What is the biblical pattern of church leadership?

In our meditations thus far on the local expression of the Church we have had before us some of the main principles that should govern and constitute a Scripturally gathered Assembly of God. We have seen that it must meet on the ground of the One Body of all believers, owning and receiving each other as members of that spiritual Body of Christ and owning no other body. Secondly, it must be gathered together unto the name of the Lord Jesus Christ alone as its center and uphold that precious name to the exclusion of all others. Thirdly, the Lord must be given His rightful place in the midst as the divine Leader and the presence of the Holy Spirit owned and He be depended upon to guide and divide to every man as He will. Fourthly, the ministry and spiritual ministrations in the Assembly are to be carried on, not by one man an appointed, official minister-but by any of Christ's gifts to the Church and by members of the body, edifying one another, all under the Holy Spirit's direction and in His power and energy. Fifthly, the work of oversight in the gathering is to be done by those who are morally and spiritually qualified as elders and raised up and directed by the Holy Spirit for this needful work. And the deaconal work is to be done by those chosen by the Assembly for this work. Sixthly, the authority for its actions is the Lord in its midst and the Word of God which it acts upon.

That there are leaders and chief men in the Church and local gatherings, whom God uses for the blessing and guiding of His people, Scripture assures us. Acts 15:22 speaks of Judas and Silas as "chief men among the brethren," and Hebrews 13:7 exhorts: "Remember your leaders who have spoken to you the word of God" (New Trans.) But notice that they are in the plural and that they were not officially appointed as leaders, but were those whom the Holy Spirit was using as such. The Holy Spirit must ever be the leader and must be left free to use whomsoever He will.

Correctly speaking, the government is an absolute monarchy, the Holy Ghost in the churches being sovereign.* The idea, therefore, common among many, that the principle is that of a democracy, is totally wrong; although, of course, as a number of those who (not being prepared by the Spirit, either for helps or governments) exercise no office in the congregation, far exceeds that of those so gifted; and as all are supposed to have the apprehension of the Spirit's mind (see 1 Cor. 5 and 1 Cor. 10:15, "I speak as unto wise men, judge ye what I say," 1 John 4:6, etc). the responsibility rests mainly with the many, even though God† inform their judgments through the few. The only officers, found in the churches, are elders and deacons; for the apostles were for the building, and not continued dwelling, in these congregations.‡ In each of these two offices, then, we shall find the same principle of mutual dependence preserved by the appointment of a plurality of the officers.

Thus, along with the assembly of God, there is the ministry of the word, committed sovereignly to some of its members, not to all, yet assuredly for the good of all. Let the assembly respect the servants in their place, and let the servants respect the assembly in its place. None ever confound the two things without the most disastrous consequences: neither must be sacrificed. It is the place of a servant, no doubt, to preach or teach in subjection to Christ; it is the place of a servant, likewise, to counsel, guide, govern, according to his gift from the Lord. But whatever may be the servant's mind, judgment, or counsel, nothing dissolves the direct responsibility of the assembly to Christ. The same Jesus is Lord of the servant, but He is also owned as the Lord by the assembly of God.

God has guides for His people. It was notably so in connection with the whole history of the Jews. He always guided them through leaders. In days of ruin, when failure had come in, He would raise up a judge for the special emergency. The fact that we have Christ in glory and the Holy Spirit dwelling in the Church down here, competent to control and lead His people, does not set aside human instruments whom God has endowed with special qualifications to be leaders, overseers, pastors, caretakers of the flock of God. There is no contradiction therefore in the thought of Christ having the supreme, the only place as Lord over all, and our recognizing those who labor among us and admonish us, and esteeming them "very highly in love for their works' sake."

Today, in the light of the New Testament, one must acknowledge that it is not God's intention for His people that only one man assume responsibility for the entire service of the local assembly. The decision of Acts 15 was not reached by one apostle, however prominent, but by the apostles and the elders, with the concurrence of the whole assembly (v. 22). According to passages such as Philippians 4:3 and Colossians 4:11, Paul had several “fellow laborers” whom he sent here and there, or who accompanied him on his journeys.

Even at Corinth and Thessalonica then those were raised up in the midst of the saints who showed spiritual ability in guiding and directing others. That was the work of those to whom one epistle exhorted subjection, and whom the other epistle commended as "over them in the Lord." Such men as these did not labour only; because some might be actively engaged in the Lord's work who might not be over others in the Lord. But these manifested power to meet difficulties in the church, and to battle with that which was ensnaring souls, and so to guide and encourage the weak and baffle the efforts of the enemy. They were not afraid to trust the Lord in times of trial and danger, and therefore the Lord used them, giving them power to discern and courage to act upon what they did discern. This was part of what fitted them to take the lead in the Lord. There were such at Thessalonica as well as at Corinth, and yet there is not the slightest intimation that they were regularly installed as elders, but on the contrary the strongest evidence that elders as yet had not been constituted in either place. The regular practice was to appoint elders after a certain time; indeed it could only be when the apostles came round, or sent an authorized delegate to choose fit persons and clothe them with a title before the church which none but the bad would dispute.

On the return journey they also found that amongst the older converts some were manifesting the character that marked them out as fit to exercise spiritual supervision, and these men they ordained as elders. Apostolic discernment was needed in making the choice, and also a real spirit of dependence on God — hence, prayer — and a refusal of the desires of the flesh — hence, fasting. And when the elders were chosen so that all might recognize them, they did not commit the rest of the believers into the hands of the elders. No, they "commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed." Each believer was set in direct connection and communion with the Lord by faith. Elders were instituted, not to intercept the faith of the saints, but to incite it to more reality and depth.

Overseers and deacons were local officials in the Church and must be distinguished from gifts. Elders and deacons might or might not have the gift of preaching or teaching. Such gift was quite independent of their special office. There might be, and were, many elders and deacons in any given church, and yet there was still the fullest and freest liberty for any one to exercise his gift in ministry when the whole Church came together in one place. Elders were not to preside in a public meeting, but to oversee, feed, and care for the flock of God (Acts 20:28).

Another matter may claim brief notice here, though it may seem somewhat of an anticipation. The elders of the church are designated 'overseers' or 'bishops' by the apostle (ver. 28): 'Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock in which the Holy Ghost made [set] you bishops, to feed [tend] the church of God, which He purchased with His own blood.' This identification falls in with every scriptural notice we possess. Such is the genuine inference from 1 Tim. 3:1-7 as well as from 1 Tim. 5:17-19 and still more plainly from Titus 1:5-6, compared with verses 7, 9, as well as from Acts 11, 14, 15, 16, and 21, and from 1 Peter 5 and James 5, no less than Phil. 1:1. The great distinction which soon reigned in Christendom between bishops and presbyters is wholly unknown to the word of God.

Not one, but more were appointed in each assembly or city, where charges were conferred at all. There was regularly a plurality of elders and bishops. They might be men of gift, teachers, or evangelists; but the indispensable work was to 'rule' or 'preside'. This was the object of their appointment, for appointed they certainly were by apostolic authority direct, or indirect when an apostle could not be there (as for instance by Titus commissioned for the purpose by the apostle Paul (Titus 1:5). The gifts, on the other hand, were given by Christ without any such intervention. A pastor, teacher, or evangelist, as such, was never nominated by an apostle or an apostolic delegate.