Church covenants and Church relationships

Churches should have a covenant relationship. Instead, many churches have consumer relationship.

Covenant relationship.

A covenant is a formal agreement or sincere promise between two or more parties to both act and not act in certain ways. Particularly in a church relationship, this also includes agreeing that they believe and not believe certain teachings. A church covenant relationship, then, is based on mutual agreement or sincere promises between the members of the congregation.

A “church covenant” is based on:

• mutual commitment
• interdependence
• brotherly love

A covenant relationship is a relationship with commitment (Romans 15:5-7; Ephesians 5:21), communication (1 Thessalonians 4:18;; 5:11; James 5:16), concern (John 15:12; Hebrews 13:17), devotion (Romans 12:10; 16:16), determination (Hebrews 10:24-25; Ephesians 4:32), and exhortation (Romans 15:14; 1 Timothy 6:2). A covenant cannot and should not be lightly broken. It is entered by the commitment of two parties (the church & the individual). There is a unified commitment to follow Christ as head and each observe his responsibility one toward another.

Consumer relationship.

A consumer is a person who uses a commodity or service; one who purchases goods and services for personal consumption (benefit). A consumer relationship, then, is based on the provision and consumption of services. When satisfactory service is no longer provided, a new provider is sought out.

A scan of the present “church’s desolation” makes it obvious that many members attach themselves to churches as a consumer in a consumer relationship. They attend the church when it provides the services they desire. When those benefits are no longer being provided, they leave and look for another church.

Question.

Will we choose to follow the Bible, or follow the world?

God’s seminary

The church is God’s “seminary.” 

“upon this rock I will build my church … teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway …”

“Our hearers...think it enough for them, if at best they can hear with some profit to themselves. But this was not the state of things in primitive times. Every church was then a seminary, in which provision and preparation was made, not only for the continuation of the gospel in itself [Gospel preaching], but for the calling, gathering, and teaching of the churches also… And this course, namely, that teachers of the church should be educated thereunto in the church, continued inviolate until the public school at Alexandria, which became a precedent unto other places for a mixed learning of philosophy and religion, which after a while corrupted both, and at length the whole church itself.” 

(John Owen 1616-1683, An Exposition of the Epistle of Hebrews, Vol. III, London: Thomas Tegg, 1840, pp. 114-115)

“We are well aware that we shall be complained of when we say these things…Mere scholars, those who know more of books than of men, and more of theological halls than the pulpit, ought not be invested with the trust of educating a whole generation of young men for the Christian ministry. The fact may no longer be dissembled, that the tendency, if not the design of our theological seminaries themselves, is to fill the most important chairs with purely literary men; men who neither have, nor expect to have, any relation to the pastoral office; men ordained, not to the work of the ministry, but to their professorship. It is easy to see that such arrangements once entered upon, are apt to be progressive and to perpetuate themselves. Age and experience sleep in the tomb; and those only become the teachers of ministers, who have themselves never been teachers of the people, and never served the Church of God in the ministry of his Son.”

(Gardiner Spring 1785-1873, The Power of the Pulpit: Or, Thoughts Addressed to Christian Ministers, New York, NY: Baker and Scribner, 1848, pp. 382-383)

“Whether seminaries and theological schools are the proper places to educate the ministry, I know not. It is a matter of experiment in our day, and time alone can decide it. Their tendency is to raise intellectual above spiritual qualifications, and such it has thus far proven. Of old, they have I think proved to be, after a generation or two, schools of heresy.”

(Francis Wayland 1796-1865, a letter by Wayland, long-time president of Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island to James Petigru Boyce, first president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, January 26, 1857)

“The local church is itself a school. If believers are also disciples, then they are students, and the local church is a place for the study of the Gospel. If these local churches under their constituted teachers are schools for the training of God’s people, why cannot these schools also train future ministers? Why must these schools be set aside and higher schools be established by men in their superior wisdom for the training of ministers? It is true that the local church has but one text book – the Bible – but what need do we have for schools where Barth and Bultmann are also studied? Do we need these higher schools for the clergy where men finish their education and have completion of their education certified? Can men ever finish their study of the Bible and receive their diploma of having mastered the Gospel? In this school called the local church we never finish our education and receive our degree. We are always learning and studying here, ever fascinated by the knowledge of God and His way of salvation.”

(Elmo Wayne Johnson 1914-2001, “Extra-Biblical Ecclesiastical Systems,” Baptist Reformation Review, Summer - 1978, Vol. 7:2, pp.15-16)

“In the early days of American Protestantism, the training of ministerial candidates was carried on by pastors of churches. A young man feeling a call of God to the ministry would associate himself with a church pastor, receive training from him, participate in the work of the parish, perhaps even live in the pastor’s home. I’m not sure why, but eventually this system was felt to be inadequate… Seminaries not only frequently ‘refuse to do the work of the church,’ they also tend to undo it.”

(John M. Frame, “A Proposal for a New Seminary,” The Journal of Pastoral Practice: Volume 2, Number 1, Winter 1978, pp. 10-11)

“The best structure for equipping every Christian is already in place. It predates the seminary and the weekend seminar and will outlast both. In the New Testament no other nurturing and equipping is offered than the local church. In the New Testament church, as in the ministry of Jesus, people learned in the furnace of life, in a relational living, working and ministering context.” 

(R. Paul Stevens, Liberating the Laity: Equipping All the Saints for Ministry, Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1985, p.46).

“Modern training is primarily intellectual; New Testament training is primarily spiritual and practical. Modern training emphasizes the classroom; New Testament training emphasizes life and experience.”

(Clay Sterrett, Myths of the Ministry, Staunton, VA: CFC Literature, 1990, p. 18)

“Most church leaders would agree that developing new leaders is a critical responsibility of the local church, yet very few churches actually have an intentional leadership development process…During the Renaissance, also known as the Age of Enlightenment, great emphasis was placed on learning through the rise of universities. Any person who felt called to serve God was directed to attend a university…From the universities grew extended knowledge centers of specialization and thus was born the seminaries. Anyone who believed God was calling them to full time Christian service was directed to attend seminary for proper preparation. Churches, desiring to have the best educated ministers possible, have been outsourcing the responsibility for training church leadership ever since.” 

(Brian Keith Moss, “Leadership Development in the Local Church: A Seven Step Process for Developing Leaders at Every Level,” Doctor’s Thesis, Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, Lynchburg, Virginia, 2014, pp. v, 116)

In 21st-century Western Christianity, folks who feel a calling for Christian ministry think (through years of teaching and tradition) that going to seminary is naturally the first step to take. Biblically, theological education is an aspect of discipleship. It is not (at least should not be) a pathway to a professional degree. Churches to the Front!

Menno rolls over

Mennonite Church USA passes resolution committing to LGBTQ inclusion

The Mennonite Church USA repealed instructions to pastors not to officiate at marriages between people of the same sex. The denomination’s official confession, which views marriage as between a man and a woman, remains unchanged.

Nearly 83% of the delegates meeting at a special assembly in Kansas City, Missouri, voted in favor of repealing the guidelines barring marriage for same-sex couples, while the resolution for LGBTQ inclusion passed by a narrower margin, with 55.7% in favor.

Random remarks re the suckling and the service

Or, what about nurseries?

I grew up in a church that thought parents and children should be in the service together. There was no nursery. Spanking was also still in vogue! Children learned to behave in church at a young age. It scarred me for life. I became a Baptist preacher.

Modern societies often remove children from public life because doing otherwise is inconvenient and inexpedient. Some civilized societies (so-called) even remove children from life itself. In contrast, children ought to be cherished, nurtured, nourished, and seen in the Lord’s churches. The biblical worldview holds a radically different and counter-cultural approach from the world system. Young people, young families, small children, and babies have been basic to the progress of the Lord’s churches throughout this age – have been, continue, and will continue to be so. This should include integrating children into the church’s gathered services.

Recognizing that children of believers are lost – not just little believers in training – we also submit to the Word, which gives neither command nor example to follow the consumer-based models of creating separate services to satisfy the cravings of the children and convenience of the adults. When small children are brought to services, as they should be, parents of these children can (as much as possible) avoid deliberately distracting everyone. Those who do not have small children should welcome them and their parents – and be forbearing at times when such is necessary.  Parents should remove children when it is appropriate to the situation – but must also be very careful so that the children do not learn to use disruption to get their wants and way! Children learn how to behave at the church meeting by being in the church meeting. If church services are absent of children, soon both adults and children are warmed to the idea that they shouldn’t be there (even though they will vociferously deny it).

Don’t view babies at church as a problem. If you do, maybe you have a problem! If a baby starts crying, thank God that he is still blessing the world with babies. Thank him that your church has benefitted from that blessing. Thank him that your church can be a witness to the next generations. Thank him that your church hasn’t become so old and dead that no new life (even physical) can enter. Thank him that the baby is healthy and has a good set of lungs! I see nothing wrong with having a room where a parent can take a child to nurse them, feed them, change them, or rock them, as needed, but the concept of having a place so the babies will not “distract” the adults arises more from a negative view of the presence of children than any supposed benefits the baby (or small children) derive from it. Someone observed that if most of the young families have babies hanging on their shoulders, fewer will worry about a couple of babies screaming. May God bless us all with that problem!

Customs of Primitive Churches, deaconesses

Of deaconesses

XIV. The office of deaconesses is of divine original and perpetual continuance in the church. It is the same in general with the office of deacons, only it is chiefly limited to the care of the sick, miserable, and distressed poor. The scriptue marks of their office are, shewing mercy, succouring, &c. The way they are put in the office is by choice of the people, ordination, and other forms as in case of deacons. Their qualifications are laid down negatively and positively by the apostle Paul. Their reward is honour and maintenance. Their number should be proportionable to the need of the church. Their manner of performing the office is, with cheerfulness. Rom. xii. 8.

1. The divine institution of this office appears from the following texts. Phebe our sister--a servant [Gr. deaconess] of the church which is in Cenchrea. Rom xvi. 1. The deacons must be grave &c. Even so must women [to be deaconesses] be grave &c. This is the obvious sense of the text. Our translators refer it to the deacons wives; and in order to make it sense have unnecessarily englished the original word by wives rather than women; and have foisted in the word their. But why should the deacons wives be described when nothing is said of the wives of the bishops? The learned Grotius translates the words thus, Even so must the deaconesses be grave &c. Rom. xii. 8 refers to this office. He that showeth mercy, with dilgence. The exception to this passage is, the word is he and not her; but many examples of the kind occur where no such exception takes place; neither can it here, because there is no officer in the church to which the words may be applied except the deaconesses. I am inclined to think that the neglect of the widow of the grecians in the daily deaconry (mentioned Act. vi. 1) is rightly account for by Salmasius, quoted by Dr. DuVeil viz. "that the hebrew women were preferred to the deaconry, and the greek women refused the honour." This [account] is approved by Cornelius a Lapide, Erasmus, &c. If it be just, it follows that there were women in the office before man.
2. Their office, like that of the deacons, hath the poor and helpless for its objects, but is chiefly confined to those things wherefor men are less fit. The helpless poor must be kept clean, and fed. The sick must be nursed, and tended, &c. for which, women are the most proper; therefore they are described as succourers Rom. xiv. 2. shewers of mercy Rom. xii. 8.
3. Their qualifications are described, Even so must the women [to be deaconesses] be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things, I Tim. iii. 11. to which may be added, a merciful, and relieving temper. Rom. xii. 8. ch. xvi. 2.

We cannot give any biblical narrative of the ordination of deaconesses, as no such transaction hath fallen under our notice. But think the history of the ordination of deacons may serve for a pattern, only varying some words. There is in the apostolical constitution (which according to Whiston are as ancient as the gospel) an account of such ordination, and the prayer that was used at the time. Book viii. ch. 19.[30]. Frequent mention is made of deaconesses in ancient church history.

Customs of Primitive Churches, pages 42-43

Can a Baptist deacon baptize?

In reviewing visits to my blog, I notice that some people find my Who Can Baptize? blog post through the search terms, “Can a deacon baptize?” or “Can a Baptist deacon baptize?”

This is a double-edged question, and one for which one may find two sorts of answers:

• According to accepted church practice, can a Baptist deacon baptize?
• According to the Bible, can a Baptist deacon baptize?

First, according to accepted church practice, can a Baptist deacon baptize? According which church you ask, you will get either a “yes” or “no”. Some Baptist churches flatly will allow no one but ordained elders/preachers to perform baptisms. The division of practice seems to fall roughly into (1) only ordained preachers can baptize or (2) anyone whom the church authorizes may baptize[1] or (3) that any Christian can baptize. According to the latter two ideas a deacon may be allowed to baptize either on the basis of the church asking him to, or simply by the authority that he is a Christian. In the first, the authority is placed in the ordained ministry and the deacon is disallowed from baptizing. A fourth position (and there are probably many other variations) is that performing baptisms are allowed to those who are ordained – the deacons are ordained and therefore allowed to baptize on that basis. (Different churches even vary on whether or not to ordain deacons.) Relying on my experience, I would expect that very few baptisms are actually performed by deacons, even in churches that agree that the practice is acceptable. And when they do they are likely baptizing under iteration 3, in which any Christian can baptize, rather than baptizing as a deacon.

Second, according to the Bible, can a Baptist deacon baptize? This removes the discussion from what is practiced to the underlying rule of our practice, the word of God. Still, some Baptist churches interpret the “rule” differently and still may answer either “yes” or “no”. While this can be a multi-pronged investigation of biblical principle and New Testament practice, for many the decision will be made on the interpretation of Acts 8:12-38. While “the commission” of Matthew 28:18-20 is spoken directly to the apostles, we find in the book of Acts at least two people not among the apostles who baptize – Philip (Acts 8) and Ananias (Acts 9:5,9,18). The Philip who baptizes in Acts chapter 8 is the same Philip of Acts 6:5.[2] This Philip is one of the seven, the first collection of deacons set apart in the church of Jerusalem.[3] If this deacon baptized in New Testament times, there should be little question for us now – according to the Bible a Baptist deacon can baptize.

[1] Many of these might say something like, “Although normally the pastor of a church baptizes and presides at the Lord’s Supper, any member designated by the church could do so.”
[2] This is not Philip the apostle, but the Philip who is mentioned in Acts 6:5. No other disciples named Philip are mentioned in Luke’s history of the Acts. Note: (1) the apostles were not scattered but continued at Jerusalem (Acts 8:1), while Philip was among the dispersion (Acts8:4-5); (2) the apostles are distinguished from Philip (Acts 8:14,18,25); (3) the apostles, but not this Philip, had the power of communicating the Spirit by laying on of hands (Acts 8:14-18); (4) the apostles returned to Jerusalem, but Philip was called to go the way toward Gaza (Acts8:25-26); and (5) Philip passed through many cities preaching until he came to Caesarea, the place where Philip the evangelist is found in Acts 21:8. (A deacon who was preaching would more appropriately be called an evangelist, while an apostle would have been identified as an apostle.)
[3] These were not called deacons in Acts 6, but they performed some of the same duties mentioned in that church office (1 Tim. 3:8-13).The deacons were charged with oversee the distribution of monies and provisions to the needy among the congregation. The word deacon/diakonoi means “servant,” and these men were certainly servants of the church. Someone has noticed, “They could claim the same promise for faithful service that Paul specifically made to deacons in 1 Timothy 3:13.” Though Luke never calls them the noun diakonoi, the verb diakoneo is “serve” in verse 2. There are two offices in the New Testament – elders and deacons – and the calling, setting apart and service of Acts 6 agrees well with the calling, setting apart and service of deacons. One of the early post-apostolic church father, Irenaeus,writing around AD 180, calls Stephen (one of the seven in Acts 6) a deacon (Against Heresies 3.12.10).

Baptist church polity

Yesterday I read A Few Polity Questions, an interesting blog piece on Baptist church polity. By the time I found it, comments were closed. So I offer the following comment here. 

In comparing Article XXXVI of the 1644 and 1646 London Confessions it is interesting to see that the wording was pared down from "Pastors, Teachers, Elders, Deacons" to "elders and deacons" -- suggesting that they may have thought "elders" comprehended the whole of "Pastors, Teachers, Elders". Also in chaapter 26.11 of the 1689 London Confession, "bishops or pastors" seem to be used as the same office (as "bishops or elders" is in 26.8 and 26.9). If so, bishops, elders and pastors would all be one word for the same office. To me it seems that the 1689 statements are not as confusing on the surface, but made more confusing by our own practice and our use of terminology.

The Lord's Church

Where the Bible is believed and taught...

• All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
• Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine. (2 Timothy 4:2)

Where people are loved...

• But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you (Matthew 5:44)
• By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. (John 13:35)

Where God is...

• And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am... (Exodus 3:14)
• ...there am I into the midst of them. (Matthew 18:20; cf. Matt. 28:20)
• ...God is true... (2 Corinthians 1:18)
• ...God is love. (1 John 4:8)

Foundations of Church Discipline, and other such links

The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the sites linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the specific posts linked.

• Church Discipline, by Claude McKee -- "Church discipline is clearly taught in the scriptures and the Baptist family at one time more closely followed its teachings."
• Church Discipline, by Davis Huckabee -- "The discipline of a church consists in their admitting or rejecting those who offer themselves to join with them; in the members watching over each other; in reproving and admonishing those who walk disorderly, and taking all proper methods to reform them; and in rejecting those who will not be reclaimed..."
• Church Discipline, by L. S. Walker -- "A church that will not discipline its members is either ignorantly or willingly disobeying the Word of God."
• “Don’t do it!!” Why You Shouldn’t Practice Church Discipline -- "Church discipline is both corrective and formative, the latter referring to the church’s work of teaching or forming Christians..."
• Gospel Discipline, by Jesse Mercer, 1806 -- "...we would awaken you to, and exhort you to be promptly active in the execution of discipline - discipline, without which there can be no union, order, peace or fellowship in the church; no, nor church itself..."
• Let's Recover BIBLICAL (i.e. Congregational) Church Discipline -- "...church discipline begins with an individual Christian confronting another individual Christian with the hope of helping that brother or sister remove the speck from their eye, after having removed the log from his/her own eye."
• Most Baptist Churches Do Not Exercise Church Discipline -- "One of the root problems with the lack of spiritual power and zeal in Baptist churches today is the neglect of discipline."
• Public apologies spur church discipline warnings -- "...the biggest mistake related to corrective church discipline among contemporary churches is neglecting it altogether."
• Restoring Church Discipline -- "A church must simply resolve to draw a line and say, “We have been wrong and lax heretofore, but, starting from this point, we put that behind and will practice scriptural church discipline.”"
• The Democratic Foundations of Church Discipline -- "...a member of a Baptist church doesn’t just leave...This discharge could be either honorable or dishonorable."
• The Discipline of the Primitive Churches Illustrated and Enforced, by Andrew Fuller, 1799 -- "Let us, brethren, look narrowly into the discipline of the primitive churches, and compare our own with it."

Not your father’s church, by Tozer

I saw one church advertise that they were “Not your father’s church.” They promoted it as though they were proud of that expression. What I want to know is, if they are “Not your father’s church,” whose church are they?

It is my humble opinion that when a person loses sight of the origins of the Church, it no longer is the Church. Therefore, the question is, what is it?

Have we come to a stage in this generation that the so-called church is promoting everything and anything that will add to its numbers? The bottom line, as they say, is success; and success has everything to do with numbers. Whatever brings the numbers in must be all right.

This is far from the church fathers who gave their lives to establish the church of Jesus Christ.

The problem, as I see it, is that we have lost the vision the fathers had of what we refer to as the New Testament church.

By A. W. Tozer, in Voice of a Prophet: Who Speaks for God?

The Lord's congregation

The majority of references in the English Bible to the Lord's congregation used the word "church". In addition to this, there are at least 7 figures of speech given to help us further understand its meaning and function.

The Lord's congregation is:
1. A church, a lawful assembly (ekklesia) Matthew 16:18; Matthew 18:17; 1 Corinthians 12:28
2. A body, a living organism (soma) Romans 12:5; Colossians 1:18
3. A flock, a group of followers (poimnion) Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:2
4. A house, a kindred family (oikos) 1 Timothy 3:15; Hebrews 3:6
5. A building, a designed structure (oikodome) 1 Corinthians 3:9; Ephesians 2:21 
6. A temple, a devoted place (naos) 2 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 2:21
7. A bride/wife/married woman, a covenanted relationship (numphe/gune) Ephesians 5:23-24 
8. A husbandry, a cultivated field (georgion) 1 Corinthians 3:9

Baptist Fools

Concerning Baptist Polity and Baptist Fools

Q. Under your denominational polity, if every man may think, talk, and act for himself, what do you do with your fools?

A. In the first place it must be admitted that there are some Baptist fools, or rather, some fools who are Baptists. It’s really a strong point for us, that it does not take very much sense to be a Baptist, for the essential things in the New Testament are as simple as Divinity can make them, and wonderfully well adapted to people at small understanding. I would not be disposed to admit that we have more (fools) than other denominations in proportion, but I would stoutly maintain that we came honestly by all that we have. We got them by preaching the simple gospel to simple people. And that is the finest thing any people in the world ever engaged in. It must be admitted that the Baptist fool is rather unhandy. But take him all around, down to the bottom, there is more solid New Testament wisdom in him that in continental conferences of men, who are full of the wisdom of the world and know little of the wisdom which emanates from the source of all light, the Holy Scriptures.

J. B. Gambrell; The Baptist Standard, July 1908

Was James the pastor of the church of Jerusalem?

The Bible presents a solid front on the example of plurality of elders (pastors) in New Testament churches. Presented with such information, proponents of the single pastor or senior pastor model of church polity are on the prowl for counter-examples. One that is often provided is that James was the senior elder/pastor/bishop of the church at Jerusalem.

Brief excerpts of the position
“James, the 'brother of the Lord,' though not one of the Twelve, was a chief man now in the Jerusalem church, and is often spoken of by historians as its pastor, or bishop.” -- The People's New Testament: the Common and Revised Versions with References and Colored Maps, with Explanatory Notes, Barton Warren Johnson, St. Louis, MO: Christian Board of Publication, 1891, p. 482

In his Commentary on Acts 15:1-35, J. W. Carter writes, "The scriptural description of the church from the time that Peter was imprisoned by Herod seems to lean towards James as the pastor. This segment of scripture would do the same."

"...James eventually became the pre-eminent leader of the Jerusalem church. To borrow a contemporary term, he was its senior pastor." -- James - The MacArthur New Testament Commentary, John F MacArthur, Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 1998, p. 11

"The brother of Jesus, who became the leader of the Jerusalem church (see on Gal. 1:19; 2:9, 12, Acts 15:3; 21:18) and was later considered its first bishop." -- The People's New Testament Commentary, M. Eugene Boring, Fred B. Craddock, Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009, p. 408

This James is the James who is the half-brother of Jesus. He is mentioned by name in Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3; Acts 12:17; Acts 15:13; Acts 21:18; Galatians 1:19; Galatians 2:9, 12; James 1:1 and Jude 1:1. The scriptures cited by Boring and Craddock are those most frequently cited in defense of James as THE pastor of the church at Jerusalem, as well as Acts 12:17.

Investigation
A. Acts 12:17 Peter tells those who opened to tell James and the brethren of his release. That he specifically adjures them to tell James indicates James held a prominent position in the church, i.e. he was the pastor.

This incident does suggest that James was a significant individual in the church, but it no more proves that James is the pastor of the Jerusalem church than the angel telling the women to tell Peter and the disciples that Jesus will meet them in Galilee proves Peter is the pastor of the church at Jerusalem. It is reading too much into the text without considering all the options.

B. Acts 15:19ff. James makes the final decision at the "Jerusalem council".
It is true that James offered the final counsel in Acts 15 before the church made its decision and sent out their letter. Notice three things about this council. 1. The issue was brought to “the apostles and elders” at Jerusalem (Acts 15:3) and therefore not to James any more than the rest. 2. The resulting letter was written on behalf of “the apostles and elders and brethren” and not from James any more than the rest (Acts 15:23). 3. James' restatement of this portrays this as a decision of the church, not an act in which James had more influence that everyone else -- “As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded...” (Acts 21:25). The fact that a single individual in a church sums up a problem and gives his counsel which the church follows does not suggest that individual is the pastor. I have seen such counsel (and results) not a few times from men of wisdom who were not pastors.

In Acts 15:4 those welcoming of Paul and Barnabas are described as “the church and...the apostles and elders.” So we know that James was an apostle or an elder, or both. His office is noted by Paul in Galatians. In Galatians 1:19, James is called an apostle. He was one among many apostles, which does not make him the pastor of the Jerusalem church.

A mention of a single name does not a pastor make. Others are mentioned singularly more often than James.

C. Acts 21:18 Paul went to see James after he arrived in Jerusalem.
James certainly was a prominent leader. He may also have been the only apostle present at the time. Regardless, as in other places that mention one single individual in a group of individuals, this does not rise to the level of proving that James was the single pastor of the church at Jerusalem. "...and all the elders were present" suggests that James may not have been considered an elder. He is considered an apostle in Galatians chapter 1. Paul once went up to see Peter and dwelt with him (Gal. 1:18). By the same reasoning that makes James pastor of the church in Acts 21, we would prove Peter was pastor of the church at Jerusalem in Galatians 1.

D. Gal. 1:18 Paul went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and also saw James while he was there. James is referred as an apostle, not as pastor of the Jerusalem. He, Peter and John, are also referred to as pillars (Gal. 2:9). That statement puts James on an equal plane with Peter and John. The totality of Paul's comments in Galatians indicate that he did not view James as the singular leader of the Jerusalem church.

Conclusion
There are a few passages in which James the half-brother of Jesus is mentioned in a singular or prominent way. I have no wish to denigrate his importance in the church at Jerusalem. But to my way of thinking, folks first believe in a "head pastor", "lead pastor", "senior pastor" or something like that before these passages begin to look like one. The great example of a pre-eminent leader at any church mentioned is Diotrephes mentioned in 3 John 9-11. He desired to have the “preeminence” and was described as doing evil.


Follow-up: 3 links related to single pastor/plural pastor
Plurality of Pastors
Preacher Rule
The Wisdom of God in the Plurality of Pastors

The Two Church Offices

The Two Church Offices by W. S. Crawford, Wellington, Texas

The New Testament church is a local, divine organic body. It is composed of disciples of Christ who have been baptized voluntarily to carry on for Christ. Christ is its Founder, its Foundation, its Head and its law Giver. The Holy Spirit is its Superintendent and it is to do what Christ Himself commanded and authourized it to do. It is thus to be perpetuated until Christ comes again. Its permanent officers are pastor and deacons.

The New Testament names the pastor and deacons as offices in the church. In I Tim. 3:1, Paul says “If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.” According to the New Testament, a bishop was the pastor of a church. I Tim. 3:10 tells us, “And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.” These are the only offices spoken of in the New Testament that are permanent.

Both of these offices are to be filled by men, not by women. Paul instructed Titus, “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly... For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God;” (Titus 1:5—7). A woman cannot be the husband of one wife, therefore cannot be ordained as pastor. Any man who has two living wives is disqualified to be pastor of a church. The deacon is also to be the husband of one wife (I Tim. 3:12). Therefore, the deacon’s office is to be filled by men.

In both of these offices men are to be ordained, and that by the authourity of the church. Paul said that he was ordained a preacher and an apostle (I Tim. 2:7). And Paul told Timothy to “neglect not the gift that is in thee which was given thee by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery” (I Tim. 4:14). In Acts 6, we see the church selected seven men who were qualified for deacons, and the church placed them before the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands upon them thus designating or ordaining them as deacons. We see from these scriptures that pastors and deacons are to be ordained to fill these offices, and are to be ordained by the authourity of the church.

The pastor and deacon are to be servants of the church. Not bosses, nor dictators, but servants. The pastor is to serve in spiritual things. He is to preach the word (Acts 6:4; II Tim. 4:2). He is to feed the church (John 21:15—17; Acts 20:28; I Peter 5:1,2). He is to be the teacher of the church (I Tim. 3:2; II Tim. 2:24). Paul called these things spiritual things (I Cor. 9:11). The deacons are to serve the church in temporal things. They were to see after the financial things of the church (Acts 6:3). The pastor, deacons, and all the membership of the church are instructed to work together, directed by the Holy Spirit to do the will of Christ.

The pastor is to have a divine call and the deacon is to have spiritual qualifications. The pastor is to be divinely called to preach (Acts 20:24; I Cor. 9:16). He is to have a divine call to be pastor (Eph. 4:11). He is to have a divine call to a church (Acts 20:28). The deacons are to be men of honest report, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom (Acts 6:3). The pastor is promised a crown of glory that fadeth not away when the Chief Shepherd shall appear (I Peter 5:4). And they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus (I Tim. 3:13).

So then our labour is not in vain in the church of our Lord Jesus Christ. Neither is the labour and service of any member of the church lost when it is done according to the will of Christ and from a heart of love. Paul said there was a crown of righteousness for him, and not for him only but for all of them that love His appearing (II Tim. 4:8).

From The Baptist Defender, January 28, 1941 (as found in The Baptist Waymark, Vol II, No. 8  May—June 1992)

Readings on autonomy, associations and affiliation

Served up to go with my post on Denominationalism. The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the blogs linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the posts linked.

Associations-Fellowships-Conventions, Are They of God or of Men?
Baptist Autonomy: Difficulties and Benefits
Baptists Believe in Church Autonomy
Congregationalism
Scriptural Church Association
Smith, Brooks, Moran on Baptist associations
The Church: Baptists and their Churches in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries
What is the Association
What Makes a Baptist Church an Independent Baptist Church?
Why I am not Southern Baptist