Challenges to Team Pastoral Leadership
What about Peter, James, Timothy and elders of house churches?
Last week, we saw a clear, consistent, biblical pattern of each local church being pastored by a group of pastoral leaders, with no one taking a role of senior or lead elder or pastor. Some people think the ministries of Peter, James and Timothy show a senior pastor type role in the New Testament churches. Let’s consider each of these key leaders.
Peter
Historically, most Christians have rejected the idea Peter was the Supreme Pontiff, or Pope, of the universal church—and for good reason, since this isn’t taught anywhere in Scripture or early church history. But I find it curious that many of these same people accept the idea Peter was in leadership over his fellow apostles, a kind of “senior apostle,” even though this idea relies on some of the very same assumptions! Of course, the most important question is: What does Scripture say? What role does the Bible show Peter filling?
In Scripture, Peter is never given a title that’s distinct from that of the other apostles, he’s never given a different authority than the other apostles, and he’s never instructed to serve in a role that’s distinct from theirs. Everything he’s called to do, the other apostles are called to do, as well. We see events in Peter’s ministry that don’t fit easily into a senior pastor model. When Peter returns to Jerusalem after evangelizing and baptizing the Gentile Cornelius and his household, he’s criticized for his actions and has to give an accounting (Acts 11:1-18). Earlier, when the apostles heard about Samaritans coming to faith in Christ, “they sent Peter and John” to Samaria to check things out (Acts 8:14). There’s no indication whatsoever Peter initiated this mission; the apostles evaluated the situation together, made their decision as a group, and exercised their collective leadership by sending two of their number, Peter and John, to Samaria. This fits a team leadership model (which we saw in Scripture) much better than it does a senior pastor model (which we did not).
As we continue reading these passages, we can’t help but notice how prominent Peter seemed to be at times. But prominence doesn’t equal a separate leadership role; it just means prominence. There’s nothing about leadership by elders that would preclude God from using one of the elders in a very public, prominent ministry. But this doesn’t mean this elder is now the pastor of the church (or the “senior pastor”). There’s nothing in the biblical accounts of Peter that contradicts the New Testament pattern of church leadership we looked at in last week’s post. On the contrary, Peter fits this model of shared, plural pastoral leadership of the churches very well. There’s no scriptural basis for the idea Peter was a Pope or that he was a senior pastor.
James
Some observe that James seems to be distinguished by name from the elders in one passage (Acts 21:18), and possibly a second (Acts 12:17). What do we make of this? In Galatians 1:18-19, Paul seems to indicate James was an apostle of Jesus Christ just as Peter was. If this is so, it would be as natural to distinguish James from the church elders as it would be to distinguish Peter or Paul from a group of elders. This doesn’t mean James was a senior pastor, but an apostle of Christ.
The only other passage some claim shows a senior pastor role for James is found in the account of the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. After many other leaders speak (including Peter and Paul), James gives his “krino” (verse 19). Some Bible versions translate this as James giving his “judgment,” which seems to imply James is formally leading the council and thus declaring his final judgment. But this isn’t the only way to translate this Greek word, and some other translations read that James is giving his “opinion” or telling the others “I think . . .”
The problem is this one word just isn’t conclusive enough to establish, by itself (and in contradiction to the consistent biblical pattern we saw last week), such a supremely authoritative role for James in the Jerusalem council—apparently even authority over Peter and Paul! Indeed, this word is easily and naturally understood as simply expressing one’s opinion, which seems to better fit the context of Acts 15. (Notice Acts 15:22 and 23 where James isn’t even mentioned.) Rather than contradicting the scriptural pattern we saw before, this natural reading is in complete harmony with it. It’s important to remember the accepted practice is to rely on the clear passages of Scripture to help us understand the more vague ones—not the other way around, especially where there’s a clear, consistent pattern throughout the New Testament.
Pastor Tim?
Timothy’s name comes up frequently in accounts of Paul’s ministry or in his letters to the churches. Timothy was obviously an integral part of the ministry work of Paul (Acts 17:14-15; 18:5; 19:22). In Romans 16:21, Paul refers to him as “my fellow worker.” In 2 Corinthians 5:20, he and Paul are both referred to as “Christ’s ambassadors.” In 1 Corinthians 16:10, Paul says Timothy was “doing the Lord’s work, just as I am.” It’s very clear Timothy shared in Paul’s apostolic ministry.
What’s even more significant is Paul shared his writing credit with Timothy no less than six times. This is an amazing public recognition of the fact Timothy shared in Paul’s ministry. Only two other people were acknowledged in this manner: Silas (twice) and Sosthenes (once). Paul also wrote two significant letters directly to Timothy.
1 Corinthians 16:5-12 is an interesting passage that shows the way Paul and those who worked with him were frequently on the move. Timothy was often left for a time in one place or sent ahead to another (Acts 17:14-15; 18:5; 19:22; 1 Corinthians 4:17; Philippians 2:19-24; 1 Thessalonians 3:2, 6). The places where Timothy ministered were consistently places where Paul had just been or to which he was on the way. This going ahead or staying behind was a distinctive characteristic of Timothy’s ministry.
So when Paul sent Timothy ahead or left him behind, what exactly was Timothy doing? I Corinthians 4:17 says he was sent to Corinth to remind the people there of Paul’s ways and teachings. 1 Thessalonians 3:2 tells us Timothy was sent to Thessalonica to strengthen and encourage them in their faith. Why was Timothy left in Ephesus? According to 1 Timothy 1:3 it was to “stop those whose teaching is contrary to the truth.” He wasn’t left to pastor the church of Ephesus; he was left to correct problems with the church’s pastors. And according to 1 Timothy 3:14, Paul was intending to be there soon himself.
There’s no reason to assume Timothy was still in Ephesus when Paul wrote
2 Timothy. The wording in 2 Timothy 1:18 and 4:12 seems to indicate he was in some location other than Ephesus. Wherever he was, he was preparing to leave (2 Timothy 4:21). Of course, we expect this kind of temporary stay when we see the itinerant nature of Timothy’s ministry throughout the New Testament. There’s nothing in Scripture indicating Timothy had a regular pastoral role in any local church.
One elder per house church?
Did each house church in the first century have a sole elder? It’s not hard to find this claim in discussions about church leadership and the early church. The idea is that the church in most cities would have grown to the point where they couldn’t all meet in one location. So, they would have met as smaller house churches, scattered around the city. If this is the case, it’s argued, then it would make sense each house church would need a single elder or pastor. This sounds practical. But how well does this idea hold up to closer examination?
We first need to realize this idea isn’t taught anywhere in Scripture. That doesn’t mean it can’t be true, but when something isn’t clearly described in the Bible, we need to proceed cautiously before just assuming its truth. This conjecture may seem logical to some, but it’s pure conjecture nonetheless. Is this speculation convincing enough to cause us to alter our view of pastoral leadership in the New Testament churches?
We also need to be careful of assuming too quickly the need for additional meeting places for the churches in the New Testament. We’ve learned a great deal about the early church through historical and archaeological studies. The house churches in the early church weren’t groups of 20 Christians crammed into a small living room as we’d think of today. They were more like “villa churches” than “house churches,” and they could typically seat up to 160 people comfortably. (I’ll post much more about this in the future.) This changes our perception of the early churches and their need for multiple meeting places.
Despite these historical insights, it’s certainly possible some church would have eventually failed to find sufficient room to meet together, and would have been forced to meet in separate locations. But here the distinctive wording of Scripture becomes important. The New Testament speaks many times of the “churches” (plural) of a larger region, such as Judea, Galatia or Macedonia (see Acts 15:41; 1 Corinthians 16:1, 19; 2 Corinthians 8:1; Galatians 1:2, 22; 1 Thessalonians 2:14; Revelation 1:4, 11). But when it’s speaking of God’s people in a specific city, it always refers to the “church” (singular) of Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, etc. It never refers to plural churches in any one town or city.
Why is this important? Because if a church—say the church in Corinth—had to meet in three separate homes each week as some suggest, these three meetings would still have constituted one church in Scripture, the church in Corinth, not three individual house churches. So even if we’re to accept the idea the elders were somehow divided up, one per house gathering (and this assumption is itself an entirely unsupported leap), they still would have collectively made up the pastoral leadership of a single church. And the natural way of reading the passages describing the ministry of elders is that they led in concert as a team of pastoral leaders.
For instance, James 5:14 makes little sense in the context of individual house churches, each with a single elder. If a believer regularly attended the same house church, which was pastored by their one elder, and this believer became sick, why would they not just call for their own elder/pastor to pray for them? Why would they call for all the elders of all the house churches? James assumes one church, with a group of elders who collectively pastor the whole church and who are personally known by the members of the church. We also saw last week many other passages that speak of the elders (plural) of a particular church (singular).
Other passages, such as Romans 16:23 and 1 Corinthians 14:23 (for this verse see NIV and other translations) speak of the “whole church” coming together. This seems to discredit the idea of the Christians meeting in multiple house churches, at least in Rome and Corinth. We conclude this because, again, we have no mention in Scripture or even in early church history of multiple churches in one city. With the biblical distinction we saw between churches in larger geographical regions and a single church in each town or city, we have to understand these passages speaking of the “whole church” coming together in Rome and Corinth to actually be referring to the “whole church” coming together in Rome and Corinth. We have no scriptural or historical basis to read this any other way.
So, we find the confident claim the early church met in multiple house churches in each city to be lacking any biblical support, based entirely on conjecture, and not established by any historical evidence. Even if we make the leap of assuming such separate meetings, scripturally we still have a single church in each city pastored by a team of elders. And we fail to find anywhere in Scripture where Peter, James or Timothy functioned as the sole or senior pastor of a church. Next week, we’ll look at a few more common challenges to team pastoral leadership, and a final counter-challenge for those who teach a senior pastor role.
Related posts:
Why We Don’t Have a Senior (or Lead) Pastor
What Do Elders (or Pastors) Do?
Should Elders (or Pastors) Be Financially Supported?