Lesson 2

QUALITIES OF A CHURCH

Rev. Stanley L. Derickson Ph.D.

COPYRIGHT 2004

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the author, except as provided by U.S.A. copyright laws.

ELDERED (Phil. 1:1-2)

It is my view, and I believe it is the Bible’s teaching, that there are multiple elders and that one of them normally is set to keep order, but all are equal in value to the church. They are primarily over the church's spiritual needs and the deacons are under the elder board and responsible for the physical ministry of the church, but may others also participate in the spiritual end of things.

If a church wants a full time paid pastor there seems to be latitude for that in Scripture, but he would be one of the multiple elder board, not over it, nor above it. If the multiple elder concept were to be used there would be less desire for a paid pastor. Splitting all of the spiritual work up among several allows a church to function without a paid person. This would be an advantage in many areas other than just the financial.

Young translates the two terms "overseers and ministrants." This seems to picture the thought that I have presented. The elders are overseers of the entire church while the deacons are ministers of the physical. The two offices are not more important than the other, they are co-responsible for the people.

We might take a moment to clarify. Most church leaders today are focused on keeping the church going, of making repairs, and making way for expansion of buildings, however they are to be over the spiritual needs of the church PEOPLE in the case of the elders and the physical needs of the church PEOPLE in the case of the deacons.

The over emphasis on buildings has taken the focus of church leaders from their proper goal - PEOPLE. Yes, we must take care of the buildings, but the people are the church; the buildings are only a tool of the church.

Philippians 1.1-2 Paul and Timothy, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons: 2 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

It is of note that Paul does not make a point of his apostleship. He seems to write this letter in a different tone than others. This one seems to be on a friendlier level, to a group that knew him well, and that had accepted him fully as who and what he was - an apostle.

The term servant is the Greek word "doulos" which means someone that has given their will to another for service. This man is a bond slave, one that has no desire other than to serve the one they have committed to serve. Paul makes this statement of Timothy as well as himself. He must have known Timothy well in order to know of this commitment and know that it was real.

When we view a church, we can often pick out some that seem to have committed themselves to the Lord in this manner, but until you get to know them you won't know for sure. Indeed, many pastors on the surface may seem to be a "doulos" but as you get under the surface you may find they are just like the average believer, out for money, gain and notoriety.

I recently saw a thread on an internet forum relating to pastoral pay packages. The attitude wasn't that of "I am serving God and He is the master, and He will provide." but the attitude that, "I am a professional, I should be compensated as a professional, I should be treated as a professional and I should be paid at least the average income of those I serve. Oh, did you catch that? They admit to the premise that I have stated. They serve the people and look to the people for their livelihood except that in my view the people do the giving and the amount, not the pastor the demanding of the amount.

This may relate to the problems that the church is facing these days; we have few that are serving Christ and many serving people and self. Paul and Timothy walked through life serving God and looking to Him for their subsistence. They weren't concerned about the politics of their "position" nor the "rights" that they had as an apostle and an apostolic representative, they were concerned with the rights of the lost to hear the Gospel, and they were concerned about the rights of believers to be taught the Word of God.

May pastors and missionaries begin to see the need for this "doulos" commitment as the norm for their field and get to the business of serving God in a manner in which they ought. Then when the example is set within the church we might see more believers seeing what they are supposed to be and begin to consider their position before God.

All of us should be on a "doulos" setting with our Lord and Savior. Paul mentions to Timothy in I Timothy 4.12 "Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity. "See also Phil. 3.17 "Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample." and II Thess. 3.9 "Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us."

Paul and Timothy are to be our guide in our relationship with Christ. They were doulos as we should be. It doesn't seem to be an option of life, but a natural progression of our relationship to Him.

Ah, a theological passage - Saints at Philippi with THE BISHOPS AND DEACONS. Note both words are in the plural. Biships as in more than one and deacons as in more than one. Plural church leadership.

The word Bishop is the Greek word "episkopos" which can be translated elder, curator, superintendent or overseer. It would seem that this speaks to the thought of Elder as defined in I Timothy three and Titus. The overseer of the local assembly or overseers as the text puts it.

This term is used interchangeably with the term elder in two passages that we want to look at for a moment.

Titus 1.6-7 "6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. 7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;"

Acts 20.17, 28 "17 And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church."

28 "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."

The use of the terms of the same position makes it clear they are the same. One probably relates to the office while the other to the work. The Titus text also is quite similar to I Timothy 3.1-7.

In Titus 1.7 “episkopos” is used of the “bishop” or leader of the church. In Acts 20.17 the term “presbuteros” is used of elder, but in the same context the term “episkopos” (overseer) is used of the same person.

Again, on an internet forum I was following a thread that discussed the fact that pastors and teachers weren't supposed to have to feed the flock, the people are to feed themselves in their family and personal devotions. Not sure what they would say about the Acts text that tells that the elders are to feed the flock. Well I do know, when I posted the passage with some thoughts relating to it the thread received no more posts. Guess the point was made.

Yes, believers are to feed themselves, but they are also to be fed from the pulpit and lectern. If the pastors and teachers aren't feeding their people why are they shedding forth with so much verbiage? What purpose can there be? None. Many of the classes/sermons I have heard in recent years feed no one but possibly the youngest babe in Christ.

Note that it was to all at the church not just the church leadership - Scripture is for all believers not as some suggest. Some suggest that only a special few can properly interpret Scripture. The Roman church for centuries forbid the common man to have the Scriptures. Today we have some Greek and Hebrew scholars that tell us that we cannot properly understand the Scriptures unless we properly understand the original languages. This is becoming the first steps toward the Roman stance of yester year.

2 Grace [be] unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and [from] the Lord Jesus Christ.

Paul uses his usual greeting minus mercy. He uses grace mercy and peace in other books.

Why he would leave out mercy in this case might be a little stretch of some folks need for information, but it may relate to the time of writing - he may have used mercy in other books knowing that there was need of God's mercy for the people involved and that he knew the Philippians did not need it at this point in time.

To think that he used these three words as a cliché is somewhat against his character. I would opt to think he used the words carefully for each situation.

APPLICATION:

1. The thought of bondservant is something that we need to deal with in the church today. How does a person that has sold themselves out to the Lord, then operate within the church? The church leaders tend to demand that those that minister in the church be subject to their beckon and call, and under their authority (read that as under their thumb).

How do the two aspects of ministry coexist? On the one hand we have a person that is sold out to do all that Christ asks them to do, and on the other hand we have a leadership that is responsible to oversee the goings on of the church. How does the person that feels that they are called to minister to recovering drug addicts of the church react/work when the leaders do not want a drug rehab program going on within their church? How does the man that feels he is called to teach relate to the church adequately when the leaders feel that he is not charismatic enough to teach?

Recently a good friend related to me that he felt that God wanted him to develop a curriculum to teach some basic doctrine in his church. He approached the church leaders and after several months of run around was told by the pastor that they thought the doctrine was a good idea, but that the pastor was going to teach it.

Where and how do we find the balance between God calling people to do things and a leadership that would rather do it themselves so they can have total control and maybe glory?

Is part of the problem not that our churches are so large that the leaders do not know the people well enough to trust them to minister adequately? Is part of the problem not that our church leaders are so fearful of loosing their income that they don't want anyone doing anything because they might do it so well that the leaders job comes into jeopardy? I am sure that we could suggest a number of other possibilities as well.

Ought the local church not start to discuss this problem? Ought the local church leaders understand that every person in their church may be called of the Lord to that body to do a certain ministry? Ought the leaders know the people well enough to know what their spiritual gift is, to know them enough to know they are trustworthy? Seems the leaders ought to know their people on a very close basis, not the long distance, "We will minister on your behalf when someone dies basis."

2. Our text states "to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons." "With" is a preposition that is almost always translated with. Does the choice of that word indicate anything to you in the verse? What is the relationship between the people and the leadership? The people were "with" the leaders. It seems that there might be an emphasis here that depicts the leaders being located in a place and the people are WITH the leaders.

I don't want to make too much out of this but what might we think from this construction that Paul selected for this phrase?

a. Might we draw from this that the leaders are that which the church is based on. The people might be elsewhere, but the leaders are at that geographical point. This indicates the local church in a geographical place at the very least.

b. It might indicate that people may come and go, but leaders are more stable in location. This might be something to look for in your future church leaders. Look for men that are planning to be around to give a solid commitment to the church. Look for men that are stable, and not moving with the wind to find their thing.

c. It might indicate that people are more transient than the leaders which would require the leaders to plan on the mobility of the people. Churches around military bases and large educational institutions realize this fact. People are constantly being moved or going home for vacations etc. This must be factored into the planning of the church.

This will have an effect on manpower in the church, and it will make a difference in the funds available to the church. It may have a number of other effects on the church.

In the case of Philippi, I don't know that they were that transient, but knowing that there were slaves in most of the churches, maybe even military people it would be obvious that the leaders would have to make compensations.

3. Mention has been made of the relationship between Paul and Timothy. Consider Timothy knowing that Paul has included both as "servants." Paul placed Timothy on the same plain in addressing the letter to the folks at Philippi.

What an encouragement that must have been to Timothy.

Pastors, superintendents - really how much does it cost your ego to place those that work along side you on the same level - to call them coworkers? To show a mutual respect toward those that assist your ministry - or should it be more of a mutual ministry than looking at it as "yours?"

So many pastors view themselves as God's gift to the assembly. Yes, they are in the area of gifting, but they are not the high browed important people that many seem to think themselves to be.

God calls men to lead churches, not dictators to rule, nor potentates to subdue. The man of God that is placed over an assembly needs to remember his place in God's grand scheme of things. The pastor is a PART of the church to serve, not apart from the church to rule.

The same could be said in similar words to the people. Some congregations treat their pastor as someone that is there to serve them, not to assist them to serve the Lord.

4. The term is mentioned of ALL the saints. Not just the leaders, not just the rich, not just the workers, not just the financial supporters - ALL. This is of paramount importance to the running of the church.

So often there are different sections of the church. There might be the poor, the rich, and the leaders, or there may be the workers, the leaders and the rest. No matter how your church might be divided, it is wrong. We are one body in existence to serve Christ as He directs the body to serve.

The other side of that coin might run along the lines of ALL are to be involved in ALL the goings on of the church. ALL should be at Sunday school, ALL should be at prayer meeting, and ALL should be involved in all aspects of the church body.

5. Church leadership is important. In the book of Acts, Paul went out planting churches and returned to many of them to set up elders. It is assumed that the deacons were set in the very beginning, but that the spiritual leaders or elders were either developed, or more to the point noticed as the church went along. Leaders were taken from the body, not brought in from outside as we do today.

It would appear that when Paul returned to the churches that the people had observed the leaders that naturally appeared as the church went about its business. The men's leadership abilities would have been observed, as well as their spiritual qualifications.

Yes, a church can function under any form of church government, but what if it functioned under a Biblical form of government. A church where the leaders were gifted by the Spirit to do their work, a church where men live the Christian life as they should, a church with men that fit the Scriptural qualifications.

Today, most churches select their leaders by popularity, or availability, not due to any great spiritual qualifications. How sad does it get? A body of believers following men that may not even be qualified for the position they are filling.

6. Maybe we should discuss the elder and his work. Many longer works are available I am sure, but suffice it that we give a few paragraphs on the subject.

THE ELDERS MUST BE DESIROUS OF THE POSITION

I Timothy mentions that IF a man DESIRE the office of Bishop. Not that all men will desire it, not that all men even care a bout the office, but some WILL desire it. These are the guys you should want in your church leadership.

They must desire it as a furtherance of their service to the Lord, not furtherance of their societal position and stature. Years ago my brother was a contractor. He was raised in brand X church. Out of the blue the man decided he was going to join brand Z church which had a totally different stance than brand X.

I bluntly asked him why he was joining that church. A little hesitantly he said that since he was in business, and all the towns business people belonged at brand Z so he thought it would be good for business. Hey, how could I argue with that? (Not unlike a lot of believers today.)

The text implies that the man that desires and then there is an evaluation of him on the basis of this long list of qualifications. He wants the job and has set himself up for an evaluation by the church to a very high standard. This man REALLY must want the job.

The desire of the man should be evaluated as well. Just why does he desire it?

The elders must be qualified for the position. Timothy and Titus were both given specific qualifications for the man that would be an elder.

Often these are trotted out before calling a pastor, but never before electing church leadership. In addition there should be some qualities that you look for in your men. Spiritual correctness, Biblical correctness, and life correctness.

The elders must be gifted for the position. They are supposed to be apt to teach. This would indicate that they are gifted by the Spirit to do so. It is also indication that they will be doing some teaching in the church, not just heading up the softball team.

The elders must be circumspect in the position. There is no room for worldly living in the elders. They are to be the example to the flock; they are to be the walking illustration of a life committed to Christ.

The elders must be accountable in the position. If he fails in his position, then he should be confronted and corrected. This requires him to accept responsibility for his incorrect actions or attitude.

7. Both Matthew Henry and Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown mention the fact that pastors were not needed as long as the apostles were around and calling on the churches. That after the apostle’s visits were becoming less frequent they started appointing elders.

I find this interesting though flawed. Paul is pictured in the book of acts of passing back among his churches and appointing elders, nothing is said about apostolic visits other than his own, and there is no indication that the elders being appointed grew out of a lack of apostolic visits.

The thought may be correct, but it is from assumption, not fact or the Word.

I would question a churches ability to function without leadership for weeks at a time without some big difficulties. Most churches don't even function that well with leaders trying to keep a lid on it.

8. Since Paul was in prison at the time of writing, I found it of interest that a letter came this week from a man that I know in prison. He wrote originally in response to my theology. We have corresponded for a year or so now and it never ceases to strike me at the seriousness of this man with the life he leads before Christ and before man. He is leading people to the Lord within the walls of a secular state prison. The chapel program in the prison is totally dead and corrupt with every sort of ism gathering to "worship" together.

This man has convinced guards of their error in thinking about the word, he works with every sort of cult within the prison, and this is all on his own time. He works eight hours a day and is taking Bible college courses by distance learning.

He is more active in prison than most Christians are while free as a bird to serve their Lord.

It is so good to know there are some that take their Christianity seriously.

9. Timothy, Mark and Epapharus seem to be Paul's messengers through this time of his ministry. A couple of points to be made.

First that they were willing to minister in this "lower" position of messenger, and troubleshooter, rather than taking on a church and turning it into the first "Megachurch."

Secondly, can you imagine how good it felt for these men to know they were square in the middle of God's will for their life serving this man of God that was doing such great things for the church? They must have had a great joy, even though they were walking all those miles between destinations.

How do you accept your position in the church? Do you feel it is a joy to serve in that position or do you yearn for the upper seat? Please go before the Lord and seek His desire for your life, no matter what position you are in.

Once I heard a young pastor that was pastoring in a small church tell of his education. He could have been pastoring in a larger church but his calling was to the smaller churches of America. He stated that he was committed to the small church. You might understand my confusion in a few months when I heard that he has accepted the call to a large church nearby.

I am not sure where his commitment went, whether it was scared away by a desire to be bigger than before or if it was a definite leading of the Lord. The point. Be sure of your motivations when changing from one place of ministry to another. God is the guide, not our own desire for higher position.

10. Stedman raises a point that I have never heard of before. He states that Deacon is not an officer of the church but rather, a term that covers anyone that does work in the church. ""Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons" (or perhaps more accurately, with the pastors and workers, because deacons were not officers of the church but anyone who did anything in the church was a deacon, a worker.)"

I think church history would argue against him and most of the scholars of our day would chime in. I Timothy 3.10 seems to disagree with him as well. I am not sure what he based his comment on. "And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being [found] blameless."

The outworking of such a teaching would be either a multiple elder board over the church or if he believed in a single elder, a dictatorship with the pastor as the dictator.

11. Barnes makes the valid point that since Paul greeted two sets of officers, that this is Biblical proof positive that there should be multiple elders and multiple deacons. This is a truth that many churches have totally missed in their church government. Most hold that the single pastor is equal to the multiple elders, but that seems unbiblical to me.

He further notes that in his day there was a controversy about whether there was one ruling over the elders. Even today we have some that suggest that there are teaching elders and a ruling elder - usually a paid pastor.

Barnes suggests that if this was the case then Paul was slighting the ruling elder by not mentioning him by name.

The "ruling elder" is a figment of imagination. It might be that in some churches one man as moderator of the elders might be of use to getting things done in an orderly manner, but to give this man the rule over the board is absurd.

12. Just a little side light about letter writing. Constable relates that Paul used the normal introduction for his time period. The point I'd like to wonder about is whether the flowery extensive greetings of some letter writers of today are appropriate.

They aren't following the standard of our day. They aren't always appropriate to the recipient. They seem quite out of place in our present society, not to mention our Christian society.

Are they wrong? Probably not. Are they self serving? It seems so at times but that might be in the eyes of the beholder.

I have some people that use these long "wishes" in email. Now, email is known for its brevity, not its longevity. To use the long wish in snail mail may be acceptable, but seems very out of character for the email.

Often the impression is left that this person is being a little super spiritual as they run out the Lord, the Spirit and all the grace, joy and good wishes.

13. Gill makes a definite point that Paul was listed first for a reason. "The apostle sets his own name first, as being not only superior to Timothy in age, in office, and in character, but the sole writer of this epistle."

Not sure that there was quite that much thought in Paul's mind as he formed the thought in his mind, but surely all these things are true. Paul was all these things that Timothy was not, yet Paul chose to include Timothy in the introduction. He must have thought highly of Timothy. He also included him because the folks at the church knew him from past meetings.

This hobby horse may be getting a little too much riding, but the thought of a pastor giving anyone recognition in a church is rather rare. What harm is there is telling someone that they are doing a good job? What harm is there in giving recognition to work done in the Lord's name.

The pastor isn't the only person in the church that is accomplishing things - or at least shouldn't be. All are to be working toward the goal of good works within the church.

No, don't lay it on thick every time someone sweeps the floor, but some people sweep the floor in the church for years and never gain recognition for their efforts for the Lord. Not just sweeping floors, but all items that people do within the church. It only takes a few seconds to recognize people and their labors.

14. Gill mentions of the elders that their name comes from their "age, gravity, and seniority."

Let us consider this for a moment or two. How many elders fit this trio of qualities? Are they to be qualities that we should consider in selecting elders today?

To the first question, few, and to the second question a resounding yes.

Our society gives little credence to the old any more. In my teenage days it was required to honor the older folks for society, but today in my older years to honor the elderly is to show your utter stupidity. No one honors the old, the old are the feeble of our society and there is little use for them.

It should be submitted that the older generation has wisdom that is greatly needed in the church today.

Over and over young pastors come into a church and completely change everything with no concern given to anyone or anything. They give no ear to wise council from the older members - they are not interested in the old foggies thoughts.

Many churches have lost their entire older generation due to the radical, not needed changes of a young pastor that "will have his way." Sad it is to see the older generation written off as worthless.

One Governor had the utter ignorance to tell the seniors of his state that it was their duty to die and make way for the younger generation. This attitude is not verbalized often, but the thought is there in many things that the younger generation does.

15. Gill relates "These officers are mentioned by the apostle, not only to show his respect to them, but to observe to the members of this church, that they ought to esteem them highly for their works' sake; these being offices of great importance and usefulness to the church, which, by having such, was a truly organized church of Christ."

Again, the recognition of the leaders is not inappropriate. To acknowledge their contribution to the church is not wrong. On the other hand you can over do it in my opinion. On an internet forum I read a thread relating to pastor appreciation day. Once a year to show your appreciation to the pastor. Other than a single pastor being unbiblical, to show the "elders" your appreciation might be quite appropriate.

On the forum there was more than one pastor that voiced their desire for such things, while one related that his church gives him an appreciation day once a month. Surely there is some balance in between somewhere.

Give your church leadership due appreciation for their labors, but leaders return the due appreciation to your congregation as well.