What is a Biblical, Model Church?

[Blazin Bones]

Click here for related posts.

Destiny pointed out that our churches today do not model what a Church should look like. What should a Church look like? What ministries is the Body of Christ supposed to be focused on? What are some ways we can evaluate how close a church is to a biblical model?

 

[destiny]

Tim.. will try to get to this sometime over the week-end. I want to be able to give it some thought and time.

 

[lovely]

Hi Tim and Jamie,

Acts 2:40-47 seems to be a good Biblical model

40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
43 And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.
44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

Believing communities that look like this one would be the Biblical model. They would also be following the teachings of the Apostles. Elders and deacons would meet the qualifications, and I do not think churches would have pastors at all. I have more thoughts, but they would take away from the main topic. The Lord bless you.

 

[destiny]

We are on the same track, lovely, I absolutely agree.

In a corporate setting:

The role of the Pastor would be that of a shepherd watching over the flock. This doesn't mean he is the 'main' voice or main functioning gift of the body, it means he keeps the body functioning in health.
Each member should be sharing according to their giftings, or pouring out to one another. When one person is designated to always preach a message- then the body misses out on what God desires to say and do through others.

I feel the pastor should make sure the whole body is involved in preaching, teaching, prophesying, evangelizing etc... each according to their gift. In order not in chaos.
Todays model sets the Pastor as the soul message giver; it is always one man doing what the body should be sharing in.
The Greek word for pastor is “poimen†and the meaning of the word poimen is shepherd.

Ephesians 4:11 And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers.

Each body should have these within.. they will naturally function in their offices without a title- and each are capable of teaching and preaching as are others whom God calls at any given time to minister to the body. A good shepherd will keep the body (functioning) and he too will have a message sometimes, as God gives.

My take on it! There's a lot more that could be said, i'm sure.

 

[lovely]

1 Corinthians 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

I was thinking this Scripture says a lot too about the model church...this is what Paul desired for Corinth. Later he says...

12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

It seems divisions started in pretty early on...so a congregation that can remain, or be exhorted to remain, unified under Christ, and not under the latest evangelist, denominational teaching, or book study, etc.

The Lord blesss you.

 

[KingCrimson]

I've heard it said by some that the house church is the model: Small groups of believers meeting together in homes for praise, worship, prayer, fellowship and teaching, rather than large congregations meeting in churches. Emulating the early church during persecution, I suppose.

I'm not going to offer any judgment on this view one way or the other just yet, but I thought it might be an interesting discussion point.

 

[Blazin Bones]

Am I correct in reading that the church does not need Pastors to stand as central leaders/

 

[lovely]

Tim,

Elders should be the central leaders directing the church, which I believe should be local, especially spiritually, and a pastor should be shepherding as destiny said...and I don't want to assume that she and I are saying the same thing...they should be coordinating the deacons, who are appointed by God through the elders, (who should be taking care of the practical needs of the church and the community), and tending to the needs of the flock. I do not believe that they should be the sole, 'preacher' either. They should speak right along with the other men in expositional Bible study, sure, and aiding the younger men especially as they speak, with instruction in studies unless their fathers are able to do that. Our 'pastor', quotes because he is unoffical in his duties, does more work than any pastor I have ever had. He spends countless hours researching and studying on behalf of the body, aiding in the instructing of the men and women in various ways, planning events along with the deacons, being a go between for them and the deacons, overseeing their repsonsiblities for the sake of accountablility, staying in touch with the famlies for any needs or concerns. But he, like the rest of the body, seeks the elders in matters of decisions about the church, and for spiritual counsel. He does not have a title of pastor, he does not get paid, and he is not really held up to any type of office. He preaches, but he does so along with the other men of the church. He has never married, and is an older man, and though we do not have an official pastor at our church...I see that he has filled that role as God has led, since he has an amazing gift for it, and as the elders have permitted. I think the pastor isn't an office like the elder and deacon offices, but more of a gifted one like a teacher, evangelist, etc. This is my understanding for now. I know that it is very different from the main stream. The Lord bless you.

 

[destiny]

I pretty much agree with you, lovely. I feel like the gifts within a church body 'should' naturally cause the church to function as it should, with no one personality "lording it over" the rest.
This cannot work unless the people are actively seeking the Lord every day on their own and walking in the spirit and not the flesh. If this isn't happening then you will have a manmade manran body, at the expense of how God intended it to be.

Gotta go fix my spaghetti now..

 

[lovely]

Destiny, it's times like this that I think we must be (twin) sisters in Christ. :D And...you won't believe this...but we are having spaghetti too! LOL It's my husbands favorite, and since he is diabetic he rarely gets to have it. He's been really good about the sugar, so a little pasta reward tonight covered with lots of meaty tomato sauce. :splat: :splat:

 

[one_lost_coin]

How do you all reconcile your models with those who wrote about what the Church looked like in the first century, who personally learned from the Apostles and went on to lead the Church in the way they were taught by the Apostles?

 

[destiny]

Haha that's neat, lovely! My spaghetti was meaty so I had to stir-fry some zucchini to go with it. :-D

Good question, 'lost coin'; I personally believe there are apostles today who are functioning as "pastors" and such because they are told there is no such thing as apostles. This doesn't negate their God given office, only they can do that through not being in tune to the will of God, although they may have their title wrong.

 

[destiny]

PS.. lovely, I meant my spaghetti had more meat than veggies. :fadein:

 

[Blazin Bones]

I disagree. The Bible makes it clear that there is to be a central leader in some manner. It may not be a pastor as we see it today, but there is to be a man accountable for the directions of the church. This man should be supported by the elders and deacons and should not try to act completely appart from them.

The fact that there are two men, Titus and Timothy, who were written letters by Paul which contained instruction for how to establish church leadership suggests that these two men inparticular were responsible for organizing the ministry of the Church.

These people are not Apostles in the sense that they were in the time of Paul and Peter. In their time, it is believed that for one to be considered as an apostle, they would have needed to have interacted with Christ while he was still alive, or in the case of Paul have clear understanding that he appeared to you after death. This is one reason why some believe the role of Aposltes are gone. I wouldn't gothat far, but I would believe the riole of apostle has changed, and in modern denominationalism, this office is more or less lost.

However, without a strong central leader, a church is less likely to function in a Godly manner or produce kingdom work. Does this mean it is not possible, not at all, as we know all things are possible through Christ. However, this does mean that the majority need centralized leadership, and more often then not, that occurs in the leadership of one man.

 

[one_lost_coin]

Timothy and Titus through the laying on of hands became the successors of the Apostles which became known ultimately as Bishops and performed the same functions as the Apostles.

The apostles thus set up first the office of deacon, then priest, then bishop. Every organization that grows tends to reallocate its functions in this "bottom up" manner, reallocating of its most important functions last of all. There was an additional reason why the early Church did so: In the first generation of Christians, it took time for everyone to mature in the faith to the point that some could serve in office (1 Tim. 3:6). By late in the first century, it became clear that Christ did not plan to appoint new apostles to fill the roles of the originals. They had served a special purpose as the first link between Christ and all later Christians, but their office was temporary. They passed from the scene, leaving the three-fold structure of bishops, priests, and deacons in place.

In this early period, the names for the different offices were in flux. There was not yet an established terminology. Titles with secular origins were used. Diakonos (deacon) meant "minister" in Greek, presbuteros ("presbyter") meant "elder," and episkopos ("bishop") meant "overseer." Because all the offices involved ministering to others and overseeing certain things, the terms could be applied in different ways.

Thus Paul, an apostle, occasionally described himself as a diakonos (2 Cor. 3:6, 6:4, 11:23, Eph. 3:7), meaning simply a minister. Likewise Peter, also an apostle, once described himself as a fellow presbuteros (1 Pet. 5:1), meaning an elder figure of the Christian community. Presbyters could be described as episkopoi (Phil. 1:1, 1 Tim. 3:1-2, Titus 1:7), since they had the task of overseeing individual congregations, while those we now call bishops were termed "evangelists" (2 Tim. 4:5) because of their church-planting function.

By the end of the first century, the terms had acquired the fixed, technical meanings they have today. "Deacon" became the fixed description of the lowest order, "presbyter" (which was shortened to "priest") was the term for those who oversaw individual congregations, and "bishop" became the term for those who oversaw multiple congregations.

 

[one_lost_coin]

But I was asking more than that with my original question because I am not seeing certain things come up that came up with the first century church. For instance true Apostolic Succession through the laying on of hands recieving the Full Deposit of the Faith from the Apostles who recieved it from Jesus and passing that Faith on in its entirety.

This is a much written about this key feature in the early Church and it was time to time appealed to as the way to distinquish the True Apostolic Church from the gnostics and others.

It would just seem to be a neccessary ingredient for today also.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Timothy and Titus through the laying on of hands became the successors of the Apostles which became known ultimately as Bishops and performed the same functions as the Apostles.

The apostles thus set up first the office of deacon, then priest, then bishop. Every organization that grows tends to reallocate its functions in this "bottom up" manner, reallocating of its most important functions last of all. There was an additional reason why the early Church did so: In the first generation of Christians, it took time for everyone to mature in the faith to the point that some could serve in office (1 Tim. 3:6). By late in the first century, it became clear that Christ did not plan to appoint new apostles to fill the roles of the originals. They had served a special purpose as the first link between Christ and all later Christians, but their office was temporary. They passed from the scene, leaving the three-fold structure of bishops, priests, and deacons in place.

In this early period, the names for the different offices were in flux. There was not yet an established terminology. Titles with secular origins were used. Diakonos (deacon) meant "minister" in Greek, presbuteros ("presbyter") meant "elder," and episkopos ("bishop") meant "overseer." Because all the offices involved ministering to others and overseeing certain things, the terms could be applied in different ways.

Thus Paul, an apostle, occasionally described himself as a diakonos (2 Cor. 3:6, 6:4, 11:23, Eph. 3:7), meaning simply a minister. Likewise Peter, also an apostle, once described himself as a fellow presbuteros (1 Pet. 5:1), meaning an elder figure of the Christian community. Presbyters could be described as episkopoi (Phil. 1:1, 1 Tim. 3:1-2, Titus 1:7), since they had the task of overseeing individual congregations, while those we now call bishops were termed "evangelists" (2 Tim. 4:5) because of their church-planting function.

By the end of the first century, the terms had acquired the fixed, technical meanings they have today. "Deacon" became the fixed description of the lowest order, "presbyter" (which was shortened to "priest") was the term for those who oversaw individual congregations, and "bishop" became the term for those who oversaw multiple congregations.

Well put. That is all correct. Let me add something of a personal observation, which I posted in another thread:

When I look at a baby picture of me, it doesnt look anything like me. But yet it is me. I grow, I learn, I mature, but its still me, the same person.

So it is with the Body of Christ. The Body of Christ is a living organism, not a static unit. It lives, it grows, it learns, it matures.

My point is: Who cares what the early Church looked like? Who wants to go backwards and regress in understanding? Would I want to go back to loading my diapers again? Thinking the Church should look like the early Church reflects a real misunderstanding of the Body of Christ, and it irks me when people propose that it should.

The acorn turns into the mighty oak after centuries. Would one search for the acorn in the oak to make sure it is the same tree?

 

[lovely]

Hi everyone,

One_lost_coin, I am actually in general agreement with your post (although probably having a very different perspective), except for a few details. I would only feel the need to add that this is Spirit led process. Maybe you would look at this way too, I don't know exactly. Let me try to explain my perspective a little better, though, to address the Apostolic succession issue a bit more.

I think the body is edified as a whole through local chapels/assemblies/churches as these ministering gifts in a man (or woman in some cases) are utilized by the elders (bishops, overseers) according to God's appointing by granting them the gift in the first place. This is where the laying of hands comes in, it's an acknowledgement of God's gifting in a man, and the witness that this man is qualified...then, this person is appointed within that local church to be an elder or deacon. It isn't passed down from the Apostles, but directly given from God to the believer.

The unseen body, and I will assume that even if you don't agree you understand what I mean by that term, has been divided, and scattered. We long for unity, but we have it only in Christ right now, and somewhat in our local church as we fellowship and take communion. This scattering would not have happened if it were not for false teaching and division entering in, but God is still keeping His church that worships Him in Spirit and in Truth. Man can not do it, but God can. He will use the division, along with other things, to grow us, but He will continue to unify us with His Holy Spirit in Truth.

I do not believe these gifts, or (technical offices) as many see them today, are of man's doing through succession, but through the Holy Spirit's gifting according to the Father, who has the plan for the church in Christ. The Lord bless you today.

 

[destiny]

Tim.. I am "pro" structure and leaders.
I just hate what I see out there today because a lot of the churches are predominately Nicolaitan in practice. They have an elite hierarchy system where one man or group is esteemed superior to the others. The "laity" is lorded over and are mere spectators; The way they function in the church is man appointed by the hierarchy.

Jesus said, "But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate."
Revelation 2:6

 

[one_lost_coin]

Hi everyone,

One_lost_coin, I am actually in general agreement with your post (although probably having a very different perspective), except for a few details. I would only feel the need to add that this is Spirit led process. Maybe you would look at this way too, I don't know exactly. Let me try to explain my perspective a little better, though, to address the Apostolic succession issue a bit more.

I think the body is edified as a whole through local chapels/assemblies/churches as these ministering gifts in a man (or woman in some cases) are utilized by the elders (bishops, overseers) according to God's appointing by granting them the gift in the first place. This is where the laying of hands comes in, it's an acknowledgement of God's gifting in a man, and the witness that this man is qualified...then, this person is appointed within that local church to be an elder or deacon. It isn't passed down from the Apostles, but directly given from God to the believer.

The unseen body, and I will assume that even if you don't agree you understand what I mean by that term, has been divided, and scattered. We long for unity, but we have it only in Christ right now, and somewhat in our local church as we fellowship and take communion. This scattering would not have happened if it were not for false teaching and division entering in, but God is still keeping His church that worships Him in Spirit and in Truth. Man can not do it, but God can. He will use the division, along with other things, to grow us, but He will continue to unify us with His Holy Spirit in Truth.

I do not believe these gifts, or (technical offices) as many see them today, are of man's doing through succession, but through the Holy Spirit's gifting according to the Father, who has the plan for the church in Christ. The Lord bless you today.

All references to the work of the Holy Spirit, Amen.
The Apostolic Succession and the faith being handed down is a strong undeniable those who heard it from the Apostles belief. Actually your perspective does not exist in the early Church.

I would ask why couldn't God speak to us through His Church? I would also suggest that not only is it just human nature to learn by receiving from those who came before us but by God's design. For instance each generation does not have to reinvent the wheel for themselves they recieved the wheel learned from it developed it and passed that on. In actual practice so has every Christian recieved the faith. Even the idea of an invisible church is not of your own origin but was taught long before your birth. It's natural.

The references of God telling His people to pass the faith on to their children and their children's children throughout the Torah OT are to numerous to list and was proclaimed by His decree. The feasts and explaining the meaning of each symbol of the feast to successive generations again God's idea. The notion in the Passover that when it is celebrated even by distant generations including language that somehow mystically includes them as also present in the Exodus. I think the physical solidarity we share as a people of faith through time and one day in time is beautiful and reveals a wisdom that is unspeakably awesome.

I understand what you mean by an invisible Church but I see that there is a visible Church here on earth known in some circles as the Church militant, you can rightly suspect from my posts on other threads I also see a Church being purified and a Church Triumphant those in full beatific vision of God. All one Church the Body of Christ where neither height nor depth nor... can seperate us from the love of Christ.

That being said I was more interested in how everyone here factors in the beliefs and writings of those first Christians in the forming of your own beliefs? What value does their witness have in your understanding of the Church and how much influence do you allow them toward an understanding of a biblical model of the Church?

I also don't see Apostolic succession as mans doing but God's plan and it is believe that a Spiritual Gift of God is imparted to them in the laying on of hands. I do respect you posts immensely and I have always enjoyed reading them in all the various threads I have seen them and can see from your words that you are truly after God's own heart.

Peace be with you