Which Model?

The author appeals for honesty in talking about the New Testament blueprint.

As Paul went into Corinth he had a goal to build a temple for God. He had a plan to follow. He later wrote, “According to the grace of God which is given unto me as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereon” (1 Cor. 3:10). In later years Paul was deeply concerned that there be no deviation from that pattern (1 Cor. 14:37).

In the 1800s, as the “assembly movement” took root in Canada and the U.S., those pioneers too had a model. They felt keenly that they must follow the simple plan of the early church. What were some of its characteristics?

The gospel must be preached. Baptism should follow a profession of faith. The local assembly should welcome all who love the Lord and are not morally disqualified. The Lord’s Supper and teaching were emphasized. All men were encouraged to participate verbally in prayer and worship. All believers were viewed as priests. Gifts were encouraged. Young men were given opportunity to speak.

Today a different model is being advanced as more practical and efficient. Smaller assemblies are viewed as weak and ineffective. The goal now is a large assembly of two hundred or more. As groups get larger, they tend to function as organizations rather than as families. Administration becomes complex. It is more difficult for elders with regular employment to handle such work. One or more “full-time workers” are viewed as indispensable.

Increasingly, in the larger assembly, more occupy a passive role. Good speakers are needed to hold a large audience. One hour at the breaking of bread means only a handful of the men can participate.

Don’t be deceived. These two models are different. But how do we choose? Is it a matter of personal preference?

In the June 1980 HIS magazine, Virginia Owens writes:

The only question admitted as valid by the pragmatist is “does it work?” yet never before have we so desperately needed some guide, some scale of judgment for determining on grounds other than pragmatism, what is fitting and proper, in the original sense of that word, to an expression of the Christian faith (p. 19).

If one is committed to the idea that the New Testament church is the valid pattern for today, then pragmatism is not the guiding philosophy.

When an apostle left a church he had established, he appointed no one elder to take his place. No local elder was encouraged to quit work to serve the assembly. On the contrary Paul worked at times to encourage elders to do the same. “I have showed you all things, how that so laboring you ought to support the weak…” (Acts 20:35). Peter writes to elders in the same tenor, “Feed the flock of God…willingly, not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind” (1 Peter 5:2).

Some try to find justification in 1 Timothy 5:17 for giving a salary to an elder, “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor.” But Lenski writes:

It is generally assumed that the elders were paid for their services in the apostolic churches. We are convinced that this assumption is not tenable. The probability is that none of them were paid. The elders of the synagogue were not paid or salaried. p. 683, R. C. H. Lenski, St. Paul’s Epistles to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus and to Philemon. Columbus, Ohio: Wortburg Press, 1946

Lenski is right concerning the early church. Missionaries (apostles) lived by faith, supported by God’s people. Local elders were expected to earn their living and to shepherd the flock in their spare time. By sharing responsibilities, the needs of the flock could be met.

Let’s not play word games. One may choose the type of church organization he wishes. But we are not free to claim New Testament precedent for such if we depart from this simple pattern. This writer is convinced God’s ways are best for His people, and for His glory.

Donate