**What follows is a condensed excerpt from an extended research paper written to complete my seminary work, posted in hopes that the content is beneficial.
I
have been deeply involved churches of the Restoration Movement my entire life.
From a preacher’s kid to a Bible college student to a minister myself, I have
really only ever been in Christian churches. As a result, I familiar with the
principles and ideals of our churches and how they have been practiced. As
such, I am aware of the fervor with which many cling to the independence of the
local church and the difficulties that brings to the establishment of any
formal alliances among local churches. Considering my attachment to the topic,
it is no surprise that I see things differently, but I believe we can find a
common ground that honors our heritage and elevates biblical authority.
For
those not familiar with the Restoration Movement, it is historically centered
on the key tenets of unity and Biblical authority and is typified by a desire
to return to the form and function of the New Testament Church as much as is
possible. As such, in order to make an adequate proposal for cooperative
efforts and shared leadership among such churches, it is worthwhile to first present
evidence that such an endeavor is in fact Biblical and in alignment with the
principles of the Restoration Movement. In doing so, the Biblical foundation provided
can be appreciated by church leaders of any denominational background
considering such alliances.
For
the founders of the Restoration Movement, the
elevation of biblical authority was a response to issues concerning church
government and denominationalism. In claiming a single divine authority, they
aimed to unite those who were otherwise divided by worldly structures and
creeds. In reflecting on this history, we find that if our independence
interrupts our interdependence, we have likely missed the point entirely. In
practical terms, the pursuit of both local autonomy and Christian unity often
seem to be competing ideals. Ideally, though, the two are held in tension with
one another; seeking one without sacrificing the other. One must not violate the principle of local autonomy to embrace the biblical
precedent of shared leadership.
My interest in collaboration stems directly from the Restorationist
appeal for unity, so reciting the Biblical mandates for unity would be
extraneous in this context. The higher test these strategies face is whether
they have the potential to eclipse the autonomy of the local church and
undermine the desire to find authority in Scripture alone. My suggestion is that
a look at the practices of the Church and its leaders in the New Testament confirms
the validity of collaboration among churches.
Shared
Leadership in Scripture
It is helpful to frame the issue by contrasting the desire
for control with the call to submission. Often, the objection to shared
leadership or cooperative efforts is a feared loss of control.[1]
A local church does not have to sacrifice autonomy in their submission when it
acknowledges the fundamental difference between willing submission and forced
compliance. We can submit to the direction of outsiders without sacrificing
biblical authority. We can become accountable to one another so far as the
standard we are being held to is Scripture. We can relinquish control without
losing liberty. In doing so, we can recapture something that has been lost from
the primitive church’s example – a spirit of cooperation and shared leadership.
The Apostle Paul modeled a willingness to submit himself to
the leadership of others by his participation in the Jerusalem Council in Acts
15. Having been involved in a doctrinal conflict, Paul was among those
appointed to bring the issue before the apostles and elders in Jerusalem. “Once
again, when there is a dispute about innovation or new twists in the task of
applying the gospel to contemporary challenges, our missionaries touch base
with apostolic authority in Jerusalem.”[2]
While he took the opportunity to argue his own position, Paul willfully submitted
himself to the authority of the council as a representative from Antioch. Far
from a cry for absolute autonomy even though he claimed apostolic authority himself,
this willful, temporary, narrow submission was a request for assistance in an
area of doctrinal division. The sides agreed upon the authority of the council
and, in doing so, preserved unity by sharing leadership.
Submission is prescribed by Paul in a variety of settings
throughout his writings. At various times, he calls his readers to submit to
authorities (Romans 13:5, 1 Peter 2:13), to submit to one another out of
reverence for God (Ephesians 5:21), and to submit to the example of specific
people outside their local fellowship (1 Corinthians 16:16). When we fail to
submit ourselves to the direction and accountability of others in appropriate
circumstances, we neglect the biblical precedent. It may very well be that the
things we cling to are not the biblical things we ought to be elevating, but
the very traditions and historical proclivities our movement sought to
terminate.
We can easily move past the philosophical case for shared leadership
to practical models from the New Testament Church. For this, we need look no further
than to its two most prominent leaders: Peter and Paul. We see these men
exercising authority over multiple congregations while each maintained a sense
of local independence. In Paul’s case, even with his apostolic oversight, it
has been noted that “Pauline communities were, to a large extent,
organizationally independent of each other. They were able to adopt and adapt
different dynamics of leadership, and were variously influenced dependent on
the dominant personalities in each congregation.”[3]
They practiced the sort of local autonomy and individual identity sought in the
Restoration Movement while still observing a shared leader in Paul.
Looking to the example of Titus, we can also identify such
influence demonstrated by one who is not an Apostle. This is an essential
distinction for those who identify the authority carried by Peter and Paul as a
special power bestowed only to the Apostles. Titus offers a clear example
beyond such “first generation” Christian leaders. It is in Titus that we can
find one of the best examples of leadership being shared among multiple local
churches. Paul directs Titus; “to put
everything in order” and “appoint elders in every town” (Titus 1:5). Clearly Titus
is given at least temporary authority for the oversight and direction of the
congregations on the island of Crete. Calvin notes, “Paul testifies
that he has appointed him in his own room; and on that account all should
acknowledge and receive him with reverence as the Apostle’s deputy.”[4]
The local congregations had their own elders,
but still offered a level of deference to the teaching of Titus, especially as
he was the one who appointed the elders. Beyond these examples of shared leadership,
the New Testament accounts offer us a wealth of examples of collaborative efforts
shared by different congregations.
New
Testament Collaboration
The first specific record of shared efforts among the local congregations
in the early Church we will consider is the appointing of seven men to a
specific role in Acts 6. In its first days, the Church did not much resemble a
single congregation by modern standards. Instead it was something more like
multiple home churches and intermingling congregations. Scripture reports of
the disciples: “And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they
did not cease teaching and preaching that the Christ is Jesus.”[5]
It was into this environment that these seven men were
appointed as the result of a conflict between two distinct groups within the
Jerusalem church: the Hebrews and the Hellenists. The Hellenists felt their
widows were being neglected in the daily distribution of food, and the apostles
responded by creating a unique collaboration between these two groups of
Christians. Rather than dividing the responsibility between the distinct groups,
they created a servant role to address the problem from a position of
unity. Even though Jerusalem was a
substantial city and the Church numbered in the thousands at this point, the
apostles responded to the problem with a cooperative effort. Rather than
concern for the independence of each individual group, they presented a
solution that continued their interdependence.
As the Church grew beyond Jerusalem, its tendency towards
collaboration among localized groups of believers continued. This claim is
substantiated by the collection for the Jerusalem church initiated by Paul and “spearheaded
and sustained by small congregations.”[6]
This effort included various congregations from different towns, all
contributing to the same purpose, while Paul offered central leadership for the
collection and transmission of these funds. “The collection was both an act of
charity as well as a symbol of unity between the Gentiles and Jews in the
church”[7] We can see clear Biblical
precedence for the partnering together of independent local churches with a
shared purpose, recognizing a shared leader, participating in a collaborative
effort.
The distribution of the documents we now recognize as the New
Testament in the early days of the Church can also provide us with a model for
the sharing of resources among local churches. The letter to the Galatians was
not addressed to a single locality, but rather to the churches throughout
Galatia (Galatians 1:2). This was a single
letter, shared among multiple communities of believers. We see something
similar in Paul’s letter to the Colossians where he recommends that they share
their letter with the church in Laodicea and to in turn read the letter he had
sent to them (Colossians 4:16). It is reasonable to assume that this pattern of
sharing was followed in the early Church for other books of the New Testament. N.T.Wright
writes:
Paul
also intends that the other churches in the locality of Collossae should be in
touch with them and should share in fellowship. To that end he has also written
a letter to the church in Laodicea… When the two letters have been read, he
wants them to swap them over and read each other’s… they are, as we might say,
“circulars.” Interestingly, the letter we call Ephesians seems most probably to
have been a circular (as well).[8]
Drawing from Paul’s own words, we find that he made a habit
of recommending fellowship among the churches he led as well as the sharing of
human resources. Returning to his final remarks in Colossians 4, we see that he
sends greetings from several mutual acquaintances, including Ephaphras, who is
“one of them,” has apparently joined Paul in ministry, and is doing well in
representing those in Colossae, Laodicea, and Hieropolis. Paul also instructs
the Colossians to welcome Mark if he comes to them, and asks the readers to
further pass along his greetings to the brothers in Laodicea and to Nympha
and the church in her house (Colossians 4:7-15). In this single passage,
we see Paul sending individuals to serve with a congregation he supports,
reporting on the efforts of an individual they have sent to serve alongside
him, and encouraging the connection between the churches who share his leadership.
N.T. Wright describes this connection as a thread:
…I
have sometimes been fascinated by the way in which a small thread, which in
itself is not very strong, and can be snapped with one sharp tug, will hold two
pieces of cloth together very firmly, and withstand all kinds of pressure, once
there are enough stiches in a line, and close enough together. Individually
they are weak; together they are strong. What Paul is doing in these closing
greetings is stitching his own little group in Ephesus, in the prison itself
and… on to the little group of Christians in Colossae.[9]
The earliest practices of the Church establish a clear
pattern for fellowship and the sharing of resources, mission, and leaders among
congregations. Recognizing the practices of the first Christians, we must
approach the call to autonomy with common sense, holding it in tension with the
pursuit of unity. For the primitive church, independence was not absolute and
sharing in a variety of forms was both commonplace and celebrated.
[1] Interview Subject #1,
Interviewed by Seth Bates,. Personal Interview, Broken Bow, NE. March 3, 2016.
[3] Andrew D. Clarke, Serve
the Community of the Church: Christians as Leaders and Ministers, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 2000), Kindle Edition: Location 1396.
[5] ESV Study Bible: English Standard Version, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2011), Acts 5:42. Unless
otherwise noted, all biblical passages referenced are in the English
Standard Version.
[6] Chris Bruno and Matt Dirks, Churches Partnering Together:
Biblical Strategies for Fellowship, Evangelism, and Compassion (Crossway, 2014), Kindle Edition:
Location 187.
[8] N. T. Wright, Paul for Everyone: The Prison Letters: Ephesians,
Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon, (London: SPCK, 2004), 192-193.
