Is there a specific approach and structure to church leadership that we find in the New Testament? Different movements at different times in history have attempted to recover New Testament practice. For example, the Brethren were convinced, that this meant removing a paid class of clergy and replacing them with plural oversight. They also believed that each church should be fully independent and that the primary gathering of the church should be a simple “Breaking of Bread” with communion at the centre and the floor open for any man to choose a hymn or share a thought from God’s Word. Whilst they were sure that they had the New Testament model sorted, others have challenged that, especially from the second half of the 20th century onwards. Where was the place of spiritual gifts like tongues and prophecy in their approach (The Brethren were cessationists) and to be sure, complementarians would insist on male eldership but doesn’t the New Testament include women praying and prophesying in the gathering?
The Brethren experience of attempting to get back to a precise New Testament practice might encourage some caution when it comes to defining a New Testament church structure. There have been different views throughout history, if some have insisted that there should only be deacons and elders in the church, others have suggested that this misses out on other New Testament roles and gifts. In the early centuries, a threefold structure of Bishop, Presbyter and Deacon developed, it’s still in place in episcopal denominations today and those involved in its development would be convinced that they would be following a New Testament pattern too.
Yet, the New Testament itself doesn’t say so much as we might expect about structures, titles and processes. That’s not to say that it doesn’t teach us about leadership and specific offices in the church. In 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, Paul explicitly mentions the role of elder and sets out the qualifications for being an elder. Timothy and Titus are clearly mandated to appoint elders in the churches, the role is seen as important and essential to the life and health of the local church. This is because elders (see also Acts 20) have first responsibility for provision (teaching God’s Word) and protection (discernment concerning false teachers) in the church.
As well as elders, Paul mentions deacons in 1 Timothy. There’s not so much detail about what these people are to do. It is often assumed that this is a more practical role as the seven chose to serve practically in Acts 6 are also referred to as deacons, though notice there that those men were to assist the apostles rather than elders in a local church and notice too that the apostles were to be freed up to minister/serve of “deacon” God’s Word.
Then in 1 Timothy Paul mentions “the women”, this could refer to the deacon’s wives but this seems unlikely given that there is no equivalent mention of the elders’ wives. It is possible that this refers to female deacons or maybe we should simply leave the translation as “the women” -that there were women who had specific responsibilities in the life of the church alongside male leaders acting as elders and deacons.
It is also worth noting that there seem to be a lot of other people mentioned by Paul including Timothy and Titus and the men and women who form part of his team and get sent to help in different places, notice the references to such people in places like Romans 16. Sometimes, the term apostle gets used as with Andronicus and Junia. It seems that alongside the twelve and Paul that the term has a slightly broader usage to refer to people commissioned and sent with a missional concern for others.
However, I want to throw out two suggestions here. The first is that the New Testament isn’t as fussed about titles and hierarchies as we are. The important thing is that there are people using their gifts to serve the church to ensure that it is provided for, protected and nurtured. In the same way that I’m relaxed about getting the exact labels for different gifts right, I’m relaxed (beyond the explicitly named roles) about finding an exact structure and terms.
Secondly, if there is a structure at all, it in effect reflects the family household of the day. There are fathers (the elders), there are mothers (the women) and there are deacons, probably not to be thought of as slaves carrying out menial tasks but stewards with responsibility for the organisation and running of the household. And of course, a family will have a place for others as well, grandparents, uncles and aunties, that kind of thing.
So, I personally would not worry too much about getting your church leadership to conform to an exact pattern. It’s important that there are elders in place (or whatever name you give them and there are a few available in the NT with episcopos or bishop being one) so that the church is provided for and protected. Then really it’s all about thinking about what is needed in your context in a manner that allows people to use their gifts so that the church flourishes and which ensures that the church feels like an extended family. It should therefore include plurality. There should be a sense of the local church taking responsibility for its own affairs but there should also be something about how leadership happens which points to broader interdependence with the wider church.
Faithroots 