Congregational Leadership Without Elders

When Scriptural Organization is Lacking

Each congregating community of God’s people is autonomous, designed to be organized with a plurality of qualified men serving as the principal leaders (1 Tim. 3:1-7; Tit. 1:5-9). They are variously called ἐπισκόποι (“overseers” or “bishops” or “guardians”), πρεσβυτέροι (“elders” or “presbyters”), and ποιμένες (“shepherds” or “pastors”).¹ When a congregation exists without two or more biblically qualified men, it is lacking something that needs to be set in order (Titus 1:5). Until then, how is a local church to function as far as leadership is concerned?

Biblical Examples: Thessalonica and Corinth

From Corinth around winter of 50-51, Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy wrote these words to the newly-planted church of the Thessalonians: “But we ask you, brothers, to appreciate those laboring among you and leading you in the Lord, and admonishing you, and to esteem them exceedingly in love, on account of their work. Be at peace among yourselves” (1 Thess. 5:12-13).² Local church leaders are alluded to here, even though the evangelistic efforts of Paul and his coworkers in Thessalonica appear to have been relatively brief and in the not-so-distant past (2:17).³ For recently-converted pagan idolaters (1:9), this hardly affords enough time to have developed the necessary requisites for a qualified eldership. Among other things, an elder (lit. “older one”) must not be a νεόφυτος (1 Tim. 3:6), a “novice” (ASV, NKJV) or “recent convert” (ESV). Even the potential impartation of miraculous gifts does not account for all the necessary character traits, moral attributes, abilities, and life circumstances. 

These leaders in Thessalonica are not referred to as “overseers” or “elders” or “shepherds” in any official sense. In addition to “leading” [προΐστημι] in the Lord and “admonishing” [νουθετέω], two key words describe their leadership: “laboring” [κοπιάω] (v. 12) and “work” [ἔργον] (v. 13). This is comparable to how Paul describes the de facto leadership in Corinth: “working with [συνεργέω] [us] and laboring [κοπιάω]” (1 Cor. 16:16b). The compound συνεργέω is a combination of συν- (“with”) and the verbal ἐργέω (to “work”), emphasizing the activity of work, while κοπιάω (“laboring”) highlights the strenuous toil involved.⁴

Although there is no indication that the Corinth church had an eldership at the time, Paul instructs his readers to “submit [ὑποτάσσω] to such” (1 Cor. 16:16a). While in a sense all Christians are to submit to one another (Eph. 5:21; 1 Pet. 5:5), here we find an example of unilateral submission similar to that expressed in Hebrews 13:17. 

Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus had “devoted themselves to the service of the saints” (1 Cor. 16:15). The word translated “devoted” (“addicted,” KJV) is the Greek ἔταξαν (from τάσσω), meaning to “arrange, put in place .... order, fix, determine, appoint” (BDAG 991; cf. Matt. 28:16; Acts 22:10; Rom. 13:1). It seems that these brethren had actually appointed themselves to this ministry – not that they usurped the wishes of the congregation, but they saw what needed to be done and got to work. Stephanas and his fellow-laborers were not self-appointed leaders but self-appointed workers, and Paul acknowledges this as a quality of true leadership.

No newly started church has qualified elders in the beginning (cf. Acts 14:21-23), but every congregation necessarily has some form of leadership.⁵ This fact, coupled with Timothy’s follow-up efforts in Thessalonica (1 Thess. 3:1-6), allows for congregational leaders in a new work within a reasonably brief period of time.⁶ So, what does leadership look like in a congregation without elders?

Stop-Gap Measures

Anything other than a scripturally organized local church, with a qualified eldership, is less than ideal. In the meantime, with the aim of developing men to serve in this capacity, how are leadership voids to be filled? The Bible does not provide explicit guidelines for this not-so-uncommon scenario (something with which most missionaries are familiar), probably because every situation is different in relation to membership, circumstances, cultural environment, and human resources. There is no one-size-fits-all approach that effectively works for every situation. How leadership is carried out in the absence of elders must therefore be determined and adapted accordingly on a case-by-case basis.

Congregational Meetings

Some have argued that Acts 6:1-5 provides a leadership model involving the whole congregation. The apostles summoned “the great number of the disciples” in Jerusalem and instructed, “you [all] select from among yourselves” qualified men to be in charge of the local benevolence ministry, and “they chose …” However, before we claim a biblical precedent here, we need to appreciate the special circumstances and what this group of disciples actually did and did not do. The apostles were already the recognized leaders, having set the criteria for the selection, and they did the appointing. The congregation simply identified those among them who demonstrated the predetermined qualifications, not for leaders per se but for deacon-like servants. No further decision-making was delegated to the entire body of believers.

While congregational meetings can be helpful, this alone is not a practical substitute for proficient leadership and conducting church business. If every member has an equal say, including the spiritually immature, weak in faith, and biblically ungrounded, poor decisions are likely and discord is inevitable. Not everyone in the body is a leader (Rom. 12:4-8; Eph. 4:11-14). 

Men’s Business Meetings

With the biblical pattern of male spiritual leadership understood (1 Tim. 2:8-12),⁷ it is not the case that simply being a biological male automatically qualifies one to be a leader, especially in the Lord’s church. In fact, some men ought not be leaders (e.g., 3 John 9-11). If every male Christian in a local church is invited to participate in the decision-making process, having equal say and an equal vote, is this really a practical and scriptural alternative? It depends. 

What if only a few of the men are spiritually mature and biblically sound but most are spiritually weak, hardly involved, and doctrinally unstable? How would a majority consensus be the best way to conduct the business of the church? Moreover, dominant personalities who speak the loudest and angriest tend to get their way, which surely does not reflect a healthy leadership model. The traditional men’s business meeting may work for some congregations but certainly not for all. 

Leadership Committees

Congregations often have committees to help coordinate various aspects of the local work, and in the absence of elders a leadership committee might be appointed. Depending on multivarious circumstances and variables, a congregation may choose some of the men to serve in this capacity for a limited time, then reevaluate, reappoint, or replace. Whether or not this is workable depends on the caliber and effectiveness of the men who serve and how unified the church is in making these assessments. Another option is to set basic criteria, such as the length of time one has been a Christian, faithfulness in attendance, involvement in the Lord’s work, and proven character.   

Recognizing Congregational Leaders

Before a man is appointed to serve as an elder, he is already exhibiting observable leadership qualities (1 Tim. 3:2 ff.). The “spiritual ones” within a Christian community (exhibiting the fruit of the Spirit) are recognizable (Gal. 5:22–6:1). This no doubt includes those considered “mature,” “strong,” and “faithful” (Rom. 15:1; 1 Cor. 2:6; 2 Tim. 2:2); “the good works [of some] are clearly evident” (1 Tim. 5:25; cf. 4:15). 

The listed qualities of congregational leaders in Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus, relevant to character and observable behavior, serve as a commendable standard for all Christians and a compelling testimony to the world.⁸ When men demonstrate their commitment and faithfulness by their regularity, hard work, doctrinal soundness, integrity, and caring spirit (2 Tim. 2:24-26), their spiritual leadership ought to be recognized (1 Cor. 16:18; cf. 3 John 1-7, 12).

Conclusion

On the mission field, I have worked in situations where congregational meetings and men’s business meetings, with no restrictions on who participated, proved to be powder-keg environments for flaring tempers and disunity. In planting a new congregation, starting off with just my wife and me, decision-making was fairly simple. Eventually, as the church grew, four men reasonably mature in the faith would meet whenever decisions had to be made, and after discussion and prayer, almost always ended up on the same page. Obviously, the larger the group, the more complicated this becomes. I am now privileged to serve in a church with a good eldership, experiencing firsthand the wisdom of God’s design!

Having a biblically organized local church with a qualified eldership ought to be the aim of any group of Christians who are not yet there. Until then, we do the best we can with what we have. May our collective desire be to please the Lord, rely on his word as our guiding light, and stay faithful in the work he has commissioned us to do.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Acts 11:30; 14:23; 15:2-6, 23; 20:17, 28; 21:17-19; Eph. 4:11-12; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 5:17; Jas. 5:14; 1 Pet. 5:1-4; cf. Heb. 13:7, 17. The oversight exercised by these men is limited to the respective congregations in which each has membership (1 Pet. 5:2). There is no example in the NT of multiple churches overseen by one person or the same governing body, or of a Christian assembly governed by a lone pastor/ shepherd/ bishop/ overseer/ presbyter/ elder (cf. Acts 14:23; 20:17).

     ² Unless noted otherwise, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.

     ³ Luke records that “for three sabbaths” in Thessalonica Paul reasoned with them from the scriptures (Acts 17:2b). We are not told how many days prior to the first sabbath the team arrived in the city, or how many days after the third sabbath they departed, but it would appear that they were in Thessalonica about a month (give or take). This would explain why there were initially things “lacking in the faith” of these new converts (1 Thess. 3:10). The Thessalonian letters seem to have been composed within close proximity of one another, and 1 Thess. 2:17 indicates this was a reasonably short time after the missionaries had left these new converts. At the time of writing Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy were together, and Timothy had had time to revisit Thessalonica and rejoin his colleagues (1 Thess. 3:1-6; cf. Acts 18:5).

     ⁴ Cf. Luke 5:5; Acts 20:35; 1 Cor. 4:12; 15:10; 2 Tim. 2:6. This word is also used in reference to an elder’s work (1 Tim. 5:17). 

     ⁵ Years ago a congregation in New Zealand consisted of three widow ladies and a single mother. One of the women took the initiative to ensure they had a place to meet, communion was prepared, a preaching video was available, and collected funds were used for good works. There were no elders or other male leaders, but they were not without leadership.

     ⁶ The fact that elders were appointed in every church near the end of Paul and Barnabas’ first missionary campaign (Acts 14:23) is not at variance with scriptural requirements if the length of the campaign is estimated according to biblical data rather than the unfounded guesses of commentators. The first missionary journey, like those that followed, was an extensive church-planting mission involving approx. six years of preaching the gospel, making disciples (incl. households), and establishing autonomous churches in at least three cities where elders were appointed. See K. L. Moore, “The First Missionary Journey,” Moore Perspective (10 Feb. 2013), <Link>. It was about twelve years after the Philippi congregation had been started that reference is made to “overseers and deacons” (Phil. 1:1).

     ⁷ See F. LaGard Smith, Male Spiritual Leadership: Special Study Edition. Nashville, TN: 21st Century Christian, 1998. Also K. L. Moore, “The Bible’s Radical View on Women,” Moore Perspective (6 March 2019), <Link>.

     8 1 Tim. 1:16; 2:1-7; 4:15-16; 5:25; 6:1; also Matt. 5:13-16; Luke 2:52; John 13:35; 17:21; Acts 10:22; Rom. 2:24; 13:12-14; 1 Thess. 4:11-12; Tit. 2:5. 

Related Posts: Qualifications of Elders (Part 1), One Eldership Multiple Churches?, The Process of Selecting & Appointing Elders, Being a Church Leader

Related articles: Jack Wilkie, Rethink Full-time Ministers 

Podcast: Jake Sutton interview, Churches Without Elders

Image credit: https://news.sky.com/story/more-sheep-deaths-investigated-after-occult-attacks-in-new-forest-11915358

The First Missionary Journey: Doctrinal, Chronological and Missiological Implications

     The first missionary tour of Paul and Barnabas is recorded in Acts 13–14, and near the end of this evangelistic campaign, elders were appointed in each of the newly established congregations (14:23). While most scholars postulate that the entire journey lasted only about two years or less, a major question arises. How can this be reconciled with what Paul later writes in 1 Timothy 3:6, that an elder is not to be a neophutos (a “novice” or “recent convert”)? 

Chronological Challenges 

     The problem is further complicated when one considers the amount of time that was required just for traveling. The entire journey covered a distance of about 1,400 miles or 2,240 kilometers. Realizing that rates of travel depend on variables such as road and weather conditions, terrain, and mode of transportation, what would be a reasonable approximation of how long it would have taken Paul and Barnabas to travel from Syrian Antioch, through Cyprus and southern Galatia (across the Taurus mountain range), as far east as Derbe, and then back again? A conservative estimate of travel by foot would be around 15-20 miles (20-30 km) per day, and under favorable conditions a sea voyage would cover 112-168 miles (180-270 km) per day. Assuming the missionaries made optimal time as they journeyed by land and by sea, the amount of time required merely to travel this distance would have been approximately two months.  

     The next question is, how long was needed for congregations to have been established and organized (with qualified elders) in the cities of Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra? This, of course, does not count Derbe, where “many disciples” were made but elders may not have been appointed at this time.  Neither does it count the city of Perga or the various communities in Cyprus or the “surrounding region” of Lycaonia, where the gospel was proclaimed with no definitive record of church plantings at this time. The frequently asserted less-than-two-years estimation, minus two months of travel and minus the time spent evangelizing in other areas, then divided among the three Pisidian and Lycaonian cities, seems to squeeze the allotted time (only a few months in each place) beyond realistic possibilities. I would suggest that the problem has been created not by the biblical record but by narrow human “guesstimations.” The apparent dilemma crumbles if the brief period commonly allotted to this missionary endeavor is seen as an unwarranted and unfortunate miscalculation. 

Historical Markers 

     A more reasonable timeframe can be determined by considering the historical markers that stand on each end of the journey. The 12th chapter of Acts concludes with the death of Herod Agrippa I (v. 23), which we know from secular history occurred in early March AD 44 (Josephus, Ant. 19.8.2). Luke’s account then gives the impression that Barnabas and Paul departed for their first missionary campaign around this time or shortly thereafter (12:25–13:3), providing a relatively sure starting point.

     After their evangelistic tour, the next major event was the meeting of the apostles and elders in Jerusalem (Acts 15), which occurred a pretty long time (v. 7) after what was reported in chaps. 10–11. There has been much discussion among scholars about the date of this conference, with most suggesting 48 or 49, although few attempt to explain why this particular date is given. By proceeding further in the biblical record, however, and noting more of Luke’s historical information and then calculating in reverse, the Jerusalem council should actually be dated later than what is commonly assumed.

     According to Acts 18:11, Paul spent at least eighteen months in Corinth. His arrival was sometime after the edict of Claudius expelling Jews from Rome (v. 2), and his departure was before the end of Gallio’s proconsulship (v. 12). We learn from extrabiblical sources that Claudius issued his decree around 49 (Orosius, Historiae 7.6.15-16) and that Gallio began his one-year office in Achaia in the summer of 51 (based on an inscription discovered at Delphi and published in 1905). From this evidence and other chronological data, we can determine that Paul arrived in Corinth around autumn of 50 and departed in spring of 52.

Doing the Math

     Counting backwards from late autumn 50 (as travel would have been more restricted in winter), how much time would be necessary to get Paul back to where he started? Notice that he appears to have been in Athens, Berea, Thessalonica, and Philippi only briefly, not due to planned strategy but because of a general lack of receptivity in Athens and forced departures from the other places (Acts 16:12–18:1). Although we do not know exactly how long the apostle spent in these locations, allowing up to a month in each of the above cities, estimating travel time from Jerusalem via Syrian Antioch, and including preaching stops along the way, the Jerusalem conference can readily be dated in early 50. Moreover, this timeframe is consistent with other chronological data if the three years of Galatians 1:18 and the fourteen years of Galatians 2:1 are added consecutively.

     With relatively fixed dates on either end of the first missionary journey, what conclusions can be drawn? Acts 12 closes with events that occurred in the spring of 44, and the opening of Acts 15 can reasonably be dated early 50, therefore Acts 13–14 accounts for about six years. This establishes a more reasonable timeframe for the first missionary tour, and it also accords well with information recorded elsewhere of Paul staying extended periods at mission points where he was not compelled to leave (cf. Acts 18:11; 20:31).

Conclusion

     Matters of Pauline chronology notwithstanding, the alleged discrepancy between Acts 14:23 and 1 Timothy 3:6 is more apparent than real. That a new convert could realistically acquire the qualifications of an elder in just a few months is unlikely (cf. Hebrews 5:13-14), but a few years (as seems to have been the case in Acts 13–14) is evidently possible.

     We also learn something about the missionary strategy of Paul and Barnabas that is quite different from what is sometimes practiced today. When they reached Derbe, the end of their evangelistic trail, it would have been much shorter, quicker, easier, and safer for them to have carried on eastward, through the passes of the Taurus mountains to Paul’s hometown of Tarsus, boarded a ship for a brief voyage to Seleucia, where it was only 16 miles (25 km) further to their home base in Syrian Antioch. There they could have successfully reported the number of baptisms that had resulted from their concerted mission. 

     Apparently, however, the baptisms were not meant to be the sum total of this outreach effort. Rather, the evangelists returned to the cities where churches had been started, despite the difficulties and hardships previously encountered, “strengthening the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith, and saying, ‘We must through many tribulations enter the kingdom of God’” (Acts 14:21-22 NKJV). Further, as has already been noted, “when they had appointed elders in every church, and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed” (v. 23).

      Six grueling years of preaching the gospel, making disciples, and establishing autonomous churches: this sums up the first missionary journey of Paul and Barnabas. And the report given to their sending congregation did not focus on what the missionaries themselves had accomplished but on “all that God had done with them ...” (Acts 14:27). This serves as an exemplary model for missionary activity today. The Great Commission is not fulfilled when people are insufficiently taught, prematurely baptized, and then left to fend for themselves because Christian workers are in too much of a hurry to get back to the comforts of home. 

     The first missionary journey, like those that followed, was an extensive church-planting mission. We see what the Lord can accomplish when the initial saving of souls is accompanied by sufficient follow-up work, i.e. an investment of the necessary time and energy that ensures the establishment of faithful, growing, self-sustaining communities of believers. As we continue the noble task of seeking and saving the lost, realizing that missionary work has never been easy, let us avoid the allure of short cuts that only produce the temporary appearance of “success.” Rather, may we learn from and utilize biblical methodology – tried and tested by the first Christian missionaries and clearly validated by the Lord of the harvest.    

--Kevin L. Moore

Related Posts: And With Many Other Words, Pauline Amnesia, Around the World in Three Decades, They Returned