Social Media is the wild west of philosophy. It’s made even worse by the fact that we tend to believe following size = expertise. People with no credibility/wisdom frequently make unverified claims. These claims are then taken as fact because of their following size. Very few people are willing to do the research to see if the claims being made are actually true.
One of these claims that I saw recently was a person saying that “if you go to a church, and they don’t have a board-run leadership structure, they are an apostate church who is actively practicing heresy.”
On top of that, this same person went on to say that “before you give to a church, the Bible says you are supposed to know what they are going to do with the money.”
Let’s explore that. I want to look at a few things:
What does the Bible say about how a church should be structured (Part 1)?
What does the Bible say about church finances (Part 2)?
What does Elevate Life do (Part 3)?
This might be a long one…
You might not know what an apostate church is. “Apostasy” is when a person turns away from, or renounces a faith. In this case, the Christian faith and practice.
It’s easy for people to throw these terms out or to say things like “this is what the Bible says” without actually providing references. I’m not going to do that.
I’ve realized there are a lot that “lay-people” - read: not professional church people - don’t often know about the Bible. I live in the United States, where 68% of people identify as Christian. Simultaneously, only 6% of these people have a biblical worldview (Source).
So, 94% of Christians don’t have much clue of what the Bible says about anything. Then they go to church, the internet, books (or anything that is not the Bible), or hear what their friends say, and somehow think by hearing what other people say the Bible says, they know what the Bible says.
I say this frequently, but every perspective you hear on the Bible is just that. Perspective. It may be accurate, it may be inaccurate. You won’t know unless you weigh what people say according to what Scripture says. 94% of self-proclaiming Christians don’t do this. So on the subject of church governance, the handling of money, (or anything else) their understanding is misguided and flawed.
Everyone has a perspective and interpretation on Scripture. That’s unavoidable. But if you always go to the source, you can start with the purest source. And I believe God will speak to you through his word in the way you need to be spoken to. You can also determine what kind of church, and what kind of leadership you would like to align your own life with
So, to the first question.
What does the Bible say about how a church should be structured?
There are seven key examples of governance of any movement of God’s people we can see in the Scripture:
Old Testament //
Jethro Advising Moses (Exodus 18:13-26):
Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, observed Moses becoming overwhelmed by the task of personally judging all disputes among the Israelites. He advised Moses to appoint capable men as leaders over thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens to handle smaller matters, reserving only the most significant cases for Moses.
The Book of Judges
After the Israelites entered the land of Canaan, God ordained tribal and military leaders called Judges to deliver Israel from oppression and settle disputes.
David’s Organization of the Levites (1 Chronicles 23-26):
King David organized the Levites into groups responsible for specific duties in the service of the Temple. This included musicians, gatekeepers, and others who served in various capacities, ensuring that the worship and maintenance of the Temple were conducted in an orderly manner.
Solomon’s Temple Building (1 Kings 5-6):
King Solomon undertook the monumental task of building the Temple in Jerusalem. This required extensive organization, including the mobilization of thousands of workers, the sourcing of materials, and careful planning to construct the Temple according to God's specifications.
Nehemiah Rebuilding the Walls of Jerusalem (Nehemiah 2-6):
Nehemiah organized the people to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, a task critical for the security and identity of the Jewish people. This required strategic planning, delegation of duties, and coordination among various groups working on different sections of the wall.
New Testament
Jesus Feeding the Multitude (Mark 6:30-44, Matthew 14:13-21):
While not an example of a structured organization, this event shows Jesus' practical approach to a large gathering. He instructed his disciples to have the crowd sit down in groups before he multiplied the loaves and fishes, facilitating the distribution of food.
Apostles Delegating the Food Distribution (Acts 6:1-6):
As the early church grew, the apostles found that managing the daily distribution of food to widows was detracting from their primary duties of prayer and ministry of the word. They appointed seven men of “good repute”, full of the Spirit and wisdom, to oversee this task. This allowed the apostles to focus on their essential roles while ensuring that the practical needs of the community were met.
Paul Organizing Missionary Work (Various Letters):
In his letters, Paul often discusses the organization of churches and missionary work. For instance, in his letters to Timothy and Titus, Paul outlines qualifications for church leaders (1 Timothy 3, Titus 1). He also gives instructions on church order, worship, and the roles of different members within the church (1 Corinthians 12-14, 1 Timothy 2).
These aren’t the only places where structure and governance are mentioned, but they are the clearest. There’s other ones we can look at like:
The Organization of the Israelite Camp and March (Numbers 2 & 10):
The Israelites were instructed on how to camp around the Tabernacle and in what order to march. This organization ensured order and efficiency for a large group of people on the move.
The Collection for the Jerusalem Church (1 Corinthians 16:1-4):
Paul gives instructions for collecting offerings in a structured manner. This demonstrates an organized approach to handling finances within the church.
The Selection of Joshua as Moses’ Successor (Numbers 27:15-23):
God instructs Moses to lay hands on Joshua, indicating a formal and structured approach to leadership succession.
King David Organizing the Army (1 Chronicles 27):
David organized the army into divisions that would serve on a rotating monthly basis. This structure provided a systematic approach to military service.
Ezra and the Reading of the Law (Nehemiah 8):
When Ezra read the Law to the people, he did so in an organized gathering, illustrating the importance of structured teaching and learning.
The Early Church’s Response to Persecution (Acts 8:1-4):
Following Stephen’s martyrdom, the church in Jerusalem faced persecution and dispersed. However, even in scattering, they continued to preach the Word, showing an adaptive and responsive structure.
The Council at Jerusalem (Acts 15):
The early church held a council to decide on the issue of Gentile believers and the Law. This meeting involved structured debate and led to a unified decision, demonstrating a form of collective and consultative governance.
Paul’s Instructions for Worship (1 Corinthians 14:26-40):
Paul sets guidelines for orderly worship services in the Corinthian church, emphasizing structured participation and the importance of doing everything in a fitting and orderly way.
There’s really one key takeaway I think we need to pay attention to from all the Bible has to say about structure. “Thus saith the Lord” never appears.
What do I mean by that? Even throughout Scripture, the vast majority of attempts at structure are manmade. There is not one time in the whole Bible where God says, “here is how my church must be organized.” He could have. And I wish he did, because it would make it easier on all of us. If you read the “Books of the Law” (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers Deuteronomy), God covered just about everything for them. Down to where their tents would be placed in relationship to the Tabernacle.
What about Churches specifically?
Let’s look at church models that come out of Scripture. If you look at the Bible, and history, there are 3 key church leadership models we see demonstrated that each have their own pros and cons.
Pastor/Overseer Governance:
Structure
This model is characterized by a hierarchy of individual leaders. In this system, individual pastors, bishops or elders have authority over individual church congregations. This system can also include individual pastors who oversee groups of pastors.
Historical Background
This form traces back to the early church, with roots in the organization of the Roman and Greek Empires. The Athenians would often send episkopoi (overseers) to subject states within Greece. This is the term Paul uses to refer to church leaders in Philippians 1:1. This model was widely established by the time of the Nicene Creed (AD 325), which is the defining statement of belief of mainstream Christianity. This is still the model that Lutheran, Methodist, Catholic, and Anglican churches use today.
Biblical Basis
Advocates often cite passages like Titus 1:5-9 and 1 Timothy 3:1-7, where Paul discusses qualifications for overseers. Acts 20, 1 Peter 5, and Acts 14 where episkopoi are mentioned singularly are used as well as the example of the Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) and Moses in Exodus 18.
Pros:
Clear Authority Structure: Clear lines of authority and responsibility.
Unity and Consistency: Worship, teaching, culture, and vision are consistent and unified.
Historical Continuity: This is the primary governance model of the early church.
Effective Administration: Centralized leadership can lead to efficient decision-making and resource allocation.
Cons:
Risk of Autocracy: Concentration of power can lead to abuse or neglect of the voice of those who aren’t “in leadership.”
Less Autonomy: Leaders underneath overseers have limited ability to adapt practices/doctrine to their context.
Potential for Disconnection: Higher-level leaders might be out of touch with local needs.
Complexity in Administration: Can many times lead to bureaucracy.
Elder/Board Governance:
Structure
The church is governed by elders (presbyters) and is characterized by a representative form of church government. Churches are governed by a single board, or multiple committees depending on their size. All committees/boards are accountable to a higher board.
Historical Background
This model became prominent during the Protestant Reformation. The idea was put forward by John Calvin in Institutes of the Christian Religion. It was further developed by leaders like John Knox, who were influenced by Calvin.
Biblical Basis
Passages such as Acts 15 (the Jerusalem Council) are often cited, illustrating the collective decision-making process. Additionally, verses that mention elders (presbyters), such as 1 Timothy 5:17 and Titus 1:5, are used to support this model.
Pros:
Shared Leadership: Power is distributed among a group of elders, reducing the risk of authoritarianism.
Representation: Combines authority of the pastors with the input of non-pastoral leaders.
Decreased Liability: The chances for an ethical or moral leadership failure are potentially decreased.
Shared Responsibility: The approach of the church and its leadership requires agreement between a group of people who rule by majority.
Cons:
Potential for Politics: Different interpretations and alliances among elders or overseers can lead to conflict and poor decision making.
Administrative Complexity: Multiple levels of governance can complicate decision-making processes.
Limited Leadership Input: Individual leaders may have less direct influence on major decisions that affect them.
Risk of Elitism: Power may become concentrated in a small, possibly out-of-touch group.
Congregational Governance:
Structure:
In this model, the authority lies with the congregation as a whole. Major decisions are made by all the members of a church, often through voting. The role of the pastor and other leaders is more about guiding and teaching than leading.
Historical Background:
Congregationalism has roots in the Puritan movement and became particularly significant in the United States. It was a reaction against the hierarchical structure of the Anglican Church and the perceived limitations of Elder/Board governance.
Biblical Basis:
Proponents often refer to passages that emphasize the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:9) and the autonomy of local congregations, as seen in the early church (2 Corinthians 8:19, Acts 6:1-6).
Pros:
Local Autonomy: Each congregation can tailor practices to fit its community.
Democratic Process: Encourages active participation and investment from members.
Buy-In: The congregation is committed to the church and sees themselves as a type of “owner.”
Leaders are Chosen: Leaders are chosen by those within the church.
Cons:
Risk of Disunity: Lack of a higher authority can lead to church division.
Potential for Conflict: Decision-making by consensus can be slow and contentious.
Variable Leadership Quality: Leaders may be chosen for their popularity, not skill or character. And people who are not mature or truly committed to the church participate in key decisions.
Disempowered Leadership: Pastors may only want to teach or preach on subjects that please the people. Unpopular, but necessary changes may not be made out of fear of lack of congregational support.
Which one is the “right” one?
That’s the big question isn’t it? That’s really a matter of opinion. As with most things, the problems with these models is not the models themselves, its always the people. All three of these are “biblical” and none of them are more biblical than another.
Bad leadership messes everything up. I think this is why Jesus said the way to know if someone is a good leader is to look at their fruit in Matthew 7:15-20.
16 You can identify them by their fruit, that is, by the way they act. Can you pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 A good tree produces good fruit, and a bad tree produces bad fruit. 18 A good tree can’t produce bad fruit, and a bad tree can’t produce good fruit. 19 So every tree that does not produce good fruit is chopped down and thrown into the fire. 20 Yes, just as you can identify a tree by its fruit, so you can identify people by their actions.
I think that God knew that we would have different opinions, different interpretations and different perspectives. And so that’s why he made it about fruit. Fruit doesn’t lie. When we look at leaders, whether they be an individual pastor, board of elders or congregation, what is the fruit of their life?
Here’s a pro-tip: Don’t judge a person on what they say, what other people say, or what you think. Judge a person by their actions and results. Whether it be a pastor, or anyone else. If the fruit is good, you can trust the person. But even in trusting the person, they are still a flawed individual.
In the church, we don’t worship the pastor, we don’t worship the board, we don’t worship ourselves. Regardless of who is in the “leadership seat,” Christ is the head of the church and the only perfect person associated with the church. Be careful in looking for fruit that you’re not looking for perfection. All churches, no matter what their structure, are subject to the imperfect people that call them home. In Philippians 2, Paul tells us to “work out our own salvation with fear and trembling.” What that means to me to is to set my own house in order before I become critical of the church, or even another person’s approach to God. All of us at the end of the day, cannot truly stand up to scrutiny. We have all sinned, and fall short of God’s standard (Romans 3:23).
Finally, what is the right form of governance? Whichever one you choose. The great thing about the Church in the world is that there are as many different expressions of church as there are churches. There are 380,000 churches in the United States and they all have issues and flaws everywhere, including how they are governed. Ultimately, all authority comes from God (Romans 13), but we get to decide as human beings the authorities we submit to. At some point, you will have to pick an imperfect church, led by imperfect people in some way, and submit to whatever the “Biblical” authority structure is within that church.
The unfortunate truth for many “Christians” is that they don’t want to submit to authority. They want to BE the authority. Or, they don’t want to have any authority in their own life. That’s the same thing that Lucifer did in Isaiah 14. That’s the question that the snake asked Eve in Genesis 3. Our rejection of Godly authority, whether that be parents, a pastor, elder board or our boss stems from the darkest part of us. Our pride. Our desire to have it “our way.” And just because we learn some Bible, doesn’t mean that “spirit” goes away. The church is full of modern-day Pharisees who want the church to be led, taught and controlled “their way.” Thinking that our interpretation or perspective is the best one, or the holiest one is just a more spiritual form of pride. The truth is, all of us want people to be subject to what we think. Because we think we are better than most people. And we all think that if “they” just did it “this way” (read: our way) it would work.
Nothing could be further from the truth. So, before you follow a person, join a church, or run off a cliff for some kind of mission; get to know the people, look at the fruit and then decide. That’s what Jesus told us to do.
Regardless of church leadership style, one thing is clear: Christians must be a part of The Church. We can’t follow Jesus on our own and think that is truly Biblical Christianity. Jesus established the church for a reason in Matthew 16. Despite structural and leadership differences, all church leaders and mature christians know this to be true. Find a church you want to give your life to, a Biblical leadership style you align with and make them your tribe.
Don’t miss Part 2 - The church and money
Spot on, Josh!
Thank you, Josh, for diving into this topic and sharing your results! It’s so refreshing to be taught by a cynic that questions not only the world around himself but himself also.