1

A New Testament
Pattern for Church
Leadership

“Many Christians claim that the leadership of their church is based on clear
biblical teaching. What hermeneutical challenges are to be faced in
seeking to move from the diverse New Testament comments about
leadership in the congregation to the life of the institutional church of
our day?”

By Mark Conner
 2

September, 2001

Abstract

The church in the modern world looks to the bible for guidance in
establishing godly and effective leadership structures. One approach has
been to seek for a specific detailed pattern of leadership. The difficulty in this
is that there seems to be no clear prescriptive pattern of leadership in the
teachings of the New Testament. More often than not, this approach simply
results in various church groups or denominations finding “proof texts” to
justify their existing leadership structure. A better approach is to study the
New Testament writings in order to discover what they did and why. Once
this is done, we can then glean principles that can be applied to our culture
and time. By doing this, we can develop a broader consistency in church
leadership structures while allowing for diversity in each unique situation.
Biblical principles of leadership include each believer having a ministry,
some believers called to church leadership, always a plurality of leaders, the
presence of a primary leader, leadership and ministry that is gift based, the
appropriate legitimisation of leaders, leadership patterns that reflect in some
way the prevailing culture, titles given based on function and the
remuneration of ministries as appropriate. By following these biblical
principles of leadership we can see strong and healthy churches emerge in
each community.
 3

Introduction
The church in the modern world faces the challenge of seeking to be
relevant to its contemporary culture yet remain faithful to the biblical record
that outlines both the nature and mission of the church. In seeking to be
“biblical”, there has been much discussion and debate throughout the
centuries about the “biblical” pattern of church leadership.1 Various churches
and denominations within the wider body of Christ often declare that their
particular leadership structure is based on the teaching of the New
Testament. The difficulty lies in the fact that there are so many different
leadership structures existing today, all claiming the Bible as their primary
source and authority.2 So what is the New Testament pattern for church
leadership? I believe that there is no set pattern of leadership presented in
the New Testament, but rather, there are principles that serve to guide the
modern church in establishing godly and effective leadership in fulfilling our
purpose and mission in the world.

A Proper Hermeneutic
Firstly, we must, look at the very nature of Scripture itself and understand
the intention of both the human author(s) and the Holy Spirit who inspired
them. A large portion of the New Testament, and especially the Gospels and
the book of Acts, is in the “narrative” literary genre. Narratives are stories.
They tell us about things that happened and especially, God at work among
his people. Narratives glorify God and provide illustrations of many important
lessons for our lives.

There are four important aspects about narratives:3

1
R. Banks, in his article on “Church Order and Government” in Dictionary of Paul and His
Letters, notes that although Paul was concerned that the church conduct itself in an orderly
manner, matters of governance and organisation appear to be secondary rather than
primary issues in his thinking (Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter-Varsity Press, 1993), p.131-132.
22
Three basic forms of church government exist: autocratic “top down” government (mainly
independent charismatic and Catholic churches, where one person rules with little or no
accountability and no congregational voting), congregational “bottom up” government
(democratic churches where the “majority” rules) and the bureaucratic rule of a few elders
(all having equal authority, where the pastor is hired by and told what to do by a “Board”).
There are many variations and mixtures of these three basic forms of governance. Each of
these can be supported by various Biblical texts.
3
Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for all its Worth (London,
England: Scripture Union, 1992), p.75-77.
 4

1. Narratives are first and foremost stories about what God did to
and through people. God is the hero of the story.

2. Narratives are not allegories or stories filled with hidden

meanings. We are often told what happened but not always how
or why.

3. Narratives do not always teach directly. However, they often

illustrate what is taught directly elsewhere.

4. Each individual narrative does not necessarily have a moral of its

own. The big picture must be kept in view.

These principles are common sense and appear simple enough, especially
when reading the Old Testament. However, when we come to the book of
Acts which tells the story of the church, it is easy to read these narratives as
setting biblical “precedents” or being a “normative” model for church and
Christian life for all times.4

Our interest in this essay is a pattern for church leadership. However, we

must understand that Luke’s primary purpose in writing Acts is simply to
show the movement of the church as orchestrated by the Holy Spirit, not in
setting forth a specific model of Christian experience, church life or a pattern
of church leadership.5 When Luke describes what happened in the time of
the early church, it does not always translate into what must happen in the
ongoing church. Nonetheless, we can glean various principles for our
experience and practice today.

Secondly, we must note that the Bible is an historical revelation. In the New
Testament we find an account of how the first churches were led at that
time. The danger for us today is to look at our modern day church leadership
structures and then look for various Scriptural “proof texts” to validate their
4
Fee and Stuart, ibid., p.96-97.
5
Fee and Stuart, ibid., p.92.
 5

authority and thereby declare them “Biblical”. The problem is that we are
more than two millenniums removed from the life and times of the early
church. This creates an immense “cultural gap” that must be bridged.
Therefore, a theology of church must be an ongoing conversation between
what the Spirit speaks through Scripture, how church tradition has applied
Scripture throughout the centuries and how the principles of Scripture are to
be outworked in our specific contemporary historical-culture context.6

The correct hermeneutical questions are firstly, “What actually happened in

the leadership of the early church and why?” We must seek to approach this
question as honestly and openly as possible, free from as many
presuppositions as possible. Then we need to ask, “How does this apply to
the church in the modern world?” Based on an accurate understanding of
what happened in the apostolic age we can then seek to appropriate
applicable principles to our time and culture.

New Testament Church Leadership

As we look to the New Testament for a pattern of leadership, we see a
leadership structure that is very fluid, diverse and changing. Rather than
presenting one particular model, the New Testament picture of leadership is
very dynamic.

Church leadership in the apostolic age:7

1. Jesus said virtually nothing about how the church was to be organised
or who was to lead it. The only thing he emphasised was that leaders
were to be “servant leaders” (or “leading servants”), not “rulers” like
the leadership style of the culture of that day.8 The twelve apostles
gave leadership to the early church community in Jerusalem, though

6
Stanley J. Grenz and John R. Franke address the issue of shaping theology in a post-modern
context in their book Beyond Foundationalism (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox
Press, 2001).
7
Many of the thoughts in this section of the essay were gleaned from lectures by Kevin Giles
in his D.Min/MA class “A Theology of Church and Ministry in the 21st Century” at Ridley
College, Victoria, Australia.
8
See Mark 10:44. Luke 22:24-27. John 13:14-15.
 6

their primary role was to bear witness to the life, death and
resurrection of Jesus (Acts 1:21).

2. The first churches were “house churches”. They were relatively small
and, at the very most, no more than fifty people attended any
particular home at one time. This was the pattern for the first two
hundred years of the church. This local house church setting would
have greatly influenced the leadership structure of the church. 9 They
had no church buildings as we have today and informality would have
prevailed.

3. The church was greatly influenced by their Jewish culture and roots.
They borrowed many ideas from the local synagogue.10 Synagogues
were led by a “ruler” of the synagogue and a “servant” of the
synagogue, both of whom were office bearers. Under the new dynamic
of the Spirit, these were transformed and the offices11 of “episcopos”
(overseer or bishop) and “deacon” emerged in the life of the church.
Christian elders are very much seen as the counterpart of Jewish
elders, a group of senior men given the general oversight of the
Christian community.12

4. Older men (“elders”) were given authority, which was part of the
patriarchal culture of the time. Timothy, who was most likely in his late
thirties, was considered a “youth”. Church leadership was given to
older people who were respected within their communities. It would
seem that most, if not all, prophets, teachers, bishops and deacons
would have been elders in this sense.

9
See Patterns of Ministry by Kevin Giles (North Blackburn, Victoria: Collins Dove, 1989),
p.12-13.
10
See James Burchaell’s book, From Synagogue to Church (Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press, 1992).
11
Paul only uses one secular office term, the Greek word ajrch, which is used exclusively of
the governing role played by Christ in the church (Col.1:18). Instead the language of
servanthood dominates. R. Banks, Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, p.134.
12
Giles, p.13,37,46
 7

5. The apostolic church moved over time from a very “charismatic church
order” to a more “institutional church order”. 13 Structure, titles and
patterns of leadership emerged and developed slowly. Sociology refers
to this process as “institutionalisation”.

6. There were a variety of leadership structures that emerged

progressively over time.

a. In Acts, the first leaders were the twelve apostles14, with

Peter as their leader. We have no record of them leading
house churches, although they did visit various houses
churches where they ministered (Acts 5:42).

b. In time, the leadership of the church community of

Jerusalem was handed over to “elders” and we hear very
little more about the twelve apostles from this time on.15
These elders emerged suddenly16, with no explanation
from Luke as to who they were or how they were
appointed. We then presume they were the Christian
counterpart of the Jewish elders.

c. The early Pauline letters (pre-50 A.D.) indicate a high

degree of informality and fluidity in the titles used of
leaders. Paul’s first letters, which were to the church at
Thessalonica, simply refer to the “leaders” of the church,
who were most likely the house church leaders (1
Thess.5:12-13). His letters to the church at Corinth also
have no reference to any elders or other leadership titles.
He does refer to house church leaders and Stephanas
seems to be one of the prominent church leaders (1

13
Giles, p.9-12.
14
Besides the twelve apostles, other “missionary apostles” emerge over time, such as Paul
and Barnabas, Apollos, James and Timothy (Acts 14:4,14. 1 Cor.4:9; 9:5; 15:7; 15:9. 2
Cor.11;13). Their primary function seems to be church planting.
15
Acts 15 seems to be a strategic moment in the early church as leadership is passed on to
James and the elders, rather than Peter and the apostles.
16
Refer to Acts 11:30, 14:23; 15:6,22,23; 21:7.
 8

Cor.16:15-16). His theology was that all believers had a

ministry, while some were leaders (1 Cor.12:1-31). Ministry
in both of these churches, including prophecy, is clearly
open to all (1 Thess.5:14-21. 1 Cor.14:1-39).

d. Paul’s letter to the church at Philippi contains the first

mention of what we would call office bearers. Paul writes to
the “bishops and deacons” (Phil.1:1). We have no
explanation as to who these leaders are or what they do.
The most likely explanation is that they were the house
church leaders and assistants, although this is only
conjecture.17

e. Paul’s letter to the church at Ephesus (55-60 A.D.)

emphasises the equipping nature of church leadership
(Eph.4:11-15). Leaders are given by Christ to equip
believers to do the work of the ministry so that the church
may be grow and become mature.

f. In Paul’s latest letters, often referred to as the Pastorals,

we have a much more institutionalised leadership
structure. The office of “bishop”18 and “deacon” is
discussed (1 Tim.3; 5:17ff. Titus 1:5). These leaders are to
be given the “oversight” of the church community (see
also Acts 20:28 and 1 Peter 5:2). “Deacon” was an
everyday word that referred to all believers, then later
became a title for people appointed to this ministry. It
should be noted, that although we have the mention of
these offices and titles (“bishop”, “elder” and “deacon”)
we have no clear “job description” of what they actually
did in the church community.

17
Kevin Giles presents a good case for this in his book Patterns of Ministry.
18
There are a variety of opinions as to whether “bishops” and “elders” were one in the same
person or referred to different leadership responsibilities.
 9

g. A variety of other ministry and leadership titles are

mentioned in the New Testament, including “prophets” (1
Cor.12:29; 14:29. Eph.4:11), “teachers” (1 Cor.12:29. Acts
13:1), “evangelists” (Eph.4:11. 2 Tim.4:5) and “pastors”, or
more literally, “shepherds” (Acts 20:28. Eph.4:11). What
these people actually did and how they related to one
another, as well as to the “bishops”, “elders” and
“deacons” within the church community is unclear.19

As we can see, there is very little evidence of one particular pattern or model
of church leadership in the New Testament. Also, with the few texts we do
have that refer to church leadership, there is much we do not know about
how these people were selected, as well as how they functioned in their
particular ministries.

Principles of Leadership for the Modern Church

We should avoid looking at the modern church and then turning to the Bible
to try and prove that what we’re doing is right. The trouble with this
approach is that our context “colours” so much of what we see and we bring
many cultural presuppositions to the Bible about the church. I would suggest
that it is better to search for “principles” of church leadership in the
Scriptures rather than seeking a specific “pattern” or model to be strictly
adhered to. The Scriptures tend to “describe” what happened in their time
and culture rather than “prescribe” what must happen in all times and in
every culture.20

The following general principles emerge out of the New Testament record of
the church:

19
Ministries such as apostles, prophets, teachers were very important in the New Testament
and seen as primary by Paul (Eph.4:11. 1 Cor.12:28). It is possible that these were trans-
local ministries who travelled around strengthening the churches, appointing local
leadership and making sure the church learned the basic doctrines of Christianity. See
Sharpening the Focus of the Church by Gene Getz (Victor Books: Wheaton, IL, 1984), p.121-
133.
20
If we say that the Scriptures must be “prescriptive” when it comes to a pattern of church
leadership, which pattern do we choose? How do we bring together the diversity?
 10

1. All Christians have a ministry. “Each one” is given at least one spiritual
gift and will be held responsible for their faithful use of it for the
benefit of others. No one in the church is excluded from having to use
their spiritual gifts to serve others. The church is a “body” where
everyone contributes (see 1 Cor.12:1-26. Rom.12:3-8. 1 Pet.4:7-11).

2. God gives some believers to be leaders in every church. Church

leadership is “servant leadership” and leaders are required to be of
godly character (Acts 6:1-7. 1 Tim.3:1-13. Titus 1:5-9). Leaders are
given to serve the church by encouraging its health and growth. They
also are to equip or empower the other believers and release them to
do the work of the ministry (Eph.4:11-13). The concept of an ordained
“clergy” being paid by the “laity” to do the ministry of the church is
not a Biblical paradigm.21

3. Church leadership is always plural. Nowhere do we have a single,

dictatorial leadership style within the church community22. Paul
ordained “elders” in every city, never one “elder” (Acts 14:23). Just as
God is a Trinity in community, so leadership in the church is to be done
in a team environment, where diversity and the wisdom of a multitude
of counsel is the norm.

4. Although leadership is always in the plural, there seems to be an

indication of one of the leadership team being the primary leader, a
“first among equals”. We see Peter and the other eleven apostles (Acts
2:14), then James and the elders (Acts 21:18). This may have emerged
from the Old Testament model of leadership where we have Moses and
the elders (Ex.4:29. Num.11:16), Joshua and the elders (Josh.24:1.
Jud.2:7) and also David and the elders of Israel (2 Sam.5:3. 1
Chron.15:25). It is possible that the “bishop” was a singular leader over
a church in a locality with a team of “elders” assisting in the oversight

21
Clement of Rome (96 A.D.) was the first person to distinguish the congregation from its
leaders. This was a small but significant step that later led to the ordination of “clergy” as a
separate order and status from the laity. It is sad to realise that there has only been a strong
resurging emphasis on “lay ministry” since the 1960s.
22
Diotrephes was corrected for exhibiting this style of leadership (3 John 9).
 11

of that community. Kevin Giles sees the “elders” as the community

leaders and the “bishop” as responsible for leadership of an individual
house church.23 It was not until the time of Ignatius24 that we see the
rise of the “monarchical bishop”, where the bishop was the
“unquestioned leader of the community of a given city, who presides
over a council of elders and is assisted by a group of deacons”.25

[It is interesting to note that church growth researchers have

concluded that the number one vital sign of a healthy, growing church
is “a pastor who is a possibility thinker and whose dynamic leadership
has been used to catalyze the entire church into action for growth.” 26
God gives vision primarily to a chosen leader, not to committees.
However, that leader is wisest to outwork the clarification and
implementation of any vision with a team of godly gifted people.]

5. Leadership and ministry are to be “gift based”. In other words,

leaders should be appointed because of their evident gifting and
ability to perform a particular ministry or task, remembering that
the one sure sign that this giftedness is of God is the character of
their lives (see what Jesus said about true and false prophets in
Matt.7:15-23).27 God has designed the church so that those with
the spiritual gift of leadership should lead, those with a teaching
gift should teach, those with a mercy gift should be the mercy
showers, those with caring gifts should care, etc. New Testament
ministries are first described as an “activity” then later as an
“office”. People who prophesy regularly and faithfully came to be
known as “prophets”. People who reach many others for Christ
and are skilled at equipping others to share their faith came to

23
Patterns of Ministry, p.38-40.
24
Eusebius makes Ignatius the third bishop of Antioch in Syria and dates his martyrdom in
Rome in A.D. 108. Ibid., p.24.
25
Ibid., p.42.
26
Peter Wagner, Your Church Can Grow (Ventura, California: Regal Books, 1976), p.63.
27
Verbs rather than nouns tend to be used more frequently of those making contributions to
the church. This means that it is the function people perform rather than the positions they
occupy which is crucial. R. Banks, Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, p.134.
 12

be known as “evangelists”. Function should precede any title or

office.28

6. There is need for the “legitimization” of leadership once a community

of believers becomes more established. In the church, everyone should
be able to minister and the community and/or its leaders are to
recognize or appoint others to leadership based on their effectiveness
and fruitfulness in ministering to the rest of the church.29 There seems
to be no set formula for this. New leaders seem to be appointed as the
need arose. Leadership initially may be assumed by those called by
God to found a church, but once the church is established, church
leaders are responsible to legitimize other believers into official
positions of ministry.30 The apostolic church legitimized specific leaders
through the “laying on of hands”31 (Acts 6:6; 9:17. 1 Tim.4:14) or
through “letters of commendation” (1 Cor.16:3. 2 Cor.3:1). Although
the term is never used in the Bible, these principles form the basis for
the concept “ordination”, though not as it developed in the Middle
Ages as almost a magical act.32

7. Leadership in the church in some ways reflected leadership patterns in

the prevailing culture, though never contradicting any Christian virtue
or moral principle. Therefore, in our contemporary culture,
consideration should be given to both younger people and women to
assume leadership positions in the church based on godliness and
gifting. Discrimination based on age or gender in a society where

28
For Paul, the person, not the office, is central and “church government has more to do
with a way of life than a designated post”. Paul treats authority as something relational and
functional not as something official or sacral. R. Banks, Dictionary of Paul and His Letters,
p.133.
29
This clearly the pattern when it comes to appointing the first group of new leaders in the
church at Jerusalem (Acts 6:1-7).
30
Max Weber, an influential 19th century German sociologist, expounded the concept of
“legitimisation”. He saw this as a group giving a person the right to lead. This may occur
because of charisma, age or birth (tradition) or through appointment by existing leaders
(rational). Others since Weber have added expertise or knowledge as another cause of
legitimising a particular leader. In the real world, leaders have a mixture of these
components.
31
The “laying on of hands” was also used for receiving the Spirit (Acts 8:17), healing from
illness (Acts 9:17) and commissioning for itinerant service (Acts 13:2).
32
We are told that Paul and Barnabas did “appoint” elders in every church (Acts 14:23), but
this could have been simply ratifying the community’s choice as done earlier (Acts 6:1-7).
 13

education and opportunities abound for young people and women is

inappropriate. Involving young people and women in church leadership
should not be seen as “unbiblical”, as the New Testament church gave
more opportunity to younger people and to women than the
surrounding culture did, though is was influenced by the cultural norms
within which it existed.33

8. Titles should be given to match or identify specific ministry function.

Titles are to be descriptive of the actual work that the leader does.
Many churches have adopted exact terms used from the Bible for their
leadership titles - “elder”, “bishop” or “deacon”. In reality, these titles
were initially chosen because they described a specific function in the
language of the day. The word “bishop” means “overseer”, so it was a
title given to those who were overseeing or supervising the church.
The word “deacon” means “servant”, so it was given to those who
served in the church. We are now two thousand years away from the
context and meaning of these New Testament words. In fact, these
English words now mean something completely different because they
now carry all kinds of history and tradition that has tainted their
original meaning.

Take for example the Mexican word “burrito”, which in the West now
refers to a flour tortilla wrapped around beans or chicken. If you went
to rural Mexico and asked for a “burrito” they would bring you a “little
donkey”. Why? It is because the word “burrito” means “little donkey”
(“burro” means “big donkey”). We have taken a Spanish word and
have given it a completely different meaning than it originally had.

Therefore, there is a danger in simply taking New Testament words

such as “elder”, “bishop” and “deacon” and assuming that what we
think they mean is what they actually meant in the apostolic age. In

33
Jesus and Paul brought great freedom and value to women in a culture dominated by
patriarchy (Luke 8:1-3. Rom.16:3). They also chose, mobilised and encouraged young
leaders into ministry in a culture where age was highly respected (1 Tim.4:12). Paul refers to
women apostles and prophets, two primary leadership ministries in the church (Rom.16:6-7.
1 Cor.11:5)
 14

reality, these words are now infused with hundreds of years of church
tradition, religious meaning and cultural baggage.

Today, especially in many Pentecostal churches, many leaders in the

church are called “pastor”. The concept of a local “pastor” evolved out
of Medieval Europe. The title “pastor” is a Latin word translated by
Luther and not a true translation of the Greek word poimevna" (which
literally means a “shepherd”, a person who cares for sheep). Often the
term “pastor” creates confusion of expectation for church leaders and
members. A “pastor” is seen as a primary caregiver or shepherd.
Although this is part of a minister’s function, the term “leader” or
“senior minister” reflects much more accurately the Biblical concept of
an equipping leader. “Leaders” is a much more functional word and
incorporates the responsibility to motivate, train and release the other
members of the church to significant ministry.

Over the years, the church has adopted other titles for different
functions within the church that are not mentioned in the Bible. These
include titles such as “worship leader”, “youth pastor”, “church
administrator”, “hospitality team”, “usher”, “church secretary”,
“church caretaker”, etc.34 However, in most churches, there has been a
hesitancy to drop the use of the titles “elder” or “deacon” (some have
dropped the title “bishop”). This is in spite of the fact that these titles
no longer have meaning in our culture, in that they no longer describe
the function in terms that are understood by the average person with
no Biblical context.

The New Testament encourages us to ensure that each task and

function of leadership occurs within the church, but it in no way does it
give us a set structure, model or list of titles that must be used in all
situations. The emphasis is on function and the ongoing growth and

34
It is interesting to note that the word “priest” only appears metaphorically in Paul of a
wide range of devotional, compassionate, financial and evangelistic activities (cf.
Rom.15:16,27. Phil.2;17,25,30. 2 Cor.9:12), activities in which not only apostles but other
Christians engage. R. Banks, Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, p.134.
 15

health of the church, which very much depends on godly, passionate

and balanced leadership.

Why not just call people according to what they do, using
contemporary and relevant titles? If a person leads the youth ministry
then call them a “youth leader”. If a person serves in various areas of
helps around the church, call them a “volunteer” or “helper”, which is
probably the most accurate equivalent for the New Testament concept
of “deacon” or servant. Call the leader of the community outreach
ministry the “Community Services Director”, or something similar.

Consideration may even be given to why churches should even have a

group of “elders”. Why not have a “leadership team” or a “church
board”?35 If young people are included in church leadership, why call
them an “elder” when they may not be considered old in our culture.
More contemporary titles better describe the function of these people
in our church context. In doing so, we are not compromising or
eliminating these Biblical roles. We are simply upholding the Biblical
concepts and then describing how it works in our context.

In other words, you could say something like, “The Bible talks about
‘deacons’ who served the church community. In our church, everyone
needs a servant spirit and we encourage you to become a volunteer in
some ministry area.” The title then given to each person will relate to
what they do (their function) – “car park supervisor”, “usher”, “home
group leader”, etc. In reality, all believers are “deacons” with a specific
servant ministry.

35
Though borrowing business models for the church has its dangers, the concept of a “CEO”
leading an organization of workers and held accountable to a “Board of Directors” is similar
to the concept of a “Senior Minister” leading the ministries of a church and being held
accountable to a team of “elders”. Many people have a problem with using business
concepts, yet Jesus’ teaching, especially the parables, is filled with examples from the
businesses of his day (e.g. fishing, shepherding, farming, property management, financial
investment, etc).
 16

In reference to elders, you could say something like, “The Bible talks
about the importance of church leadership. They called their leaders
‘elders’ and their role was to lead, manage, shepherd and teach the
church. In our church these important functions are carried out by the
following groups of people.” The titles given to each person or group
will describe their function – “senior minister”, “church council
member”, “area pastor”, “counsellor”, “business manager”, “building
committee member”, etc.

9. Although the majority of key people in local congregations appear to

have worked independently for a living,36 some church leaders were
remunerated for their ministry (1 Tim.5:17-18). This means that those
who serve the church by giving a large portion of their time to the
ministry may receive financial compensation or employment as part-
time or full-time staff. In fact, in our era, the payment of leaders is
more important for we live in a specialised age where those with other
jobs have less time to give to ministry than those in other cultures.

Conclusion
Throughout church history, there has been a quest to find the most biblical
model of church governance – to be a New Testament church. In reality, we
only have a little detail about the structure and function of the early church
leadership roles and this is not uniform or fixed. In our desire to be biblical,
we should focus on principles rather than specific models or methods. Much
of what we do in the modern church, though not necessarily wrong, is not
prescribed by the Bible but has emerged over time through the traditions of
the church. I believe that the wisest approach is to appropriate the biblical
principles of church leadership to our particular time and culture. As we do
this, we can see healthy growing churches emerge in every community.

36
Paul did and so did Aquilla and Priscilla (Acts 18:3), Lydia (Acts 16:14) and Erastus
(Rom.16:23).
 17

Bibliography

Burtchaell, James Tunstead. From Church to Synagogue: Public Services and

Offices in the Earliest Christian Communities. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press, 1992.

Conner, Kevin. The Church in the New Testament. Kent, England: Sovereign
World International, 1982.

Fee, Gordon D. and Stuart, Douglas. How to Read the Bible for All It’s Worth:
A Guide to Understanding the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Zondervan Corporation, 1982.

Getz, Gene. The Measure of a Church. Glendale, California: Gospel Light

Publications, 1975.

_________ Sharpening the Focus of the Church. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books,
1984.

Gibbs, Eddie and Coffey, Ian. Church Next: Quantum Changes in Christian
Ministry. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 2001.

Giles, Kevin. Patterns of Ministry Among the First Christians. North Blackburn,
Victoria: Collins Dove, 1989.

________ What on Earth is the Church? Victoria, Australia: HarperCollins

Publishers, 1995.

________ Making Good Churches Better. Victoria, Australia: Acorn Press,

2001.

________ Class notes from lectures in A Theology of Church and Ministry in

the 21st Century. Victoria, Australia: Ridley College, 2001.

Grenz, Stanley J. and Franke, John R. Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping

Theology in a Post Modern Context. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster
John Knox Press, 2001.

Hawthorne, Gerald F., Martin, Ralph. P. and Reid, Daniel G. [Editors]

Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter-Varsity
Press, 1993.

MacArthur, John. The Master’s Plan for the Church. Chicago, USA: Moody
Press, 1991.

Wagner, Peter. Your Church Can Grow. Ventura, California: Regal Books,
1976.
 18

_________ Leading Your Church to Growth. Ventura, California: Regal Books,

1984.