One key aspect of elder rule is “holding the Head.”
Every true believer in the Lord Jesus has a deep appreciation for the Saviour’s death, burial, and resurrection. We value, too, His promised return; but what is our understanding of His present position and ministry in glory?
Seven pictures are given to us in the New Testament to describe Christ’s labors of love for His own between the time of His ascension and ours:
1. He is the Good Shepherd, tending the sheep of His pasture (Jn. 10);
2. He is the Captain of our Salvation, leading us to victory, whether in life or in death (Rom. 8:37; Heb. 2:10; 1 Cor. 15:57);
3. He is the True Vine, sustaining the branches and bearing fruit through them (Jn. 15);
4. He is the Chief Cornerstone, bringing security and an absolute standard of measurement to the building (1 Cor. 3:11; 1 Pet. 2:4-8);
5. He is our Great High Priest, interceding for His people and teaching us the holy art of worship (Heb. 10:19-22; 1 Pet. 2:5-9);
6. He is the heavenly Bridegroom, preparing a place for us in the Father’s House while He prepares us for the place (Jn. 14:1-3; Eph. 5:25-27);
7. He is the Head of the Body, the Church, nurturing and directing His saints for their mutual benefit and for the glory of God (Col. 1:18).
It is, perhaps, in this last figure that the vital intimacy of the relationship between Christ and the Church is most expressively presented. It is, as well, a critical attack area for the enemy.
The Headship of Christ is true for the whole Body, the Church universal. Paul writes in Ephesians 1:22-23: “(God) hath put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be the Head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all.”
The practical acknowledging of this Headship, however, is expressed in the local assembly of believers. In both the Corinthian and the Colossian epistles, Paul warns of the danger of losing touch with their risen Head. In commenting on the First Corinthian epistle, J. R. Caldwell says,
…I wish you to observe how very often the word ‘Lord’ occurs in this epistle. It is found about sixty-eight times…i.e., more than double the number of times it occurs in the Epistle to the Romans or any other epistle applied to Christ. There is a divine purpose in this…Paul, writing by the Spirit, thus insists upon the Lordship of Christ; for all the evil that then existed, and all the sectarianism that subsequently developed, sprang from the self-same root…the setting aside of the authority of the Lord Jesus, and allowing man (in his supposed wisdom, his pride and self-will) to usurp His place. He is the Head whom God has appointed to preside over the “household of faith.1
Earlier, in commenting on 1 Corinthians 1:5, “That in every thing ye are enriched by Him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge” Mr. Caldwell writes:
Mark it! “Enriched by Him.” Not enriched by this world’s endowments, or by the learning of the schools. All the wisdom of Athens and Corinth could not enrich the Church. They were enriched by the Man at God’s right hand…enriched as members of the body from the Head. Paul had labored among them and instructed them, but he does not say they were enriched by him…it was all from Christ the Head. Whatever we have of grace, knowledge, or utterance in the things of God, it has been got from Christ! We are very prone to look too much to man, and to promote him out of his true place. The most talented, gifted, or spiritual one who ministers in our midst is nothing more than the channel through which blessing flows to us from Christ.2
In writing to the Colossian believers, Paul warns: “Let no man beguile you of your reward…vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, and not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands have nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God” (Col. 2:18-19). The spiritual diagnoses at both Colosse and Corinth remind one of the St. Vitus’ Dance (Chorea), a disease whose symptoms include the erratic jerking of the limbs due to a lack of control from the brain. Both the divisions at Corinth and the doctrinal problems at Colosse flowed from the same source—a failure to “hold the Head.”
The most extreme illustration of this is Laodicea. Outside the Master stands, not as the rejected Saviour, but as the Lord ignored. The Laodiceans no longer come to Him for their need to be met, for they imagine themselves to be spiritually prosperous. They are not listening for His voice, though He calls to any who will hear. The body twitches with spasmodic activity, but the Head is outside the door. The biblical solution is given: “I counsel thee to buy of Me…” “Be zealous, therefore, and repent.” “If any man hear My voice, and open the door, I will come in…” (Rev. 3:18-20). We must recognize our need and His provision; we must turn from our self-satisfaction to Him; we must, by invitation, welcome Him back to His rightful place as Lord.
In Revelation 1, John sees the Lord standing in the middle of seven golden lampstands. Each lamp rests on its own base. Unlike the menorah which was Israelitish in character, each lamp of testimony is independent of the others, responsible only to the One in the midst. To each He speaks; from each He requires a response. The misunderstanding of this principle leads gatherings of God’s people into another serious problem concerning the Headship of Christ. By acknowledging a confederacy, or circle of fellowship, for whatever reason, through internal or external pressure, we are rendering to men what rightfully belongs to the Lord.
Let it be noted that when we speak of autonomous (self-governed) local churches it does not mean independent of the Head, but independent of outside interference, or confederacy.
A paper penned by F. F. Bruce, and read at a conference held in September of 1954 at High Leigh, Hoddesdon, England, includes the following:
Each city church in New Testament times appears to have been administratively independent of any other city church, equally independent of any grouping of churches. To be sure, they were encouraged to practice the fullest fellowship with each other, and all were bound to submit to the authority of the Lord and His apostles. Some elements in the Jerusalem church would, no doubt, have liked to assert their authority over the Gentile churches of Antioch and elsewhere, but no apostolic countenance was given to any such metropolitan jurisdiction and nothing of the sort is implied in the account of the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15…This combination of the utmost Christian fellowship and mutual help with the administrative independence of the several local churches is not always easy to maintain, but it is a barrier against sectarianism (which is inevitably involved whenever a formal or even informal circle of local churches is recognized) and also against State control, which can be much more effectively exercised over a centrally organized federation of churches than over a multiplicity of independent congregations. (We need hardly say, of course, that the idea that the State, as such, has any voice in the affairs of the church is completely foreign to the New Testament.)3
The danger is two-fold. There is the real possibility that an attempt, well-intentioned or not, will be made from within (as has happened so many times in history) to centralize and consolidate such autonomous gatherings of believers in order to “increase effectiveness” for some other specious reason. The gnarled roots of such unscriptural church government are deeply implanted in Church history, and not always through the selfish power struggles of men such as Diotrephes. A Syrian from Antioch, Ignatius (an “Apostolic Father”) was apprehended by the Roman authorities in c.110 ad. On his way to Rome and ultimately to martyrdom, he wrote letters to various churches. Unity, he told them, was to be accomplished on the one hand by rooting out heresies relative to the person of Christ, and on the other hand by the subjection of the leaders in local congregations to a ruling bishop. As this trend continued, it was not long until the most influential bishop, in any locale, had gained authority over that region; and this, in turn, led ultimately to the rise of the papacy.
It is a difficult thing to have no official name as far as the world is concerned because it does not recognize the Name in which we meet. (This Name is not the particular right of any group of Christians but is the authority by which any gathering of believers may meet.) It is not easy to explain oneself in a day of tags and labels, taken by people of God, which declare to the world the shame of a fractious Christendom. It is not easy, but it is right to hold the Head and to stand for the truth of the “one body” (Eph. 4:4).
Another danger is from without. The State may find it helpful, whether for administration purposes or for oppression, to call on gatherings of believers to be officially registered. One of the older books in my library (dated 1702) is entitled: “The Case of the Regale concerning the Independency of the Church, upon any Power on Earth, In the Exercise of Her Purely Spiritual Power and Authority.” We ought to be grateful for the endeavors of such men as the book’s author to deliver us from the bondage of the State over the Church. Yet, sadly it is true that those who fought so valiantly to be free from the yoke of governmental oppression made for themselves chains of ecclesiastical control.
Whether one finds it is either expedient or comfortable to make such attempts at centralized human government whether officially or casually, or submits to such endeavors, it cannot be fairly argued that this is the New Testament pattern.
In his book, The Church and the Churches, W. E. Vine confirms this:
The Apostles did not establish an earthly system, an organization of churches centralized in ecclesiastical headquarters. Such a policy is significantly absent both from their methods and from their doctrine…One will search in vain in the Acts and the Epistles for even an intimation of the establishment of such an institution…There is no such thing as external unity by way of federation, affiliation or amalgamation, either of churches in any given locality or of all the churches together.4
Circles of fellowship, central planning committees, mission boards, official lists and the like, may have rational bases and find acceptance with many. They may give one a feeling of significance in an increasingly impersonal world; but for those who endeavor to follow the blueprint of Scripture, holding the Head will be sufficient.
What are some practical applications of the Headship of Christ in the local assembly?
1. Care should be taken by the assembly in general and the elders in particular to acknowledge practically in their personal lives the Lordship of Christ every day. The Headship of Christ is largely a corporate expression of the Lordship of Christ in our individual lives.
2. The elders are not primarily a decision-making body; they are to be a discerning body. They are not called upon to “make up their minds” but to discover the mind of God in all matters. No mention is made of organizational skills, or of business acumen in the qualifications of an elder. Such skills do not disqualify a man from oversight in the local church, but he must have more than mere natural ability. He must be able to compare “spiritual things with spiritual” (1 Cor. 2:13).
3. There should be a conscious effort “…to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:31). May God bless the repairers of rifts in the local fellowship. “Is Christ divided?” Any schism in the body causes grief to the risen Head. The apostle Paul first learned this lesson on the Damascus turnpike, by the statement: “Why persecutest thou Me?” (Acts 9:4). Paul never forgot it. Neither should we.
4. The development and exercise of gift in the local gathering should be of paramount concern to all. It has pleased the Head to minister to the body through the body. His purpose was that we may, “grow up into Him in all things, which is the Head, even Christ: from whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love” (Eph. 4:15-16). J. R. Caldwell comments on this verse:
Satan has his eye upon this truth. He knows that the body can only be effectually edified as it receives through the ministry of every member, and the effective working of every part that which is supplied for its nourishment from the Head.5
Mr. Caldwell goes on to speak of the almost univerally adopted method in Christendom of entrusting to one, or at the most a few, the whole burden of ministry. “Thus,” writes Mr. Caldwell, “the body is starved. Satan will not object to the Church being rich and increased with goods or with human learning and influence if only he can deprive the members of the body of their appropriate nourishment.”
This, of course, does not assume that every member is gifted in every way. There is diversity of gift, but there must be development of every gift in the assembly if the entire body of believers is to be built up.
Just as there is but one body, so there is only one Head. His right to our unswerving allegiance is undisputed. Let us then “hold the Head” in loyal devotion, remembering that it is the Head who holds us.
Endnotes:
1. Caldwell, J. R. The Charter of the Church, vol. 2 (Pickering & Inglis) p. 132
2. Caldwell, J. R. The Charter of the Church, vol. 1 (Pickering & Inglis) pp. 20-21
3. Ruoff, P. O., editor The New Testament Church in the Present Day (published privately) pp. 29-30
4. Vine, W. E. The Church and the Churches (John Ritchie) pp.10-11
5. Caldwell, J. R. The Charter of the Church, vol. 1 (Pickering & Inglis) p. 22