the congregation in general.
We
assume Paul and Barnabas were appointed apostles in Acts 12:2-3, although
this is not specifically stated. An apostle (Gr. apostolos) is simply a messenger, one sent with
orders. There was no apparent structure of men that had to be consulted.
There is certainly no indication the apostles of Jerusalem were consulted.
When Paul did consult with them, he had already been preaching (Gal 2:7).
They simply recognized this and welcomed him. (Gal 2:9) They felt no need to
ordain him to any position. Jesus Christ already did that.
A
true Apostle of Jesus Christ is validated by the work he does, not because he
has a sheet of paper that designates him an 'apostle'. "for in
nothing was I behind the most eminent apostles, though I am nothing. 12
Truly the signs of an apostle were accomplished among you with all
perseverance, in signs and wonders and mighty deeds." (II Cor
12:11cd-12). "If I am not an apostle to others, yet doubtless I am to
you. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord." (I Cor
9:2).
In
II Corinthians 8:23 Paul seems to be designating the whole delegation
that he is sending to Corinth as apostles. It seems that the term 'apostle'
had not acquired all the stately and exalted baggage, which Christianity now
attaches to the word.
There
were evidently some in the congregation that had an ability to foretell the
future, or at least one future event. Prophets are listed second after the
Apostles. Judas and Silas (Acts 15:32) and Agabus (Acts 21:10) are designated
as prophets. The primary definition of the Greek, "prophetes" is
"an interpreter of oracles or of other hidden things" (Thayers's).
Although there is a connection with the future, this isn't necessarily their
only function and may not have been their primary function. Most of the time
they probably functioned as a preacher (See I Cor 14).
Philip, one of the original
seven ordained in Acts 6, is called an evangelist (Gr. euaggelistes Acts 21:8). So also it
seems, is Timothy (II Tim 4:5). Even as of Acts 8, Philip seems to be active in
aggressively spreading the Gospel by oration, commonly called preaching.
Liddell and Scott indicate outside the context of the Bible
"prophetes" is used of a "proclaimer of oracular messages". This fits
with the general understanding that an evangelist is one who preaches or
speaks on behalf of God.
It is interesting that
Paul's description of what seems to be a pecking order in the ministry in I
Corinthians, differs from the similar list in Ephesians. Only in Ephesians is
an evangelist and a pastor mentioned. This would tend to indicate a loose
structure or Evangelists, Pastors and teachers are the same thing. If there
was a structure, it wasn't rigidly fixed enough for Paul to list the
categories consistently twice in a row.
A 'pastor' (Gr. poimen) is
typically a herdsman, especially a shepherd. It is also used of "the
presiding officer, manager, director, of any assembly". This function
then is apparently another name for an elder and a bishop.
The third category listed in I Corinthians 12:28
is that of teacher (Gr. didaskalos). One needs a certain mass of knowledge to begin to
comprehend the word of God and the mind of God. A novice can get up to speed
faster if someone can explain the basics and point him to the foundational
precepts. After that, a believer needs to look to the record our Head left. The
human teacher should point the student to the word of God. Jesus Christ is
our Master, guide and ultimate teacher
. "But you, do
not be called 'Rabbi'; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all
brethren" (Mat 23:8). "A disciple is not above his teacher, but
everyone who is perfectly trained will be like his teacher." (Luke
6:40).
Getting counsel from proven men is a wise
thing to do, but seeking the input of the Creator is even better. We're not limited to one
or the other. To be the child of God, seek to understand the mind of God
through His word.
After teachers, Paul mentions other items
that don't appear to be functions as much as gifts or special abilities (I Cor
12:28). This includes miracles, healings, helps, administrations, and
speaking in other languages. Miracles seem to be in a special category. The
rest are apparently not listed in any particular order, but are various gifts
that certain people had.
"Administrations"
is placed in the same category as 'speaking in other languages'. The Greek
behind this word indicates one who pilots a ship or helmsman. This may or may
not be someone with greater authority than every other hand on the ship. This
term is also metaphorically applied to administrators in local governments.
In the congregation it was evidently someone who had a knack for organizing
or supervising a smooth running operation.
Ordination and Administration
One would assume Peter, an original disciple
of Jesus, would have been considered senior to Paul. However, after the
episode related in Galatians 2:11-14, it is apparent Paul did not defer to
anyone or recognize any human as needing to approve his understanding or the
truth of the gospel. Interestingly, Paul gave little hint of any 'top down'
structure even when he was being cautious about his own message. The account
in Galatians 2 indicates he went to those of 'reputation' (vs. 2), 'those
who seemed to be something' and those 'who seemed to be pillars'. These
are strange descriptions for the highest 'authorities' who 'rule over' the
congregation.
To the credit of these leaders, they
seemed to be happy to share preaching the gospel with Paul. They didn't claim
to own it themselves, have sole right of distribution or right to tithes and
offerings. Paul was not required to pledge any allegiance to them. He had already
demonstrated his allegiance to Jesus Christ. That was all that was necessary.
An ordination is recorded in Acts 13. This was
done to delegate a job to Barnabas and Saul (Paul). "Then, having
fasted and prayed, and laid hands on them, they sent them away."
(Acts 13:3)
In this particular case significant emphasis is
placed on the spirit moving certain 'prophets and teachers' to 'separate'
these two for a particular purpose. It seems that the spirit of God used this
special group to highlight the commissioning of Barnabas and Saul (Paul) to
perform a function. Although it makes sense that Barnabas and Saul would
occasionally report back to the group, the real mover in this matter was the
spirit of God.
The details of how this worked are not given.
However, indications are that the other apostles probably went to "the
lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Mat 10:6b) as they had been
instructed before. Greece and Asia Minor would not have been included. Since
Antioch was relatively close to this area and they knew there were many Jews
scattered around this area, the leaders in Antioch were moved that something
should be done to reach these people with the gospel.
A commissioning of this nature and importance
would likely have caused many problems in any organization that was rigidly
structured. There was apparently no approval sought from the human head of the
organization or the executive committee in Jerusalem. That brings into
immediate question whether or not such a position or committee existed.
Jesus originally set the stage for the Apostles
to lead the church and spread the gospel. "And when it was day, He
called His disciples to Himself; and from them He chose twelve whom He also
named apostles" (Luke 6:13). "Then He appointed twelve, that
they might be with Him and that He might send them out to preach"
(Mark 3:14).
Restoring the number to twelve was one of the
first orders of business in the new Gospel effort after Jesus death (Acts
1:15-26). Paul and Barnabas were also considered to be apostles (Acts 14:14,
4). There is no direct statement comparing this apostleship with the original
apostles in Jerusalem. It seems no one was all that concerned about comparing
themselves among themselves or measuring status.
Paul
makes it fairly clear in Galatians that there was no organizational chart
posted when he first met the Apostles in Jerusalem (Gal 2:6, 9). It is
apparent James, Peter and John were leaders, but there was no clear human at
the top. He calls them 'Pillars', which is an interesting word in this
context. A pillar is a support for a structure. It is not the roof or tower
that sits on top or towers over the structure that supports it.
Acts 6
describes another ordination. Complaints were lodged because the Greek
speaking widows were being shorted in the 'daily distribution'. More than
likely this was referring to the distribution of food. Acts 4:32 indicates
that the majority of disciples were participating in a communal system of
sorts. Possessions were given to the Apostles and they distributed them as
needed (vs 34-35).
For some reason the Greek speaking widows were
not being well cared for. Since the Apostles had control of the goods, the
complaint went to the Apostles. They evidently acknowledged the problem, but
understood that they could not properly handle this distribution and fulfill
their responsibility to distribute the Gospel too (Acts 6:2, 4). So they
asked the congregation to choose a group of men that they could make
responsible for the 'daily distribution'.
This was a wise way to
handle the situation. As much as possible, it is good to make all those
affected by a situation, responsible for handling the situation. If things
don't go well, they have no one to blame but themselves. At the same time
they are empowered to solve the problem. The whole congregation or at least all that could
be included agreed (vs. 5) with this approach.
Notice that the 'multitude
of the disciples' (vs. 2) were involved, probably as many as they could get
together. The choosing was not left to a small group of elite. The multitude
worked out the recommendation together.
Once their choices came before
the Apostles, they were accepted and empowered with responsibility for the
distribution. The laying on of hands (vs. 6) was also an indication that the
ultimate responsibility for this distribution rested with the Apostles. They
were delegating it to those chosen. If they were derelict in their duty the
Apostles had the authority to call them into question or appoint others in
their place. One assumes this would be done with the participation of the
congregation as before.
Even though some of these men went on to be of
great reputation within the congregation, they were not given any
responsibility that the Apostles didn't already have. In this case the men
were commissioned to fill a particular need. However, as the spirit moved them they had
confidence to serve their God in ways that were not specifically designated.
They didn't need to be micro-managed. They saw a need and did what they could
to fill it. One doesn't need an official title to be of help.
The
example of Acts 6 does show an aspect of authoritative structure in the early
'church'. Those that favor authority for the ministry note that it was the
Apostles that appointed the deacons, and indeed this was so. Those who favor
a congregational structure in the hands of the lay members, note that the
Apostles instructed "the multitude of the disciples" to chose the
deacons and indeed it was so. The account here is showing a collaborative
organization, where the lay members and the leadership work together to
empower the congregation to work for the good of all.
Moses
used this same method when he chose the judges as recommended by his
father-in-law. Exodus 18:25 indicates that Moses chose and appointed these
judges. This event actually happened after Israel had been camped around Mt.
Sinai (Ex 18:5). Deuteronomy 1:12-16 also has an account of the same event.
In that account Moses asked the congregation to find those who should be
judges. Not surprisingly, since there were already tribal and family leaders
(Ex 24:9, 19:7) the family leaders were evidently proposed by the
congregation to be the judges. This probably didn't take a lot of debate.
Similar
to the case in Acts 6, Moses evidently did the actual appointing to the
position, but he asked the congregation to propose the candidates. They worked
together on these organizational matters of mutual concern. The final
authority rested with Moses for Israel, and in Acts 6, with the
disciples/apostles. However, no one felt the need to be "in
charge". The leaders in either era did not feel the need to micro
manage.
The
apostles were involved in a similar 'appointing' in Acts 1. Verse 16 through
26 describes the choosing of a replacement for Judas. The disciples proposed
two candidates to fill Judas position. Then they asked God to make the final
decision by casting lots. The final decision was God's. The
disciples/apostles proposed the candidates.
It
should be considered that the appointing in Acts 6 was to perform an
administrative and/or physical task. Certainly Moses appointment required
judges with understanding and ability to apply the Law of God. Acts 14:23
indicates the elders were chosen by election of the congregation to
facilitate the local congregation.
On
the other hand, there seemed to be no such election in determining who would
become a 'minister'. Paul and Barnabas may have already been filling some
ministerial responsibilities as of Acts 13. In any case they were apparently
the logical choice of the holy spirit in the leaders of Antioch. There was no
particular consultation with the congregation as a whole.
Timothy
was "well spoken of by the brethren" (Acts 16:2), but it seems to
have been Paul's choice to bring him along on his journey. That is what
ultimately led to Timothy becoming a 'minister'.
The
same seems to be true of Titus. Paul had Titus join him on a trip to
Jerusalem (Gal 2:1). The next we hear from Titus he had apparently been sent
as an emissary from Paul to Corinth. Likely he delivered Paul's epistle of
First Corinthians (II Cor 7:6-8). There is no record of any election in this.
The choice seems to be Paul's alone. He undoubtedly based his decision on
personal contact and input from the brethren. Paul was not anxious to
establish his seniority, but established Titus as his "fellow
worker" (II Cor 8:23).
There
may or may not have been a single protocol in the New Testament by which one
could become a 'minister'. Perhaps Timothy, Titus and maybe even Paul were
already deacons. In that case they were already servants or ministers.
It
is interesting that mention is made twice of an ordination of Timothy. In one
case it seems to be at the hands of Paul (II Tim 1:6). In the other case a
group of elders are involved (I Tim 4:14). We assume these are the same event
and Paul was a member of the group. Nevertheless, Paul seems to be taking
primary responsibility for 'the gift' Timothy received, which seems to be
'the testimony' (II Tim 1:8). The same gift that made Paul a preacher (vs
11).
So,
while the local congregation chose its leaders and those who administered
whatever needed to be done locally, they did not necessarily have a hand in
choosing all those who would be engaged 'full time' in the
'ministry' as we perceive it. Paul, and of course the apostles, were chosen
directly by Jesus Christ. The 'ordination' in Antioch seems to be largely an
outward show of the direction of Jesus through the spirit of God.
Paul
felt perfectly comfortable with taking along assistants as he thought
appropriate. He obviously had a disagreement with Barnabas about Mark (Acts
15:39). They disagreed to the extent they went on separate journeys. They
were not dependent on the congregation or 'headquarters' to determine who
their assistants would be and then, who would most likely become a
'minister'.
Paul's
assistants in the ministry seem to move about regularly. Titus checked on the
Corinthians and then reported back to Paul, who was probably in Macedonia (II
Cor 2:13, 7:6). At one point Titus was left in Crete temporarily to handle
the choosing of local elders (Tit 1:5, 3:12). At some other time he was sent
to Dalmatia (II Tim 4:10).
Other
assistant ministers traveled around independently as well. They don't seem to
stay in one place for very long. They travel around evidently checking in on
the various congregations, likely encouraging and exhorting and passing along
news. This appears to be the main reason Paul and Barnabas decided to go on
their second journey (Acts 15:36, Col 4:7-8). The congregations Paul and
Barnabas established were "commended ...to the Lord" (Acts
14:23). Their progress was between Him and them.
Although
Paul was not dependent on any structure or administrator in Jerusalem for
support or direction, the leaders there were available for dispute
resolution. The conference in Acts 15 is an obvious example. Cornelius had
evidently already been baptized without being circumcised (Acts 10:19-11:18,
15:7). We assume Paul was aware of this, but it is possible he was not. In
any case, it seems those coming from Judea should have been, but the
significance evidently escaped them.
So,
there was a dispute among believers over circumcision. They obviously
considered it a fundamental issue. "Unless you are circumcised
according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved" (Acts 15:1b).
Rather
than just parting ways in disagreement, they determined they "should
go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question"
(vs. 2b). The issue was worth resolving and evidently everyone acknowledged
the overall leadership of those in Jerusalem. The issue was not just heard by
the leading man or just the apostles. "Now the apostles and elders came
together to consider this matter" (vs 6). The discussion was evidently
fairly lively: "And when there had been much dispute" (Vs 7a).
Ultimately Peter, Paul and Barnabas evidently convinced the vast majority
that God was indeed working with the gentiles regardless of whether they were
circumcised or not. "Then all the multitude kept silent"
(vs. 12a).
James
was the one who summarized what seemed apparent to the gathering. "Therefore
I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are
turning to God" (vs 19). It seems apparent that the whole group was
in basic agreement. The letter that was written to Antioch was not
unilaterally from James, but from "The apostles, the elders, and the
brethren" (vs. 23b). Neither James nor Peter was mentioned by name.
.
So
the organizational structure of the entire ministry was not clearly defined
as one would find on an organizational chart. The Pharisee membership,
whatever their status (vs. 5), was allowed a voice as well as the most
notable of the original apostles. The spirit of God, i.e. the mind of God in
them, as a group, came to see the obvious answer to the question. It was a
collaborative decision, which weighed most heavily the movement of God.
Less
universal issues were handled in a less universal manor. Individuals who were
obviously focused on a particular function, like Paul and Barnabas choose
their assistants. These people either proved themselves or not, over time.
While some like Philip progressed from 'waiting on tables' to preaching and
the function of an evangelist (Acts 21:8), others (II Tim 4:5) came to that
responsibility by their relationship with someone who was an apostle. There
was no umbrella organization to which they needed to report, but they
willingly sought the council of their leaders and peers, particularly in
Jerusalem when there were fundamental disagreements over significant issues.
Who's in charge?
We
have not dealt with every scripture people might think elevates the ministry
above the average believer. We have dealt with those that are most often used
and seem to make the strongest case for an authoritative ministry. We have
seen these scriptures do not make that case, but have been misunderstood.
I
Corinthians 11:3 remains a true explanation of authority within the body of
believers. "But I want you to know that the head of every man is
Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God."
Ephesians
5:23 echoes this concept. "For the husband is head of the wife, as
also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body".
"But
you, do not be called 'Rabbi'; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you
are all brethren." (Mat 23:8)
"Now
when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a
cloud received Him out of their sight" (Acts 1:9)
The
apostles knew that Jesus was still alive. There is no hint that Jesus appointed
one of them to be 'in charge' while He was away. In fact, He is not 'away'.
His hand is not shortened that He cannot accomplish what He wills. He
expected them all to be witnesses of the Gospel (Acts 1:8, Mat 28:19). This
was not new to them. They had done this before (Luke 9:1-2). They didn't need
to set up a government to organize the effort.
The
apostles were told to carry a money bag and maybe a sword. This indicates
that they should take reasonable care for themselves. Jesus death was not a stumbling
block during their first evangelical effort. Their message after the
crucifixion would not be so readily received as before. It was evidently
prudent to be more prepared for their journey.
If
a need arose it was filled. Paul was called evidently to fill a void in the
delivery of the Gospel. The head of the body was fully able to move within
and outside the congregation to accomplish what was necessary. Jesus Christ
is still alive today. He will accomplish what needs to be accomplished.
Anyone
who thinks he is part of that effort should understand the true source of his
support. It will not be his own cunning or ability. It will be the movement
of the spirit of God. The spirit will guide either directly or through
circumstances important aspects of what is or is not done (Acts 16:6-7, 13:2,
17:16-17, 18:5). If someone is depending on his own cunning or ability the
Master will be fully aware.
Everyone
in the body of Christ, i.e. the 'church' should be willingly subservient to
Jesus Christ. This does not happen because they say some magic words, and
they are 'spiritually' subservient as opposed to actually subservient. It
happens when the believer sets their own will aside and conducts their life
by His instruction. They tap the mind of the Creator as preserved in His word
to direct their conduct. They relate to others as He would were He still
walking the earth. They represent Jesus in body form.
"Let nothing be done through selfish
ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better
than himself. Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but
also for the interests of others." (Phil 2:3-4)
"But do not forget to do good and to
share, for with such sacrifices God is well pleased" (Heb 13:16)
"But whoever has this world's goods, and
sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does the love
of God abide in him?" (I John 3:17)
This
is the way Jesus Christ conducted Himself. He wants every believer to conduct
themselves in this manner as well. How much more should the leadership
personify this approach?
Although
fully in charge, Jesus Christ will not necessarily micro-manage His
congregation. "For there must also be factions among you, that those
who are approved may be recognized among you" (I Cor 11:19).
Consider also the parable of the tares, which would indicate that the
congregation will consist of faithful believers as well as those who are not
really believers at all (Mat 13:24-30).
Sometimes
He gives us enough rope to hang ourselves. During Noah's time man was not
living as the Creator intended. When the situation reached a certain point He
cleaned the slate and started over with Noah and his family. Not too long
after that when things deteriorated He concentrated on Abraham and his family.
He almost scrapped that original plan except Moses convinced Him not to
destroy Israel in the wilderness. He established Israel, but finally
destroyed their nation and scattered them in captivity. He gave them another
opportunity to serve Him seventy years later. Ultimately that failed and the
Jews were all but driven out of the Holy Land for about 1900 years.
It
is not out of the question to think that He might clean house and start over
occasionally. We can expect that if the congregation begins to lose its
connection with the Creator it will be shaken until the imposters are mostly
shaken out. Alternatively, the faithful may be shaken out and the imposters
left with an empty shell. Jesus Christ is looking for those who wish to serve
Him not an organization or themselves.
New
Testament congregations did not always conduct themselves perfectly.
Sometimes the apostles had to plead for godly conduct when it wasn't
automatically forthcoming.
"Now I plead with you, brethren, by the
name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that
there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in
the same mind and in the same judgment." (I Cor 1:10)
"For when one says, "I am of
Paul," and another, "I am of Apollos," are you not carnal?"
(I Cor 3:4)
"These are sensual persons, who cause
divisions, not having the Spirit." (Jude 1:19)
Humble
leaders who are trying to walk with Jesus Christ are not going to be very intent
on gathering a following for themselves. They will recognize when others do
this and may seem to fall victim to them on occasion. Diotrephes conduct (III
John 1:9) was probably not unique. There will be tares among the wheat. All
believers must be on the alert.
Christ
is faithful and will draw near to us if we draw near to Him. He will post a
watchman according to His timing and wisdom. He may work one way with one
generation and some other way the next. The question is, "Will we be
listening and listening on all frequencies or just the one we think He used
last time?" The Creator is not limited in how or through what means, He
might chose to proclaim His message.
"For John the Baptist came neither eating
bread nor drinking wine, and you say, 'He has a demon.' 34 The Son of Man has
come eating and drinking, and you say, 'Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a
friend of tax collectors and sinners!' 35 But wisdom is justified by all her
children." (Luke 7:33-35)
John
was evidently an intense austere man who survived on very little. Jesus was
evidently very social and moved easily among the general population,
including many who were marginalized by the religious community. Wisdom can
come from either.
The
apostles came from an association where Jesus was the obvious leader. They
kept a shared purse under Jesus direction. After the ascension of Jesus
Christ, they did what they had been told to do. "Go therefore and
make disciples of all the nations..." (Mat 28:19a). They had been
trained to do this before Jesus was crucified. This was not really new to
them. They carried on independently as they had done while Jesus was alive.
They didn't set up their own little fiefdoms after Jesus crucifixion any more
than they had done before. After all, Jesus Christ was and is still alive.
Review
We have seen that scriptures, which
attest to authority in the ministry, have a very specific application.
Ministerial authority only applies to teaching the pure word of God and protecting
the flock from those who would corrupt it. The early church used a
collaborative organization that enabled the congregation to participate in
making sure everything was administered decently and in order. No one was
excluded in this process.
In what we would call doctrinal
matters of dispute, those who were relied on to preside were open to input
from any reasonable source. The word of God or His obvious movement was the
yardstick by which they judged.
The church is the congregation. It is not the ministry,
the building in which it meets or the legal entity under which it does
business or tracks its finances.
Local congregations appear to have
directly elected their local leaders. These elders organized the activities
of the congregation to support instruction and enable growth of
individuals and the group. An elder was typically a volunteer, of note among
the congregation as someone well founded in the word of God and of impeccable
reputation. Some leaders were evidently moved to greater functions of
proclaiming the word of God. Apostles and Evangelists evidently traveled
widely in support of multiple congregations or in communicating the word of
God to new audiences.
The leadership in the body of Christ looks to Him
for their physical support. It is certainly the responsibility of the
congregation to provide support. However, the servant of Jesus Christ looks
to Jesus Christ, his Master, and they are content with what He provides. They
do not attempt to promote themselves, but their Master. They attempt to build
up the congregation through instruction and example.
There were
varying functions among the ministry as well as among the general believers.
All are thanks
to the grace of God and Jesus Christ, intended for the betterment of the body
as a whole. Paul obviously directed Timothy and Titus on occasion as
evidenced in his epistles to them. For the most part his direction was about
the work of the Gospel, qualifications of an elder, examples of sound
doctrine and other duties or business of the ministry. In these areas Paul
was obviously the senior. It only makes sense that he passes along his
experience to the next generation and that they respect his instruction. It
also makes sense that if he saw a need somewhere, he would direct someone to
fill it if he were unable himself.
On the other
hand, each head of household is responsible directly to their Creator. Leaders who lead astray
will give account of their actions just as leaders who set the right example.
Those who set the right example with a responsive congregation will obviously
be happy to tell their account.
An
interesting thing about government in the New Testament is how little
information we are given. What we learn is largely from anecdotal evidence,
not any direct instruction as to the proper form of government. That should
be instructive in itself. The authors of the New Testament and epistles
didn't see any need to devote time to this issue.
The
church is likened to the body of Christ. Christ is the head. The body should look
to Him for guidance and respond to His influence and direction. The ministry
serves Jesus Christ in support of the congregation.
"For
the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He
is the Savior of the body." (Eph 5:23)
Conclusion
Who would chafe under a
ruler or leader whose primary interest is the well-being of those in his
congregation? What minister who recongizes Jesus Christ is his head
will shrink from what is right in favor of influence from the wealthy? What
form of organization would frustrate this kind of a leader or create
this kind of a leader? This is exactly how Paul conducted himself in
relation to Corinth and doubtless other congregations as well. Having
this kind of a leader is not a function of the organizational structure, but a
function of the conversion of the individual leader and the spirit of Jesus
Christ in him.
A spirit filled minister will
lead by example of the highest caliber. He will treat everyone with equality,
patience, gentleness, respect and concern. He will point people to the word
of God, not himself. He will be an example in word and deed to enable the
congregation to learn the way of God and enable them to clearly explain it to
others. He will use His authority as a representative of Jesus Christ to
teach and protect the flock. That is the authority a true minister is given.
With
all this in mind it ought to be fairly evident that the exact form of
government or organizational structure within the congregation or in the
ministerial structure is not overly important. The leaders must understand
the mind of their Creator and be focused on emulating it. With leaders like
this, everyone's needs will be taken into account as much as is possible.
This is typically the purpose of a government, to fairly administer for
everyone, whatever needs to be administered. Spirit filled leaders will
automatically do this.
The
realities of their society had a hand in determining how they would organize.
Communication was slow. The cost of writing materials was significant not to
mention the time needed to hand write everything. There were no telephones,
no express mail, no telegraph and certainly no Internet. With these
capabilities they may have done things differently. Certainly it would be unreasonable
to assume these capabilities would not have influenced their connections and
therefore relationships with one another.
The
education and background of the congregation must have also played a part in
their organization. With just a few days of instruction Paul and Barnabas
"commended them to the Lord". These new believers were
already familiar with the organization of the synagogue and the function of
the elders. They were also familiar with the Law. They heard it read and
expounded on every Sabbath (Acts 15:21). Commending a group like this to the
Lord would be much more successful than commending a group largely ignorant
of the law and the Hebrew scriptures.
The
Creator is not limited to a particular type of person or a particular organizational
structure. He will use what suits His purpose at the time. God can use any
governmental form when people with a full portion of His Spirit are guiding
it. Only the self-seeking will be dissatisfied.
The
flip side is that no matter what the structure, if the leadership is not
filled with the spirit of God, ultimately the structure will seem to be a
problem. Sooner or later someone will miss use or abuse whatever
responsibility they have or else become offended and separate themselves from
their brethren.
All
this probably explains why the New Testament doesn't go to any great effort
to explain "proper" church government. Whatever organization the
believers had in place was not vital to their salvation. There were local
leaders probably elected, to assure whatever needed to be done, was done
decently and in order to the satisfaction of the group. The law of God does
not micro manage how most of this should be done. It does require that things
be handled justly and with love, humility and concern for all.
With
that being said, the spirit led congregation of God, if it reaches numbers
sufficient to be called an organization, will probably be loosely organized.
It will be based on mutual trust and respect. It will not be focused on
promoting a particular human leader. Rather the leader will be working to
enable the members of the congregation. It will assume everyone wants to work
together to do what is right. So that it may be evident who is serving the
Creator, self-seeking imposters will worm their way in among the elect. Some
of these may even be teachers. The head of the congregation knows the sheep
from the goats. He will separate them if it is not obvious sooner.
"from whom the whole body, joined and
knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective
working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the
edifying of itself in love." (Eph 4:16)
The
great shepherd of the flock is alive and well. He is the Master, the rest of
us are brothers and sisters. We should help and support one another striving
to serve, not be served. The mindset of the believer is the important thing.
The organizational structure of the human organization with which the
believer might fellowship is of little real importance, although it could be
an indicator of the spiritual maturity of the leadership. What is important
is that each individual believer represents Jesus Christ in his conduct.
"Therefore
He says: "Awake, you who sleep, Arise from the dead, And Christ will
give you light." 15 See then that you walk circumspectly, not as fools
but as wise... 17 Therefore do not be unwise, but understand what the will of
the Lord is. 18 ...be filled with the Spirit,... 20 giving thanks
always for all things to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
21 submitting to one another in the fear of God< /span>." (Eph
5:14-21)
"Therefore,
having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness
of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God."
(II Cor 7:1)
"Therefore,
since we are receiving a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us have grace,
by which we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear."
(Heb 12:28)
Suggestions
for Church Format Improvements