So the issues of Spiritual Authority and Biblical Leadership are more urgent than ever.  This paper is drawn together to provoke discussion and, hopefully, to help ongoing development in these important areas. 
 
There are five sections to the paper:
 
1. Spiritual Authority
2. New Covenant Leadership
3. Elders
4. Deacons
5. Conclusions
 

1. SPIRITUAL AUTHORITY
 
In the 1960’s and 1970’s God restored Baptism in the Spirit and the Gifts of the Spirit to a wide range of the body of Christ.  By the 1970’s it was becoming clear that God was after more than getting individuals Baptised in the Spirit.  He was intent on restoring many things to his Church.  With Baptism in the Spirit came a new hunger for God’s word and a belief that God’s ways worked best.
 
At this point individuals and Churches had a choice to make because some of the things that God was drawing our attention to clashed with our views of Church.  It was shock to some of us to realise how much of our Churchmanship was influenced by tradition and the world. 
 
One of the areas God spoke about was Spiritual Authority.  It was challenging and very relevant but like most of the things God has restored it was also withstood by both men and demons.  The whole subject of Spiritual Authority was subject to a lot of fear, abuse and scare stories.  As a result many backed down from the subject and didn’t mention it again!
 
All major doctrines and significant moves forward in the Church have been contested for and often are abused and spoilt by human folly.  However we don’t dismiss them for that reason and God still expects His Church to have a biblical attitude to Spiritual Authority.  Probably the real danger is at the other end of the spectrum i.e. a lack of Spiritual Authority!
 
There is no doubt our society despises authority and celebrates independence and rebellion.  In fact rebellion has become fashionable and is consistently made a virtue of through popular music, drama and advertising.  Authority and submission to it are definitely not in vogue today.  All authority figures in the community are questioned, doubted and treated with cynicism in the modern world.  Of course sadly this is sometimes with good reason but once more that does not negate the need for a good attitude towards authority.
 
This ‘spirit of the age’ affects Christians and comes out in their attitude to God, the Bible and Church leaders.  There is a tendency to despise leadership, to criticise it and to be very reluctant to obey.  However, if we don’t get the subject of Spiritual Authority right we will forever be hampered and leave doors wide open for Satan’s activity in the Church. 
 
 
What are some of the general principles of Spiritual Authority
 
1. All Authority resides in God
God is overall, sovereign, the creator and sustainer of all things.  Ultimately we are to obey God.  Before an individual can submit to delegated authorities he or she needs to first see God’s inherent authority.
 
It is because we respect and obey God that we submit to all that He has instituted.  We obey all God has instituted unless it clearly contradicts His revealed will for it is God who we are really obeying.  This is the fundamental argument for submission to husbands, parents, Church leaders, employers and governments.  They are authorities delegated by God and our submission to God will result in our submission to them wherever possible.
 
2. Rebellion against God’s Authority is the Root of all Evil
As best we can judge satan’s root sin, indeed the root of all sin, is ‘I will be god’; ‘I will be my own boss’. (Isaiah 14 v.12-15) 
 
Rebellion is worse than witchcraft (1 Samuel 15 v.22) because witchcraft is only one of the fruits of rebellion.  On the other hand obedience is the highest expression of honour to God, better than sacrifice. 
 
We cannot serve God effectively with a rebellious spirit – satan laughs when a rebellious person preaches the word, leads the Church or leads a ministry.
 
Of course forced obedience is not what God requires.  The Bible emphasises the heart attitude and the submissive attitude of the one responding to authority.  The authorities themselves are not to abuse their position.
 
3. God’s kingdom is one of order
God is a God of order not disorder.  The church must accept His authority and reflect His order if she is going to be effective (1 Cor. 14).  The issue of Spiritual Authority is vital for the success of the Church and her mission. 
 
4. Submission is absolute, Obedience is relative
Submission is a matter of attitude whilst obedience is a matter of conduct.  So when delegated authorities and the direct authority of God i.e. His clearly revealed will are in conflict we can render submission but not obedience to the delegated authorities.  For example: David’s attitude to Saul; the Hebrew midwives to Pharaoh; Obadiah to Queen Jezebel; Daniel to King Darius; the apostles refusal to stop preaching in the name of Jesus etc.
 
5. To be given Spiritual Authority we need to come under Authority
This is a principle we see working out from Adam in the garden onwards.  Rebellion ultimately disqualifies us and God will remove our authority.
 
Whoever we are we need to find out who God wants over us in the Lord and be subject to them.  Once we learn to come under authority we will find a secure healthy place from which we can exercise authority.
 
6. Spiritual Authority comes with God’s ordaining not man’s attainment
Once God’s anointing and appointing is recognised we must be careful not to slander or speak against a Spiritual Authority, for example, Miriam and Aaron; Korah; Dothan and Abiram; Ham and Noah etc. We must maintain the dignity of God’s anointed leaders.  A rebellious spirit delights in spotting defects in authorities and belittling them, this gives an excuse for throwing off restraint.  But this attitude is judged by God.
 
However, it must be noted that the above arguments can be used by those who abuse authority.  Whilst we cannot ignore good Biblical principles just because some people abuse them, we must equally emphasise other principles that bring a correct balance. (See later section “How should Spiritual Leaders behave”)
 
 
DELEGATED AUTHORITIES IN THE CHURCH
 
How should they get in place?
 
 
Delegated Spiritual Authorities get in place by being gifted by God and that gifting or anointing being recognised.  So we need to find a practical way of bringing this about.  Essentially two main elements appear to operate in New Testament Church situations. 
 
1. The body of Christ (people) recognised gifting and character qualities in a person
 
2. The Authorities that are already in place and are themselves recognised, acknowledged and established the role the person is gifted for.  (Implications from Acts 6 v.1-7 and 1 Tim 3 v.1-15)
 
There seems to be a process of recognition, confirmation and ratification which goes on involving both the Church and the Spiritual Authorities.
 
There are no details in the New Testament about how these principles work.  We in the modern world worry about the precise method of selection.  In the Bible what seems to be important is the manner and spirit in which the leadership is recognised, for example, they appointed elders with prayer and fasting.  They were clearly open to apostolic and prophetic giftings highlighting who was to be released for certain ministries (Acts 13 v.1-3).  The emphasis is on seeking God’s choice as to who should undertake a particular ministry. 
 
Clearly leadership is a spiritual gift (Eph 4 v.11-13; Rom 12 v.8) The reason Jesus gives these gifts to His Church is that they are there to help the Church fulfil her purpose and calling.  The sorts of things that gifted leaders are to help the Church achieve are:
To prepare God’s people for works of service
  To build up the body of Christ
  To help achieve unity in the faith
  To increase knowledge of the Son of God
  To bring Christians to maturity in Christ
 
Perhaps this is not the list of job description goals that the traditional Church leader would recognise!
 
Leaders then are always a gift from God to the Church.  They are God’s chosen way of shepherding and leading His people e.g. Psalm 77 v.20; Psalm 78 v.70-72.  The challenge is to find those gifted and appointed by God and therefore given real Spiritual Authority by Him.  We clearly don’t want votes; we don’t want political appointments; and also, we don’t want professional qualifications being the deciding matter in choosing spiritual leaders.  However, we do want to find a way of recognising the gifting God has given and of assessing the character of those who we are looking to lead the Church.
 
We do need to discuss how we apply these principles in our Churches.  How do we ensure that Apostolic and Prophetic ministries are involved in the appointing of Elders and yet also ensure that there is a recognition amongst the local Church that these men are right to be set aside as leaders and their Spiritual Authority will be recognised?
 
How should spiritual leaders behave?
 
Hebrews 13 v.7; v.17.  1 Peter 5 v.1-4
 
a) A leaders authority is, in the end, only the authority of God’s word.  Leaders are to live by the word, preach the word and exhort people to obey the word.  So the word of God must be their main tool in persuading people and leading them.  Leaders are not given a free hand to merely impose their opinions on people.  Notice how even the apostle Paul seemed careful to give different weight to his various instructions i.e. some are clear commands, some just his own opinion.  (1 Cor 7).  A key objective of spiritual leaders is to bring people to faith in God’s word.  This means we help them to understand it and “see” it for themselves.
 
b) The way of life of a spiritual leader must be open to scrutiny and be an example to those that they lead.  They should be saying ‘Do as I do’.  To be able to call people to ‘imitate’ me seems to be a significant part of leadership. 
 
c) Leaders are to be men of faith.  Faith is a vital element which others will follow and will want to imitate.
 
d) Leaders are accountable to God for their responsibilities.
 
e) Spiritual Leaders are to care for those that they are responsible for.
 
f) Those leading God’s people are to serve willingly and see themselves called by God.  They are not to take on the role for their own ambitious reasons nor simply because there is a need!
 
g) Spiritual leaders are not to Lord it over those entrusted to their care.  ”Entrusted” is an important word for Spiritual Leaders to keep in mind.  We are called to serve people by leading them, our leadership is for their benefit not ours.  Leaders should always respect the authority of the individual’s conscience.  A person’s conscience should not be violated but it may need to be educated.  The latter will require respect and patience as a leader endeavours to teach people so that their consciences line up with God’s word.

 
HOW ARE PEOPLE TO BEHAVE TOWARDS SPIRITUAL LEADERS?
 
Hebrews 13 v.7; v.17-19; v.24.
 
a) Hear the word of God through them.  We should expect God to speak to us through those who are our leaders and we should have an attitude of faith towards them.
 
b) We are to follow the example of those who lead us.
 
c) We are to obey them in line with the Word of God.  Even if we have trouble obeying them because we believe them to be wrong our attitude towards them should be submissive and respectful.  We are never to hear an accusation against an Elder without at least two or three witnesses.
 
d) We are to pray for them.
 
e) We are to greet them warmly.  It is important that people make their leaders feel loved, appreciated and respected.
 
 
Remember all the biblical emphasis is on submission not on leaders taking ‘authority’ over other people.  There is no mandate to lord it over them.  To submit is an action that a person takes in obedience and faith. 
 
The Bible expects you to place yourself under the care and guidance of Spiritual Leadership.  You are looking for the ones that God has given to oversee you and lead you.  When you believe God has led you to the right people there should be a submission to them.  Of course, all of us who are “in authority” should also be “under authority”.  There should be someone “over you in the Lord” (1 Thess. 5 v.12) to whom you behave as appropriate towards a Spiritual Authority figure.
 
Finally, because It is gifting and anointing that gives authority there is a lot of ‘mutual’ submission within the body of Christ.
 

2. NEW COVENANT LEADERSHIP
 
 
The death of Jesus was a huge event, a cosmic event!  Every area of life was affected, the spiritual and the natural world would never be the same again.  One of the great revolutions was in the religious realm.  ‘At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom’. Matthew 27 v.50-51. 
 
The tearing of the temple curtain in two was a work of God and a spectacular demonstration that the old covenant had ended.  A new and living way had been opened up to God through the body of His son, Jesus Christ.  God has solved the problem of the exclusion of sinful men and women from His presence.  God declared that the barrier had gone.  The way was open!  The old covenant and all its trappings have passed away and there is a new, better covenant between men and God in and through Jesus Christ.  Jesus is our great High Priest!
 
There is therefore no more sacrifice for sin that is needed ever again.  There are no special buildings, special mountains or special altars needed.  And there is no need for special men, wearing special clothes and performing special rituals!
 
Young and old, male and female, Jew and Gentile, whole and crippled – anyone at anytime can come into God’s presence in and through Jesus Christ.  This is wonderfully inclusive but it is also exclusive because we can only come to God through Jesus Christ, He is the way!
 
Therefore, we believe in the priesthood of all believers.  The New Covenant is in another league compared to the Old Covenant.  Now one High Priest has entered the presence of God forever and has sat down there.  We too can enter and dwell in the presence of God, indeed we are seated in heavenly places in Christ.  Those who are in Christ share His priesthood, His rights and His privileges.  We are a Holy, Royal Priesthood through Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2 v.4-10).
 
So we must never go back to the Old Covenant ways of operating.  We do not want a seperate class of people who mediate between God and His people.  The need for a ‘Priesthood’ which is separate from the rest of God’s people no longer applies.  All the clothing, rituals and buildings that we associate with that and the Old Covenant are passed.  There are no grounds for a priestly class of people breaking bread, baptising, leading in worship etc.  These are Old Covenant tendencies and are undermining the work of Jesus Christ. 
 
New Testament leadership is about gifting; the Holy Spirit gifts people to perform a function in serving the Church.  That function is essentially helping the saints to accomplish the task they have been commissioned to do by the risen Lord Jesus.  In the New Testament there are different ministries and all members of the body of Christ are involved.  There are, of course, governmental functions but there is no ‘clergy’ or ‘priesthood’.
 
The New Testament emphasis is that Church is like a body, a family, a brotherhood and the leaders are modelled on shepherds, fathers, stewards.  A distinguishing mark of the New Covenant is that the Holy Spirit dwells in all members of the people of God and so even the lowly can be empowered, filled and gifted.  Under the New Covenant every member of the Church of Jesus Christ is a Saint and a Priest. 
 
The New Testament sees local Church leadership in the hands of Elders.  The plurality of local leadership is definitely the norm in the New Testament.  We always read about ‘Elders’ (plural) leading a Church or being appointed to lead a Church.  However, as well as recording the existence of ‘Elders’ in numerous Churches, the New Testament also gives instructions about Elders and to Elders.  Indeed the New Testament offers more instruction about Elders than on some other important Church subjects such as the Lord’s Supper and Baptism. 
 
We must be quite careful to keep ourselves in harmony with the Bible.  The Churches established by the Apostles remaining the valid models for Churches at all times and in all places.  So we should be looking for teams of Elders who are leading members of the congregation, functionally different but redemptively equal to everyone else.  These Elders oversee the local Church but they do not perform the Church’s ministry. 
 
 
3. ELDERS
 
What is an Elder?
 
Three words are associated with local Church Leadership in the New Testament:
 
ELDER (Presbuteros) – from Jewish Synagogue background
 
OVERSEER (Episkopos) – from Greek background eg. Manager
 
SHEPHERD (Poimen) – biblical picture of Leadership based on the fact that God himself is the Shepherd.
 
There are two interesting passages in the New Testament that bring the three elements together – Acts 20 v.17, v.25-31 and 1 Peter 5 v.1-3.  These three terms undoubtedly refer to the same group of people.  The Holy Spirit has deliberately given us these titles for the key local leadership of His people because they tell something about the sort of people who lead local Churches.
 
“Elder” refers to their maturity.  Biblical maturity means learning by experience to put truth into practice. 
 
“Overseer” refers to their function.  It is in effect a brief job description which tells us that these leaders oversee every aspect of the local Churches’ life.

“Shepherd” (Pastor) refers to their gifting.  The word obviously has an element of job description as well because when we know what a shepherd did in Bible times it gives us some idea of Church Leadership.
 
There is no New Testament pattern of ‘The Pastor’ and then a body of Elders.  ‘Pastor’ is a gifting, one of the five in Ephesians 4 all of whom could be Elders depending on whether they have governmental anointing.  In another sense all Elders are to some degree ‘pastors’ because it is part of their job to shepherd the flock of God.
 
The main functions of an Elder/Overseer:
 
– To Rule (1 Timothy 5 v.17)  The government of the local Church is in the hands of a local body of Elders
 
– To Teach (1 Timothy 5 v.17, 1 Tim 3. v.2).  This seems to be directional and doctrinal teaching.
 
– To Oversee or Manage (1 Timothy 3 v.4-5, Acts 20 v.28, 1 Peter 5     v. 1-3)  They are to Manage the whole of the Church as a father Manages his household.
 
– To Shepherd (Acts 20 v.28, 1 Peter 5 v.1-3).  The Shepherding picture is a common biblical one for leadership.
 
– To Pray for the sick (James 5 v.14).  Although this is associated with Shepherding there is a specific example of this being an Eldership responsibility.
 
– To be an Example (1 Peter 5 v.1-3).  Essentially Elders should be able to say we want you all to live as we live. 
 
The above are general terms but within them are the biblical concepts of caring, feeding, admonishing, disciplining, protecting, uniting, leading etc.  Elders are not a separate board or committee to the Pastor.  There will be a team leader but Elders are co-Pastors – a team that leads, shepherds, manages and rules the local Church.
 
What qualities do we look for in an Elder?
 
1. The calling of God.  It is the Holy Spirit who makes people Overseers (Acts 20 v.28)
 
2. A genuine desire in the heart.  Those who desire to be an Elder desire a good thing and they will serve willingly. (1 Tim 3 v.1, 1 Peter 5 v.2)
 
3. An anointing to govern.  There is a gift of government (Romans 12 v.8).  There needs to be some evidence of this not just a gift of a particular ministry eg. teacher, prophet, evangelist etc We will pause here to ask the question ‘How do we discern the anointing to govern?’  Here are some ideas of what to look for:
 
– A person who has a whole Church perspective and does not just focus on their ministry or the department they are responsible for. 
 
– Someone who carries the burden of the Church emotionally i.e. they have a sense of responsibility for all that happens in the Church.
 
– People follow him; he is not just a ‘good’ man.
 
– This man can manage people in a biblical sense i.e. relationally like a good father manages his household.
 
– He carries a confidence and internal authority when overseeing a meeting or addressing the whole Church.
 
– He can function in a leadership team i.e. be able to contribute without an undue defensiveness.
 
– This person can train others and delegate responsibility i.e. he doesn’t have to do it all himself.
 
4. Godly character.  These qualifications are laid out specifically in       1 Timothy 3 v.1-7: Titus 1 v.6-9; 1 Peter 5 v.1-3.  The biblical emphasis
on the qualifications for an Elder lie in the field of his character.  We are intended to learn from these scriptures that the qualities listed there are indispensable for an Overseer.  The lists concentrate on observable matters of character and conduct that are practical evidence of a living, mature Christian faith:
 
– True spirituality i.e. a love of the good, humble, a right ordering of priorities etc.
 
– A confident grasp of Christian doctrine.  NB Doctrine that is applied as well as understood.
 
– Christian maturity.  An Elder is not to be a new Christian but one of proven maturity.  Age is not a criteria given by Paul despite the origins of the word ‘Elder’.  The most important thing is ‘Maturity’.  We must also remember that the words ‘Overseer’ and ‘Pastor’ carry no implication of age but they do both require a degree of maturity.
 
– Emotional stability i.e. not a violent man or quick tempered and quarrelsome.  He must be patient with people and dignified in his handling of their emotional ups and downs.
 
– Personal discipline.  An Elder should demonstrate a temperate and disciplined approach to his body and its appetites, especially with alcohol. 
 
– Sexual integrity.  The only sexual activity that is legitimate is within the context of a Christian marriage to one wife.  Elders must be beyond reproach in their relationship with women, men and children.
 
– Competence in personal relationships.  He must show himself able to manage others reasonably and effectively i.e. manage his household well. 
 
– Practical generosity.  There must be evidence of generous giving, good stewardship of money and an hospitable nature. 
 
– Social approval.  The man should have a good reputation in terms of character and integrity in the wider society around. 
 

5. Elders are men.  There is no mention in the New Testament of a woman Elder.  Male eldership is clearly assumed in the many key passages eg 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1.  Paul’s prohibition on women teaching or having authority over men (1 Tim 2 v.12)  seems incompatible with women being Elders since teaching and having authority over the Church as a whole are arguably the two keys roles an Elder has.
NB Under the male Eldership there is great scope for women’s ministry.  A woman can do virtually anything else in Church life and I believe the secondary office of deacon was open to women (see later in the paper).  Women can be in ‘leadership’ roles under the male Eldership.  There are many ways one can ‘take a lead’ in Church life e.g. Administration; worship; ministries such as children’s work, the poor and evangelism; pioneering new sections of Church life etc.  Women operate in many of these areas and ‘take a lead’ in a totally biblical way.  Clearly the governmental leadership and oversight of the local Church is meant to be in male hands.
 
 
How are Elders recognised?
 
Obviously what we are looking for is people whom God has called and anointed along the lines we have already laid out in the section above.  It is characteristic of modern western thinking to worry about the precise method of selection.  Although God is well capable of laying down detailed selection, conditions and procedures eg Leviticus, He does not do so for New Testament Leadership. 
 
It is clear that the Bible sees the manner and Spirit of the process of selecting Elders as the most important thing.  For example, in the book of Acts it seems prayer and fasting played a part.  We are expected to be open to the Holy Spirit and the setting aside that He can direct.  The emphasis should be on seeking God’s choice of who should undertake this ministry in the local Church. It is clear there needs to be some process of time so that there is an element of assessment and testing to apply the criteria of 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1.

It seems four parties are involved in the appointment of Elders.  First of all God (Acts 20 v.28).  Secondly, apostolic ministry that is already recognised (Acts 14 v.23).  We ought to add here the role of the Apostolic Delegate such as Timothy and Titus.  Thirdly, other Elders.  1 Timothy 4 v.14 could be a reference relevant to this.  Of course, common sense tells us that fellow Elders play a key role in approving and accepting a new member of their team.  Finally, the local Church has a role to play.  The biblical emphasis on an Elder having a good reputation and being respected and as a mature Christian clearly suggests that the local Church has some approval role in the appointment of Elders.  We also have Acts 6 v.1-7 as a model of how the apostles appointed the next tier of leaders, so perhaps this a guide line for the appointment of Elders and Deacons. 
 
All the above four parties need to confirm and recognise those being set in as Elders.  We need mechanisms where by the human agents i.e. Apostles, Elders, local Church can express their convictions about the gifting, calling and suitability of candidates for Eldership.
 
Of course, it goes without saying that the man himself must feel called and be open to the role of being an Elder and his wife must be supportive and happy that he is taking on that role. 
 
I believe ‘plurality’ is biblical and is always a feature of New Testament Eldership so we should be in faith that God will provide an Eldership team.  However, plurality doesn’t take priority over actuality.  If you haven’t got a suitable candidate for Eldership plurality is not a priority.  We are not to be unduly hasty in appointing Elders (1 Tim 5 v.22) but nor are we to neglect this vital task or be tardy about it (Titus 1 v.5).
 
The Importance of an Eldership Team
 
Elders are always referred to in the plural in the New Testament and it is wrong to dismiss that fact too easily.  Although ‘Team’ is not a biblical word it represents a biblical concept.
 
‘Team’ reflects the God-head – the Trinity – the whole of creation is headed up by a team!  John Lanferman helpfully teaches that ‘Team Trinity’ is: social i.e relationships in a team are vitally important; missional i.e. a team is joined by a shared purpose; complementary i.e. the giftings work together in harmony and there is mutual submission under the authority of the team leader (the Father in the case of the Trinity).
 
Jesus worked with a team of disciples and He sent them out two by two even to collect a donkey!  It seems clear that the Apostles also worked in teams so frankly there is nothing surprising about the local Church being led by a team of Elders rather than one man alone.
 
The role of the team leader (The Lead Elder)
 
Any team does need a leader.  Leadership is always God’s way i.e. the Father is the Leader of ‘Team Trinity’.  In the family the husband/father is to be the team leader.  In the New Testament Peter leads the eleven; James takes a lead in the Jerusalem council; Paul leads his apostolic team etc. 

Therefore it is important to have a Lead Elder but this is not another office i.e. The Pastor.
 
The Lead Elder brings vision to the team and to the Church.  The leader brings authority within the team.  The other members of the Eldership team need to honour the role of the Lead Elder and feel that God is joining them to serve this leader and this particular team.  The other Elders should recognise the anointing and the call of the one who leads the team and desire to help him fulfil the calling and vision he has for this Church at this time.  The other members of the Eldership team should be free to speak out but they should be careful not to steam roller over the unique contribution that the Lead Elder brings. 
 
In order to be the Lead Elder of an Leadership Team you need a Leadership gift and a conviction that Team Eldership is important and biblical.  You need to be convinced of the Plurality of Eldership and its practical advantages so that you are in faith that God will provide you with the right team alongside you. 
 
P.J. Smythe in his booklet ‘The World needs more Elders’ helpfully highlights
three aspects of the Lead Elders’ role that distinguishes him from the other Elders;
 
1. The visionary aspect.  The Lead Elder is the visionary Elder who normally takes the lead in setting the direction and pace for the rest of the Eldership and consequently for the rest of the Church. 
 
2. The decisionary aspect.  Most decisions are taken with discussion and agreement but there are occasions when this doesn’t work and the Lead Elder needs to make the decision. 
 
3. Delegatory aspect.  The Lead Elder is the one to co-ordinate who does what and to help hold each Elder accountable for his tasks.  Of course, when we delegate responsibility within the team we must also delegate authority.  The Lead Elder must not override decisions of the other Elders without consultation and respect for the authority they have.
 
The Lead Elder gifting will have four main characteristics:
 
1. Inspiring men who motivate others.
 
2. Men who thrive on being out ahead of the others in terms of vision and daring.
 
3. Men who are comfortable up front in terms of leading and preaching.
 
4. Men with the Leadership gift capacity to lead other Leaders as well as the Church.

We need a Lead Elder who isn’t a control-freek because an Eldership Team should not be a ‘rubber stamp’ or a group of ‘yes’ men.  The individual Elders callings and giftings need to find expression under the overall leadership of the Lead Elder.  On the other hand the Elders in the team should have an attitude of submission to the overall leadership of the Lead Elder and need to be loyal.  They should be given freedom by the Lead Elder but reciprocate this by showing initiative and taking responsibility.
 
 
 
Final comment on 1 Tim 5 v.17-20
 
This brief section of scripture highlights one or two interesting issues with regard to Eldership:
 
1. It reemphasises the role of ruling or governing which is a prime responsibility of the Elders. 
 
2. It highlights a difference within the Eldership i.e. some who labour at preaching and teaching as opposed to others who by implication don’t specialise in these areas.
 
3. There is a clear implication that some Elders will be paid for their ministry.  This would seem to be an emphasis on those who have the key preaching/teaching role.  Obviously this cannot be taken as proscriptive but it does at least open up the possibility of Elderships of mixed full-time and non full-time men.  However, practically this can be quite challenging and the subject needs wider discussion than time and space permits here.
 
4. Elders have an expectation and an assumption of high credibility, which means both that they are not to be assumed guilty unless there are two or three witnesses, but also that they are to be rebuked publicly if they are found to be sinning.  The integrity stakes are higher for Elders than for other people, which is why so much attention in given to issues of character with regard to Elders in the New Testament.
 
4. DEACONS
 
Where are the Deacons?
 
Mention the very word ‘Deacon’ to a lot of Church Leaders and it will be met with a shudder; the days of government by Deaconate have not yet been forgotten! Far simpler, many would say, to have Elders as the only Church office – no one is really sure what Deacons are for.  So long as people are pulling together, others would argue, why bother with a recognised second level group of leadership that seems to elevate some servants above others?  Besides, the big Churches in the country have moved beyond such antiquated ideas.  Scriptural arguments rarely even enter the debate and consequently the wider implications of New Testament teaching on Deacons i.e. two level leadership, releasing women in leadership etc. are marginalised.
 
Nevertheless as we look at our Churches we can be both excited and frustrated.  Why aren’t we growing bigger?  Have we got everything sorted out with regard to local Church leadership? Have we done the best we can for our women?  How can we grow in both quality and quantity?  How biblical are we?  Are we in fact more effected (both in action and reaction) by traditional Church models than we think we are?
 
In recent years we have seen significant growth in many of our Churches.  However, that growth does bring major pressures eg How do we organise to maintain the quality of Church life we believe in? Or How do we seriously help people who come with all sorts of social, physiological, physical and financial problems?  As always the Bible is going to hold the answer for us.
 
Acts 6 v.1-7
 
Luke’s main objective in writing Acts is to tell us how the infant Church, commissioned by Jesus and empowered by the Holy Spirit, expanded with in the first century world.  He is particularly interested in key events or seasons that resulted in renewed growth and breakthroughs.  There are a number of key events in Acts and one of them is here is Acts 6 v.10-7.  I believe that under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit Luke is providing models and examples for the whole Church age.
 
Luke is not setting down rules for Church government but as a Spirit inspired book of origins for the Church Acts provides some vital direction for all of us.  It also gives us the background history to Paul’s teachings and practices.  God means us to read the Epistles and the book of Acts in the light of each other.
 
As result of its growth and its vision to meet the needs of the poor and hurting members of its community the Jerusalem Church hit a major pastoral problem that is addressed in Acts 6.  Complaints and divisions surfaced within the Church.  They surfaced in the Church in such a significant and demanding way that the Apostles became distracted and pre-occupied trying to address them. 
In verses 2-4 we have the first major lesson for us all, namely that spiritual leaders are not supposed to do everything in the Church.  We have to find out what our calling is and the associated priorities, and then stick to them. 
 
The apostles faced up to this issue.  They didn’t think that the care for the widows and the meeting of their needs was unimportant.  On the contrary they knew that it was vitally important and therefore needed to be done well.  However, it was a question of calling.  The apostles were called to give leadership, teaching, vision and impetus to the whole Church fuelled by prayer and the word.  They were in danger of being pre-occupied with the wrong ministry not a non-ministry.
 
God knew the problem would occur again and again throughout His people’s history.  Healthy Spirit filled Churches grow.  They grow by conversions.  Many of the converts are needy in some way.  Healthy Spirit filled Churches want to meet the needs of the converts, they want to help change their lives.  The Church is not about large crowds singing and listening to sermons, it is about people being discipled, cared for, established in the faith, growing up in Christ etc.
 
The Holy Spirit expects us to take serious notice of Acts 6.  In Acts 6 the Oversight leadership of the Church created another secondary, officially recognised, publicly commissioned, body of leaders to administrate the pastoral details of the Churches vision.
 
As the Apostles address the problem and appointed a second tier of leadership the Church made another significant move forward (Acts 6 v.7) with people released into their callings there was another breakthrough.
 
These men are clearly not called Deacons but the principles laid out here must have been noted and taken heed of by the Churches that were planted throughout the eastern Mediterranean in the years that followed. 
 
The New Testament Deacon
 
Paul mentions Deacons in Philippians 1 v.1 and 1 Tim 3 v.8-13.  He offers no explanation of the Deacons origins or duty so he must assume his readers already knew what this was. 
 
What is clear from Philippians 1 v.1-2 is that ‘Diakonos’ indisputably refers to a Church government office.  Secondly, the fact that the ‘Diakonoi’ are separate from “all the saints in Christ Jesus”, and are put together with the Overseers, strongly implies a deliberate grouping of the two offices to refer to the leadership group of the Church.  Thirdly, it is clear that the Deacons would have been clearly identifiable, such that Paul could refer to them using a generic noun rather than naming them or describing them in some other way. It therefore seems clear that a publicly acknowledged office of Deacon existed within the Church leadership at Philippi and presumably in other Churches (1 Tim 3 v.8-13).
If we assume the Holy Spirit expects us to get our answers from scripture, I believe the long Church tradition of calling the seven in Acts 6 the first ‘Deacons’ is probably valid.  Although they aren’t given the title in Acts 6 the noun ‘Diakonia’ is used in Acts 6 v.1 & 2.  The issue was all about a particular sort of ‘serving’ of the Church.  Some argue that the significant gifting of Stephen and Philip undermines them being called ‘Deacons’.  However, that argument is rooted in Church tradition about Deacons, what is clear is that these mighty men of Evangelism and the Word were also serving the Church by being in charge of relief efforts to poor widows.  Perhaps we have downgraded and misunderstood the role of Deacon!
 
The seven in Acts 6 were an important appointment for a specifically designated task different from the Apostles.  This was an official role not merely general Christian service or voluntary charity open to all believers.
 
Some would say that the seven were unique and disappeared not to be continued in the Church.  However, the needy widows and the day-to-day pressures and disputes that were arising didn’t disappear from the Church.  Indeed they are still with us in some form or other.  In Acts 6 God gave a model to be followed by Churches everywhere.  It is reasonable to assume that the appointment of the seven became a prototype for a role that later would be formally ‘designated’ Deacon.
 
What was the role of the New Testament Deacon?
 
It was probably not what most of us have understood by the term Deacon from recent Church tradition.
 
a) It was not a sacred position or priestly office.
 
b) It was not a ruling board of the Church.
 
c) It was not a committee of property managers.
 
The role was undoubtedly more people-centred and spiritually weighty than these traditional views indicate.  The role of Deacons as indicated in the New Testament and, interestingly, as rediscovered by Calvin and the reformers was primarily a PASTORAL role. 
 
In the New Testament the office of ‘Deacon’ is closely linked to ‘Elders/Overseers’ though clearly subordinate to them.  Once more this seems in harmony with the Acts 6 model.  In Acts 6 two major categories of official Leadership are created:
 
1. The twelve who are primarily involved in verbal ministry i.e. proclamation, prayer, vision casting, guarding against error etc.
 
2. The seven who are primarily involved in Deeds Ministry i.e. practical service to the needy, maintenance of unity in the Church, pastoral administration etc.
 
The seven were not trainee Apostles; people ordained to preach and administer the sacraments; deputies who ran the Church while the Apostles moved on etc.  The seven formed a separate, complementary body to the twelve.  Of course every Christian is concerned for the poor, is involved in pastoring and should serve the Church.  But ‘Deacons’ were ‘select servants’ who were officially recognised and co-ordinated the Church’s benevolence; represented the Church in delicate matters of care and trust; generally kept the Churches vision on course in practical, applied ways.
 
Deacons work closely with Elders but theirs is not a ruling office nor a teaching office.  The work of a Deacon may involve administration of funds but it is pre-eminently one of people-helping.
 
The Elders work is diverse and wide ranging, hence the term ‘Overseers’.  The Deacons work, on the other hand, is proscribed and focused within limited responsibilities as designated by the Elders.
 
What sort of people were New Testament Deacons?
 
1 Tim 3 v.8-13
 
It is not that anyone who wants to be Deacon can be one!  The Bible teaches that a properly ordered Church must have morally and spiritually qualified ‘Overseers’ and ‘Deacons’.
 
1. ‘Deacons’ is in the plural.  So we can assume that most Churches will have more than one Deacon and the work that they do will require a team approach. 
 
2. Unknown and unexamined people must not be given authority over other members of the congregation.  Deacons should be known and respected by the congregation that they serve. 
 
3. Deacons are to be officially recognised and appointed.
 
4. The character qualifications of 1 Tim 3 must be taken seriously.
 
5. Women can be Deacons.  Obviously we will take a moment to explore this last point.
 
Does 1 Tim 3 v.11 mean Women Deacons?
 
Overwhelming evidence is that the answer to the above question is ‘Yes’!  We need to seriously consider this in our circle of Churches as we are in danger of appearing to have no official role for women at all.  Yet some of them probably had such a position in the first century Church. 
 
We have already seen that there is no question that the overall spiritual authority of the Church is in the hands of the Elders who are male. 
The ambiguity of the Greek word ‘Gune’ (‘Women’ or ‘Wives’) has caused no end of controversy in the interpretation of verse 11, for the existence of women deacons, and therefore women, in recognised positions of responsibility in the early Church hangs on it.  On the basis of 1 Tim alone, however, there are several good reasons for suggesting it refers to women Deacons rather than Deacons wives:
 
1. The same introductory word ‘In the same way’ (Hosautos) is used to introduce women as to introduce Deacons, which implies that a new office, rather than another requirement of the same office, is under discussion.
 
2. It would be strange for Paul to include stipulations about Deacons wives and not about Elders wives, either in 1 Tim or anywhere else, given that even more, presumably, hung on their reputation.
 
3. The possessive adjective ‘their’ is missing in the original.  This is not conclusive but it is strange if he means that the women are simply the wives of the Deacons.
 
4. This is clearly a distinct category, which doesn’t apply to women in general.  These are special women who need to be qualified in a certain way and recognised.  Again this is strange if it is only the wives of Deacons and not the wives of Elders that are so clearly defined. 
 
5. A distinctive mention of women in this category of office as opposed to the Elder category strengthens the concept of male authority in ‘Oversight’ but shows recognition of women in public office in another category.
 
6. The following verse does not, as it has been argued, return to the discussion of male Deacons qua male Deacons; rather it provides two further stipulations, monogamy and good government of the household, that in the culture would only apply to men.  So talk of unnaturally sandwiching women deacons in the middle of five verses about men is inappropriate.
 
7. Deacons are not required to undertake the functions of teaching and governing which Paul is so keen to limit to men in chapter 2 – these are the prerogative of the Elders.
 
8. The requirements of verse 11 overlap closely with those of verse 8 which pertain to Deacons.
 
9. If the Deacons role is largely pastoral, helping the needy and making sure that people are properly cared for it is not only possible but appropriate that women are recognised in this role.  Often they will be helping females and young people and the unique gifts of a godly women make them particularly appropriate for these jobs.
 
Finally, it is quite possible that in Phoebe we have an example of a woman recognised in such an official role as a ‘Deacon’, Romans 16 v.1-2.  Although there can be arguments that the word does not clearly refer to the office of Deacon it does seem to be more than just an acknowledgement of service.  There is a ring of a special role in the phrase “a servant of the Church”.  We are tussling with the emergence of a word and of a role before our very eyes as we read Acts and Romans and Philippians and 1Timothy.
 
We must be thoughtful and proactive in having women officially recognised as ‘servants of the Church’ or Deacons.  If we are going to appoint them and recognise them they, like the men serve closely with Elders and under their authority.  They will need to be qualified according to 1 Timothy 3 v.11 and worthy of respect, not malicious talkers, temperate, trustworthy.
 
1 Timothy 3 v.1-15 tells us how Paul would expect to set up the official leadership oversight of a local Church.  It is the Holy Spirit’s instructions for all of us.  Do we take the whole of this passage seriously?  It is probably time for the Return of the Deacon!  There are three aspects that are particularly important:
 
1. Clear recognised two level leadership. Often there is an Eldership Team and no-other recognised Leadership, which fails to acknowledge – certainly in any public sense – the role of non-governmental individuals in Leadership.  In other Churches there is a ‘Leadership Team’ compromising the Elders and various other people who act as department heads or equivalents. But these teams rarely distinguish between the functions of teaching and government, for which Elders alone are accountable, and all other responsibilities.  The result is that some team members may de facto become Elders by proxy, operating at the same level as the Elders, or (conversely) be involved in Leadership in a purely nominal sense.  Frequently, this lack of clarity results in confusion amongst the saints as to the roles of anyone but the Elders.
 
By contrast, in the New Testament, people knew who the Deacons were.  Deacons were publicly identified and the fact that there was a name for them shows how publicly.  There were different in role and authority from the Elders but they had significant responsibility and they were not just members of the Church serving and helping in any way they can.  If the Phoebe reference is what we think it is she is commended not as a children’s worker or one who looked after the poor but as a ‘Deacon of the Church’ which conferred certain respect on her.  It was not just giving something a name, it was bringing both honour to the person and clarity to the Church.
 
2. Recognition of women in Leadership.  Women cannot be Elders, but the New Testament seems to show that they operated in acknowledged leadership roles through serving as Deacons.  Applying this to local Churches avoids twin pitfalls; that of appointing women as Elders or Pastors thereby sending the unbiblical message that there is no such thing male headship, and that of giving women no acknowledged office at all, thus sending the (also unbiblical) message that women cannot be involved in any form of Church leadership at all.  Recognising women as Deacons, as the New Testament Churches seem to have done, would go a long way towards reducing the problem of women feeling disempowered and excluded in some of our Churches.
 
3. ‘Using the word Deacon’.  Very few Churches with which I am familiar use ‘Deacon’ to refer to an office within their congregation.  Most of us will make some explanation about small group supervisors or members of a leadership team or Youth Workers etc being the equivalent of Deacons.  Yet battles have been fought for ‘Apostles’ and ‘Elders’.  A large part of the office consists in it’s being recognised by the saints both as identifiably authoritative and identifiably biblical.  Why do we call Apostles ‘Apostles’ or Elders ‘Elders’?  Because, even though we face numerous misunderstandings of what we are driving at, being able to point to a verse in the scripture and tell someone what such a person’s mandate is carries huge weight.  Surely the same is true of ‘Deacons’.  By not using the name we do lose something.  Firstly, those who are apparently functioning as Deacons but without being called that have no biblical way of understanding what is expected of them.  Secondly, the biblical teaching on who Deacons were and how they worked is side-lined which itself results in the formation of Leadership Team without reference to Deacons, and therefore without attention either to the biblical instructions concerning their appointment, or, frequently, the rightful place of women in Church leadership. 
 
5.CONCLUSIONS
 
1. The issue of Spiritual Authority is as vital today as ever.  So our Church Leaders need to be encouraged to teach on the subject and apply it in a biblically balanced way. 
 
2. We must avoid all drift back towards a professional leadership or a clergy/laity divide.  We certainly need to train Elders and we need many full-time Elders but that must not rob us of full adherence to a New Covenant view of Leadership. 
 
3. It seems biblical to leave young Churches without any Elders at all but then, when ready, to appoint a plurality of Elders.  Although this will not always be possible we need to emphasis the importance of a plurality of Elders.
 
4. We need to teach Elders how to work as a team.  It is a fact that the Trinity and the family have a head, a senior figure.  There are models in the New Testament that point to the wisdom of a clear leader to a team.  Yet there is no New Testament model of a Pastor as a one man leader of a local Church.
 
5. The return of the Deacon is overdue!  It is a biblical office that we should have in place in all or most of our Churches.  If properly taught it would help us to handle the issue of women in leadership.  It could also help in the growth, in both quantity and quality, of all our Churches.