House Churches. Early Church Structure of Authority

I. Introduction

Is it necessary to have a structure of authority in a church? Is there a specific biblical structure which should be followed or do structures of authority deprive individuals of the opportunity to express themselves on an equal footing? Over the years I’ve heard many varied answers to these questions. I have witnessed churches of say 100 people who elected elders in order to give the appearance of a biblical structure, and these men continually submit to the one paid pastor whether the pastor was right or wrong. I have also witnessed churches where a new pastor was called who taught hyper-grace or hyper-Calvinist theology, and slowly mixed this theology into the church and suppressed any who dared to challenge him.

I also know of quite a number of people who have left one-man-ministry churches and started house churches, but have no authority structure, nor any statement of faith, and eventually schisms arose and split these groups.

In this article I want to discuss the importance of a specifically biblical structure of authority for any sized church, and the importance of having a detailed statement of faith to which all must adhere. So let’s first examine the early Church structure found in Scripture.

II. Choosing the First Elders

All would agree that the initial authority instituted by the Lord Himself was in the apostles who established the church, first in Jerusalem to the Jews, and later, to the Gentiles, predominately through the apostle Paul. We are told that after Peter’s first sermon on the Day of Pentecost that 3000 people were born again and baptized (Acts 2:41). Luke writes that:

42 They devoted themselves to the apostle’s teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and prayer. 43 Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. 44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 43 Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to everyone as he had need. 46 Every day they continued to meet in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved. (Acts 2:42-47)

We don’t know for certain how many of the eleven apostles remained in Jerusalem immediately after Pentecost and for how long. We do know that they chose a replacement for Judas Iscariot, and this person had to have been ‘with them the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out from among them, beginning from the time of John the Baptist to the time Christ was taken up to heaven’ (Acts 1:21-22). It is obvious from this statement that the apostles believed it necessary that this person had been with Christ for those three years of the Lord’s ministry.

So…here is a fledgling church of thousands of people meeting regularly in their homes, eating together, sharing possessions, and also meeting in the temple courts to listen to the apostles teaching. We don’t know how large the house church meetings were, but many Jewish homes had a courtyard which could contain up to 50-100 people. Discounting the fact that many people may have left Jerusalem not long after Pentecost, having been in the city for Passover, we could speculate that there may have been at least 40—50 house churches within a short time in Jerusalem and its surroundings.

We are also told that Peter and John were the main public speakers, so perhaps the other apostles were teaching in the house churches during this time. But there is something else very important to consider. There were 120 people in the upper room on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 1:15), both men and women, and some had been following the Lord for several years. We may also assume that men such as Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, who took Jesus body down from the cross, were there also. My point is this. There was already a large pool of especially Jewish men who had a thorough knowledge of Old Testament Scripture, and even those who were saved on that first day are called ‘God-fearing Jews from every nation’ (Acts 2:3). 

Most of these people knew the Old Testament Scriptures better than Christians today who own four Bibles and have been sitting in churches for years. They knew the Levitical Law, they understood sacrifice, atonement, sin, forgiveness, and repentance and were godly people, disciplined in their habits. Peter did not stand up on the Day of Pentecost and preach about fornication, adultery, stealing and most importantly rebellion against God, rather, his main accusation was that they had crucified the Messiah, they had refused to believe that Jesus Christ was the One promised to Israel. This theme of preaching is very obvious in the first chapters of Acts where the gospel is brought to the Jews.

As a side note. We should never use the early chapters of Acts as a template for evangelism unless our evangelism is to a group of sincere God-fearing Jews who have travelled long distances to make atonement for their sins. The vast majority of people we are called to evangelize in Western Cultures have either been inoculated against true Christianity and think it irrelevant, or rebellious atheists demanding to live as they choose. Our starting point is NOT the same as Peter’s Jewish audience!

I believe it is safe to assume that in those first few days and months after Pentecost, that the apostles, and those who have walked with the Lord for years, spent much of their time pouring through the Old Testament Scriptures and identifying Christ as the true Messiah. One can only imagine both the shock and joy when they read passages such as Isaiah chapter 52-53 though the lens of new birth.

My point is this: Finding capable, godly men who knew the Scriptures and were trained in godly discipline would not have been difficult for the apostles, and these people were appointed as the first elders, men who were under the authority of the apostles. Let’s now look at the words used to describe those in authority in the Church.

III. Early Church Structure of Authority 

The title of 'bishop' (episkopos) means 'overseer', the person or persons who watch over the Church, especially in terms of doctrine. The overseer is the one who guards the truth which has been handed down. The title of 'presbyter' (presbyteros) means 'elder', yet these words seem to be used to speak of the same roles in Acts 11:30, 15:22, but distinguished from apostles in Acts 15:2, 6. In Acts 15 we see the role of elders in action when a dispute broke out about new believers having to be circumcised. This issue was immediately referred to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem and is recognized as the first Church council on doctrine.

In Paul's letters we see the introduction of the word 'deacon' (diakonos) with basically means 'servant' or 'minister'. A good example of deacons is found in Acts 6 where Stephen and six others were appointed with the task of the distribution of food in order to give time to the apostles for ministry (Acts 6:1-2). The apostles chose men who were, ‘known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom’ (Acts 6:3) to take on this responsibility, and their appointment was through the laying on of hands by the apostles (Acts 6:5-6).

As the Church grew and spread, a chief elder/bishop had authority over a particular city of house churches which had elders of their own. In this capacity Timothy was the bishop of Ephesus, Polycarp the bishop of Smyrna, Irenaeus the bishop of Lyons, etc. The first elders were ordained for ministry by the apostles, and in turn, these elders ordained new elders to their positions of authority (1 Timothy 4:14). 

From the earliest years of the Church elders were subject to one another. We witness this fact from the first Jerusalem Council (around 50AD) which met to discuss the issue of whether or not Gentile believers must be circumcised and required to obey the Law of Moses (Acts 15:5-6) as previously mentioned. Subsequent councils called the bishops of cities to attend councils regarding theological issues such as in the Arian controversy. In this sense, no elder or bishop of a city was considered independent, for all submitted to each other to uphold the unity of the Church, and no elder was self-ordained.

IV. The Character of Elders and Deacons

In his letters to Timothy (1 Tim 3:1-13) and Titus (1:6-9) Paul lays out the characteristics which are compulsory for both elders and deacons. They are;

1. Blameless, the husband of one wife and have children who live according to the faith.

2. Not over-bearing or quick tempered, prone to excessive alcohol, violence or pursuing dishonest gain.

3. Must be hospitable, love what is good, be self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined.

All of the above are expected of both elders and deacons and both must be tested before being ordained to office as instructed and implied in 1 Timothy 3:10. It is obvious that those who can be either elders or deacons are being led by the Holy Spirit, producing the fruits of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-24) and are those who have 'trained themselves' with solid biblical teaching (Hebrews 5:11-14).

V.  The Roles of Overseers (Elders)

The roles of elders are set out in Ephesians 4:11-12, 1 Timothy 3:1-7, 5:17, Titus 1:6-9 and Hebrews 13:17. The elders are primarily charged with the spiritual welfare of the Church, preaching and teaching the Scriptures and maintaining the purity of the biblical witness. 

It is in this sense that elders have authority (Hebrews 13:17) and are called 'shepherds' of the flock. Does this mean that the house churches had changed and now everyone was sitting listening to one or two men preach each Sunday? No, it does not. The model of service laid out in the previous video from 1st Corinthians was the norm with ‘everyone’ contributing in one way or other. Both men and women were involved in prophesying and interpretation, not prophecy as telling the future, but in bringing a word of instruction and encouragement from the Lord. The elder’s role was to discern and either approve or reject if what was being offered was of the Holy Spirit or not. 

The training of elders is implicit in Paul's letters. For example, Paul spent three years in Ephesus with Timothy before the young man was given charge of the Ephesus house churches. No doubt being under the apostle Paul’s guidance for three years would be like doing a practical theology course equivalent to a Bachelor or Master’s Degree. Both 1st and 2nd Timothy and Titus are summaries of Paul's teaching and instructions regarding various theological and disciplinary issues.

Paul states that no recent convert can be an elder, he must have a good reputation with outsiders (1 Timothy 3:6-7), and be able to hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it (Titus 1:9). Paul instructs Timothy to avoid senseless quarrels, to present himself to God as one approved, to instruct those who oppose him gently, and to use Scripture for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness (2 Timothy 2:14-25, 3:16).

VI. The Role of Deacons

The roles of deacons are not set out specifically in the New Testament. One noticeable distinction is that elders must 'be able to teach' (1 Timothy 3:2) whereas this qualification is not a requirement for deacons. Likewise, although new converts are forbidden to be elders, this prohibition is not applied to deacons. As previously mentioned, in Acts 6, seven men were selected to perform duties of administration and the distribution of food in order for the apostles to attend to 'prayer and the ministry of the word' (v4). One of those selected was a new convert by the name of Nicolas (v5). 

These men were ordained by the apostles through prayer and the laying on of hands (v6). The role of deacons, therefore, is assigned to faithful men of God whose spiritual gifts are in works of service to the Church such as administration (1 Corinthians 12:28), the handling of finances and other duties in order to allow elders to concentrate on the spiritual welfare of the flock. 

VII. Statement of Faith

If you were asked what your church teaches on various topics would you know and does it matter? One of the reasons I eventually left a large church in Kyiv and started house churches was that the church had no statement of faith. There were about 12 ‘pastors’ in this church and I worked specifically in youth ministry for students and people from 18-30 years, a group of about 150. Our youth services were on Saturday evenings and these same people would attend the main service on a Sunday morning.

In this church there was a hyper-charismatic pastor who would wear a t-shirt which stated that if you were not raising the dead, healing the sick and performing all of Jesus’ miracles, you were not a ‘normal christian’, despite the fact that he had never done any of these. Leadership insisted that this man be given the opportunity to preach at youth services on occasions, and after each service, we were left to clean up the mess. After being confronted, he eventually ditched the t-shirt, but still teaches this same deluded fantasy. 

We also had a hyper-Calvinist who taught that all of the gifts of the Spirit had ceased to exist and that people were either predestined to heaven or hell. Added to this were several hyper-grace pastors heavily influenced by American sponsors no one wanted to offend, and a part-time Messianic Jewish pastor whose Messianic church taught that circumcision was necessary for salvation.

How can people grow in Christ and discipleship when the messages they hear utterly contradict each other? Satan is the author of confusion, and there can be no unity where a church has pastors and elders whose doctrine is absolutely opposed to each other. I was a self-supported missionary serving in this church for several years, and my wife and I were criticized for not signing a membership card stating we agreed to follow the church’s teaching. We asked for a statement of faith which we could read and decide to sign, but there was nothing, just a statement that we would agree to support the church with attendance, tithes and offerings. 

After several years of serving in the youth ministry and constantly having to confront the false  and contradictory theology of various leaders, we decided to start house churches. We had four initial elders who had been serving for years, and our first priority was to spend several months writing a very detailed seven page Statement of Faith. In simple terms, we addressed every controversial issue we had needed to confront over the years and carefully laid out our position from Scripture. In regards to how we interpret Scripture we use the following rule which is the foundational statement of my Practical Systematic Theology textbook. It states:

‘If there is one verse or passage of Scripture which, when interpreted within its context,  contradicts us, then we have got it wrong.’

This is the standard we apply to ourselves. If all of Scripture does not agree with our conclusions, then we are not teaching all of Scripture. Of course, we make ourselves available to discuss our position to anyone wanting to become a member, but if anyone is not committed to stand with us in unity, then our house churches are not for them. 

Having a detailed Statement of Faith, thoroughly reinforced by Scripture, is essential for every church. Our Statement of Faith covers all of the fundamental doctrines of the Church, but also issues such as assurance of salvation, baptism, hell and immortality, inherited sin, tithing, marriage and sexuality, church planting, the use of alcohol, women’s roles, and theological extremes.  I will include a link to our Statement of Faith in the description of the video for this article.

https://koinonia.org.ua/en/about-us

VIII. In Summary

In my opinion, a church which has no biblical structure of authority, and no detailed Statement of Faith which can seamlessly accommodate all of Scripture without contradiction, is a ship without a rudder. The Lord made it very clear that we must build on a solid foundation, but sadly, many leaders are willing to live with denominational traditions which contradict Scripture in the fear of losing their positions of power. 

For example, when I had finished the first draft of my Practical Systematic Theology I sent the manuscript to about twenty pastors from various denominations and asked them to offer advice, critique and a review. I asked each to please show me where they believed I was wrong, or missed an important point so that I could evaluate and correct.

I knew before sending it that many of these men would have difficulty in agreeing with everything as their denominational theology was fundamentally opposed to each other. My book presented all views on foundational doctrines, and a biblical critique of each view, and my hope was that it may spur discussion towards unity, the very thing Jesus prayed for in John 17:21-23.

I was not so naïve that I thought everyone would be willing to abandon their traditional doctrines which contradict Scripture, but the responses I received were sometimes disturbing. All who read the book, or at least some of it, were very encouraging. Two pastors admitted that they agreed with my assessment of a particular controversial issue, but if they taught my conclusions from the pulpit, they would be fired immediately. I appreciated their honesty. Still others said they enjoyed my approach and arguments, but wanted to agree to disagree and would not have time to discuss my conclusions.

My father and other mentors had always insisted that I approach every theological issue with an open mind and open Bible, being willing to be corrected, and I have tried to be faithful to that advice. Every person in a position of leadership will one day stand before the Lord and answer for what they taught, and for this reason, we are commanded to submit to one another, to be teachable, and ultimately, admit when we are wrong.

We live in a time when, as Paul predicted, people would not tolerate sound doctrine. We must apply the rule that ALL of Scripture must agree with what we teach and discard any tradition which can be contradicted with the word of God. This must be our foundation, and we must have leaders who use their authority, not to enforce their denominational bias or tradition, but refuse to teach anything which is contrary to the entire word of God.

I pray this article has been helpful for you. God bless

Steve Copland