by Pastor Trent Boedicker
What is “a board?” When we hear this word, we typically think of the officers elected to serve on our local school board, or perhaps the volunteers who make up the library board, or the group of leaders who sit on the board of directors for a non-profit organization. According to the definition offered by Wikipedia,
“A board of directors is an executive committee that supervises the activities of a business, a nonprofit organization, or a government agency. The powers, duties, and responsibilities of a board of directors are determined by government regulations and the organization’s own constitution and by-laws.”
Typically, an executive director runs the organization (i.e. CEO, superintendent, head librarian…). This person manages the day-to-day operations and steers the organization towards its long term goals. It is the board who appoints an executive director. He offers regular reports to them on the overall performance of the organization. They meet monthly or quarterly to make business decisions and tend to any issues of concern. Outside of these official duties, the board of directors may not have a very active role in the organization’s daily work. They’re probably not the ones shelving books in the library. The school board isn’t teaching the classes. Non-profit board members seldom answer the phone calls from clients in the office. Their job is making sure the organization is financially sound, setting policies, and advising the executive director. This is the business model of leadership.
Every organization needs good leadership to be successful, and this includes the local church. However, the biblical model is very different from the business model of leadership. We may use similar terms, but we should expect the definition of those terms to differ dramatically. For instance, if you were to look up the English word “board” in your Bible, you would find it used about 20 times. Exodus 26 employs the term in reference to the type of lumber used in the construction of the tabernacle. Acts 20 speaks of Paul and his missionary team who boarded the ship setting sail for their destination. These are very different senses of the word. The point is this: these are the only places in Scripture where we read about “boards,” and never in reference to leadership. There are other important terms the Bible uses to describe those who govern the ministry of a church. Thus, it is essential for us to become familiar with those words and what they mean. There is nothing wrong with talking about a “board of elders,” or “board of deacons.” However, we understand the business model differs dramatically from the model of leadership designed by God for the church. We can even learn from other sources. This is certainly true of best practices that come from the realm of business. But the problem in many American churches is that the business model starts to become the church model. In the process we are in danger of missing what God tells us biblical church leadership should look like.
The goal of this paper is to give an overview of biblical church leadership, examining the terms used in the NT and the principles laid out in Scripture. In the process, it is my hope that we will evaluate the practices of the congregation we serve. Armed with a biblical understanding we can then identify things we do well and possibly things we ought to address. The desire of church leaders should always be to follow the teaching of Scripture in everything we do. Every congregation is unique. This means we will adapt biblical teaching to our own unique context. At the same time we strive to remain faithful to the basic principles laid out for us in God’s Word.
Leaders in the Early Church
In the earliest days of the church, Christ commissioned his apostles to spread the gospel and plant congregations not only in Judea but beyond the borders of Israel. Paul was appointed as an apostle to the Gentiles (Rom. 11:13; 1 Tim. 2:7) sent out as a missionary to the furthest reaches of the Roman Empire (Acts 13:2-3). Through the empowering presence of the Holy Spirit, people responded to this message and came to faith in Jesus Christ. Paul’s missionary team would spend as much time as possible grounding these new converts in the faith. Unfortunately, they often moved on to the next city sooner than they would have liked. They understood the concept that healthy churches need healthy leaders. That’s why they made it a point to entrust the budding congregation into the hands of faithful men. These leaders would care for the flock, maintain sound doctrine, and oversee the work of the Lord.
The earliest example we find of this is in Acts 14:23. Here the missionaries revisited the churches on their way home at the end of the first missionary journey. The passage tells us, “When they had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.” There are several important details we learn about church leadership from this verse.
Church leaders are called “elders.”
We hear this word often throughout the NT (Acts 20:17; 1 Tim. 5:17; Titus 1:5; James 5:14; 1 Pet. 5:1, 5). There are passages that describe the work of these leaders, without using the term “elder” (1 Cor. 16:15; Phil. 1:1; 1 Thess. 5:12), and other terms are used interchangeably to describe the same office (1 Tim. 3:1-2; Titus 1:7).
“Elder” is a term borrowed from the OT and would have already been familiar to Jewish Christians when these first congregations were formed. There were elders in the synagogues, in the tribes, as well as city elders throughout the land of Israel. They were the chief governing council entrusted with the well-being of those under their care. The concept was not difficult for early Christians to grasp.
The word “elder” conveys the idea of wisdom, experience, and spiritual maturity. These are necessary qualities for those who are called to lead God’s people. Elsewhere, Scripture warns that we should not put a new convert into this leadership role. No matter how gifted that person might be, they need time to mature in their faith lest they become conceited or ensnared by the devil (1 Tim. 3:6). We might wonder where the missionaries found spiritually qualified men when all of the believers in the church had only recently come to know Christ as their Savior. Most likely, there were people within the group already familiar with the Jewish Scriptures. When the apostle Paul introduced them to Christ, the lights came on and the Bible suddenly made sense to them. The missionaries would also follow up, in the days to come, to encourage further growth in these leaders. It’s not as if Paul put them in charge, and then disappeared, never to be heard from again. He wrote letters, visited, and sent his associates to check in to keep them heading along the right path.
Paul also uses the word “overseer” to describe this same role. If the term “elder” comes from a Jewish background, the idea of an “overseer” would have been familiar in Greek society. In a secular context, the word described administrators, managers, guardians, protectors, or those given the task of keeping watch. The word points to Christ in 1 Peter 2:25 who is the “shepherd and guardian (overseer) of your souls.” As the apostle Paul met with the elders of the church in Ephesus, he left them a serious charge. “Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers” (Acts 20:28). Thus, elders were entrusted with the important responsibility of not only overseeing the administrative needs of a congregation but also the spiritual lives of its members. This is a serious responsibility not to be taken lightly.
As we look for leaders in our congregation, we should follow the principle of seeking those who are wise, experienced, and spiritually mature. The word “elder” doesn’t necessarily suggest they have to be older men, although wisdom is often gleaned with age. We should, however, be cautious about throwing a relatively new believer into this role. Look for leadership potential among members. With intentionality, help them grow deeper in their faith. Then encourage them to serve in various ministries of the church. It would be very beneficial for elders to develop a strategy for discipleship. This is how we invest in the next generation of church leaders. If we place someone in the role of leadership before they are ready, we are setting them up for trouble. To rush the process would neither be good for them nor the congregation. It’s not that we want to hold someone back. After all, who among us are qualified for this task apart from the empowering presence of the Holy Spirit? One of the best ways to learn is through experience. At the same time, we need to look for evidence of spiritual growth in the person’s life before calling them to serve in this capacity. There are many other leadership opportunities within the life of the church. When someone has proven themselves faithful in other tasks, this demonstrates the work God is doing in their life and suggests they may be ready to take on a greater level of responsibility.
Elders should exist in every congregation.
Acts 14:23 tells us that Paul revisited new congregations at the end of his first missionary journey to install elders “in every church.” This is the normal pattern of church government and a model handed down to us from antiquity. There are many Christian congregations around the world, and each one is unique, with its own style, personality and setting. But based on the witness of the NT, this was the leadership structure set in place by the apostles. Obviously, a brief period existed, just after a new church plant, when it existed without established elders. In a sense, the apostles served as the interim leaders, even from afar, until a group of elders from within were ready to take on the responsibility of caring for the flock. But the concern weighing on the heart of Paul and his missionary team was to raise up spiritual leaders as soon as possible for each individual congregation. He knew the dangers of leaving a congregation on its own, without shepherds to look after the flock. That’s why he wasted no time developing strong, godly leaders for every church.
Churches today would do well to learn from this example. It is true that there are many types of churches, with different leadership models, but we should be cautious of drifting too far from the biblical pattern. A group of believers might say, “we don’t need any system of formal church government, because everyone has a voice in all the decisions.” But what if the consensus of the group is out of step with the teaching of God’s Word? And what happens if there is no consensus, but only different factions insisting that their ideas are best? Who will guard the people from false teaching, or provide biblical instruction, or keep the congregation focused on the mission of the church without elders leading the way? There is a reason Paul was intentional about entrusting this work into the hands of faithful men. He didn’t want to see churches fall apart after he left their city. Every local church needs elders, and we can trust the Lord to provide godly individuals willing to embrace this role.
Elders should not serve alone.
There is always a plurality of elders in the NT. Notice the wording in our passage. Acts 14:23 tells us, “…they had appointed elders for them in every church…” The word here is plural in our English translations as well as the Greek text. This means they weren’t looking for one single individual to oversee the work of the Lord in each location. “This guy will be the elder of the church in Perga, and that guy will serve as elder in Pamphylia, but we’re still searching for a guy to elder in Attalia…” That’s not what the passage says. Instead, there was a team of elders serving side by side in each location. It doesn’t say how many, nor does it specify an ideal range based on the size of the congregation, but the use of the plural designates a number that is greater than one. These men shared in the work and collectively shouldered the responsibility of providing spiritual leadership to God’s people. In a healthy church, elders do not work alone. It takes a group effort to care for the flock.
This is consistent with other passages in the NT. In Acts 20:17 Paul sent for the elders (plural) of the church in Ephesus. In Titus 1:5 Paul instructed Titus to appoint elders (plural) in every city. James 5:14 encourages the sick to ask the elders (plural) for prayer. Shared leadership is the regular pattern of the New Testament.
It appears that in many instances there was a certain elder within a local church who devoted himself full time to the work of preaching and teaching, and received financial support from the congregation (1 Tim. 5:17), like our modern pastors. We might consider these “teaching elders” (i.e pastors) a leader among leaders. But this doesn’t mean such individuals are able or equipped to take on the full responsibility of eldering on their own.
Multiple elders are necessary because overseeing the work of the church requires various leadership gifts, and no single person possesses all of these gifts. One elder might have gifts in teaching, another in encouragement, and another in administration. They must rely on each other to govern the church well. If the congregation tasks a single person with eldering the church, he might excel in one particular aspect of leadership, while unintentionally neglecting other areas of ministry. There may be sound biblical preaching every Sunday coming from the pulpit, but there is no one providing direction for the various committees, and there isn’t much going on in terms of strategic planning, or developing a vision for the congregation, or counseling families. A healthy church will have a team of elders whose differing strengths and abilities complement one another. A larger church might have more elders and a smaller church might have only a few elders. Regardless of the congregation’s size, a group effort is essential to oversee all of the different aspects of ministry.
Having a team of elders in place provides a sense of mutual accountability and support. Elders not only look after the members of a congregation, but are there for each other as well. They lend encouragement when the work of the Lord is difficult. They lean on one another through the challenges of ministry. A team of elders can offer a different perspective on how to handle situations, identifying potential blind spots, so that they reach better decisions. Scripture tells us that Satan prowls around like a roaring lion seeking someone to devour, and if he can cause a leader to stumble it will inflict great harm on a congregation. A team of leaders can minister to each other, and admonish their brothers to stay the course.
Leadership can be a heavy burden to bear, and this is especially true when it comes to the spiritual leadership of a local church. Elders must strengthen the weak, care for the broken, comfort the grieving, pursue those who stray, and provide guidance for God’s people. Paul gives us a glimpse into how heavy this weight can be for leaders who truly love God’s people when he writes, “Apart from such external things, there is the daily pressure on me of concern for all the churches. Who is weak without my being weak? Who is led into sin without my intense concern?” (2 Corinthians 11:28–29). Church leaders feel this daily pressure as they care for God’s people. If we lay this weight on a single elder, and expect him to carry the load by himself, he will eventually wear himself out. Paul didn’t carry that weight alone, but had fellow workers and co-laborers in Christ with whom he could share the load of ministry. The wisdom of Scripture tells us that church leadership should be shared by a plurality of elders.
Elders are appointed.
Again, Acts 14:23 says that Paul “…appointed elders for them in every church” (KJV “ordained”). We value democracy in our society, the ability to choose our own leaders through the electoral process. This is a wonderful thing for citizens of a free country. But we also realize that democracy is not a perfect system. Sometimes we choose the best candidate, but often it is the most popular, or the wealthiest, or the loudest voice, or the one with connections, name recognition, influence, or some other factor. When Paul selected leaders for the early church, he did not open the floor for nominations. “Okay everyone, we need to vote for officers today. Who wants to serve on the board? I nominate Bob, Frank, and Henry. All those in favor say aye…” This wasn’t the process of the early church. Instead, the missionary team identified those who were both willing and qualified, and installed them as leaders. It wasn’t a popularity contest. It didn’t matter if the person had a charismatic personality or came from an influential family. The qualities our world looks for in a leader are not necessarily the same qualities that we should value. As the prophet Samuel learned, when anointing King Saul’s replacement, “…God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart” (1 Sam. 16:7). This reminds us we should be careful when choosing leaders in the church.
This idea of appointing rather than electing leaders is repeated in Titus 1:5 where Paul writes, “For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you.” Again, it was the task of Titus to identify potential candidates in these congregations who were both willing and qualified. They didn’t leave a task as important as this to chance. They were intentional. Pastors should seek men such as this to serve alongside of him. That doesn’t mean the congregation has no role whatsoever to play in the process. The potential leader might be presented before the congregation for affirmation. But it’s not a popularity contest, and we’re not simply trying to fill a certain number of vacancies. Maybe there are only three men in a congregation who are both willing and qualified to lead. Then they ought to be the elders. There is no reason to nominate someone who doesn’t measure up to the biblical qualifications simply because the by-laws specify there ought to be four or seven. Change the by-laws, if needed, but not the principles laid out in Scripture.
Elders must be qualified for the task.
The church will get itself into all kinds of trouble if it allows any warm body to fill the seat. Paul’s missionary team appointed elders in the churches “having prayed with fasting…” This tells us they were not hasty in their decisions, nor did they rush ahead before seeking guidance from the Lord. They were very selective, searching for people who demonstrated evidence of genuine conversion and godly character. Selecting elders is not a light decision to make rashly, but is of the utmost importance. Through the entire process, we must seek the Holy Spirit’s leading and direction.
Several chapters in the NT describe qualifications that we ought to look for in spiritual leaders (1 Tim. 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9). They must be believers. This might seem obvious, but we sometimes take for granted that everyone sitting in the pews on Sunday morning knows the Lord. This is not always the case. A person might have heard the gospel presented many times, but hasn’t grasped the message that salvation is by grace through faith, not by works, lest anyone should boast. There are many religious people who are still lost in their sins. A potential elder needs to have a good reputation both within and outside of the church. Those married must be good husbands and fathers. They should not be drunkards, greedy, or quarrelsome. But their character should demonstrate self-control, generosity, and gentleness. They need to be well grounded in their understanding of Scripture and sound doctrine, but also possess a teachable spirit eager to learn.
The Task of Eldering
Our passage in Acts 14:23 describes the appointment of elders, but it does not lay out specific responsibilities assigned to these men. As we piece together different passages from the NT we learn that elders oversee the ministry of the local church (1 Tim. 3:1; 1 Pet. 5:2), guard the church from false teaching (Acts 20:28), equip believers to serve the Lord (Eph. 4:11 13), set an example for Christian living (1 Tim. 4:12), disciple others in the faith (2 Tim. 2:2), settle conflicts (1 Cor. 6:5), proclaim God’s Word (1 Tim. 3:2), administer church discipline when necessary (1 Cor. 5:10-13), restore those who have strayed (Gal. 6:1), and shepherd God’s people (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2).
Clearly, this is very different work from the responsibilities of a board of directors in the business model of leadership. Alexander Strauch writes, “A true biblical eldership is not a businesslike committee. It’s a biblically qualified council of men that jointly pastors the local church.” (Biblical Eldership, p.31)
Elders and Deacons
There are other types of leaders who may also serve in the local church. While it appears every NT church was governed by elders, some also had deacons to assist in the work. The word “deacon” literally means servant or minister. At times, it is used throughout Scripture in a general sense (see 1 Pet. 4:10 where all Christians are called to serve one another). In other places, it describes those who hold an official position within the congregation. In Philippians 1:1 Paul addresses the letter “To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, including the overseers and deacons.” Similarly, in 1 Timothy 3:8-13 Paul not only lists the qualifications for elders but also for deacons. While the NT describes the character of those who desire to serve as deacons, it does not provide us with a comprehensive job description. Perhaps this is because their role might differ in various contexts depending on the need.
Many view the choosing of the seven in Acts 6 as a model for the ministry of deacons within the local church. While the specific term (diakonos – servant) is not used in the passage, the verb form (diakoneo – to serve) and a related noun (diakonia – service) are both present. The need arose for additional leaders in the Jerusalem assembly because some of the widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. This was an important ministry, but it was simply impossible for the apostles to personally oversee every aspect of the church’s work. What did they do?
Acts 6:2–3 tells us, “So the twelve summoned the congregation of the disciples and said, ‘It is not desirable for us to neglect the word of God in order to serve tables. Therefore, brethren, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this task.’”
Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the apostles delegated specific responsibilities to a group who are often referred to as “the seven.” Why did they choose seven and not eight? Most likely, because there were seven qualified men they trusted to carry out this task, and the work could be carried out by a group of that size. If the work had been greater they might have chosen 10 or 14. This delegation of responsibility allowed the apostles to focus on the specific duties assigned to them by the Lord including the ministry of the Word and prayer.
Whether or not these 7 were called “deacons,” they demonstrate the need for different types of leaders within the life of the church. There is so much work to be done in a congregation that it would be impossible for the elders to personally manage every detail. Even if they tried, they would end up neglecting the specific responsibilities assigned to them by God. The wisdom of Scripture shows us the need to enlist the help of other qualified leaders. Gene Getz explains,
“As the seven men in Jerusalem assisted the apostles in meeting a unique cultural need at that time, just so deacons were later commissioned in the churches to assist elders/overseers in carrying out their responsibilities…” (Elders and Leader: God’s Plan for Leading the Church p.102)
Recruiting Help
We can see the benefit of having both elders and deacons in our modern context. In congregations where there is only a single team of leaders, it is usually the pressing concerns of the moment that tend to dominate the conversation. It may be financial concerns, or building needs, or events coming up on the calendar. “The ladies of the church have noticed ants in the kitchen, so should we invest in pesticides or call an exterminator?” “The summer months are approaching, which means we need to make a decision about lawn care.” “Sidewalks have fallen into disrepair, so do we want to get quotes and if so from what contractors?” These are important matters that must be addressed. But if the elders of the church try to tackle all of these issues themselves, they will become distracted from the primary duties assigned to them by the Lord. Urgent concerns have a way of taking priority in our meetings. This may leave little time for concerns of spiritual significance. It is the pressing business that we tend to place at the beginning of the agenda, and then only if there is time leftover at the end of our meeting, we might talk about the ongoing spiritual concerns of the congregation. But it ought to be the other way around. First pursue the issues of spiritual significance, spending time in corporate prayer, evaluating our various ministries, seeking God’s direction for the church. Then move on to deal with those other more temporal concerns. Better yet, entrust those specific concerns to capable and gifted deacons better equipped to deal with them. Then we will not neglect the spiritual needs of the church. Churches need to learn the leadership principle modeled by the apostles in Acts 6.
Elders enlist the help of other qualified leaders so they can focus on their primary responsibilities.
Rather than neglecting the ministry of the Word and prayer to serve tables, they found faithful servants within the church who were willing to undertake that important task. It will be essential to define their roles clearly so that the elders and deacons can work well together, complimenting rather than competing with one another. If elders are the primary spiritual leaders of the church, deacons will help them carry out this work, often by addressing specific tasks in congregational life. In some settings, it may be the role of deacons to manage the building and grounds, or handle the finances, or to implement ministries caring for those in need. Perhaps elders and deacons will work together in approving the budget. How specific roles are defined will differ from congregation to congregation. The principle here is that elders will call upon other gifted leaders to take part in the ministry of the church. This will ensure that all of the concerns, spiritual and temporal, are addressed.
Conclusion
This is a very brief overview of church leadership as described in the NT. There is much more to say, and other passages to consider. However, it is clear that the biblical model differs dramatically from the business model of leadership. Church leaders are not merely a supervisory board who meet monthly to vote on important decisions. They are integrally involved in the work of shepherding God’s people. These leaders should serve not out of a sense of obligation, but willingly. They must take care not to lord their position over others, but lead by example (1 Pet. 5:1-4).
We have focused primarily on the model set forth by the early church, and have observed the following timeless principles:
Timeless Principles
• Church leaders are called “elders” / “overseers.”
• Elders should exist in every congregation.
• There should be a team of elders who serve together
• Individual elders are appointed rather than elected.
• They must be qualified to serve.
• The elders must enlist the help of others, including deacons.
As we mentioned earlier, every church is unique, with its own individual personality, so there will be differences from one congregation to the next. What’s important is that we stay true to the basic principles set forth in Scripture. We don’t want to drift from the model given to us by God. We seek to follow the example of the apostles and build on the foundation they laid.
Good leaders must constantly evaluate what we are doing well, and areas that need refinement. It’s never easy to change when we have done something a certain way for a long period of time. We might adopt the attitude, “If it ain’t broke, why fix it?” But just because we have done something a certain way in the past doesn’t mean it’s the best way to do it in the present. A better question might be: “if it ain’t biblical, why wouldn’t we fix it?” Use the following questions to reflect on the current leadership structure of your congregation.
Questions to Guide Discussion
1. How does the business model differ from the biblical model of leadership? Are there things we might learn from the business world and apply in our setting? Are there attitudes or ideas we ought to avoid?
2. Do you have questions about any of the principles listed above?
3. How would you define the role of elders? How would you define the role of deacons?
4. If you belong to a congregation with one leadership board, is it fulfilling the role of elders, deacons, or some combination of both? Is this as effective as it could be?
5. What are the kinds of concerns that tend to dominate the conversation in your meetings? Do you spend adequate time in prayer for your people and ministry? Is there sufficient time to evaluate various ministries? Do you spend enough time seeking God’s direction and thinking about the future of the church? Explain.
6. What ideas do you have for developing the people in your church who show leadership potential?
7. How might you be more intentional about coming alongside one another as fellow leaders to shoulder the burden of leadership together?
8. Do you see value in having both elders and deacons in your church? Why or why not? What are the steps you might take to get there
For Further Study:
Check out: “The Thriving Church Leadership Podcast“