In the first article of this series, I outlined a schematic of a local church, without which a church is driven not by biblical Marks (Orthodoxy, Order, Ordinances) and Works (Evangelism, Edification, Exultation), but by cultural forms and pragmatic functions—i.e., personal or community preferences. In the previous article I focused in on the fundamental Mark of Orthodoxy, suggesting that we must be clear in what orthodoxy 1) includes (fundamentals of the faith), excludes (heretical false teachings), and allows (diversity of views on non-essentials). In this article I will explore the second vital Mark of a local church: Order, or the relationship between church leadership and the congregation.

From Orthodoxy to Order

The primary responsibility of church leadership is to safeguard the essential Marks and Works of the church, especially the foundational Mark of Orthodoxy. Paul sought to prevent the danger of heresy when he told Timothy, the pastor in Ephesus, “The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Timothy 2:2). Paul earlier described the leadership in Ephesus as apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers, who were uniquely responsible “for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ” (Ephesians 4:11–12). Though the offices of apostles and prophets ceased in the first century, the other offices of evangelists, pastors, and teachers were to endure until the church arrives at unity, maturity, and doctrinal stability (4:13–14)—that is, in every generation since the first century. So, the idea of gifted leaders doing the local church work of proclamation (evangelists), shepherding (pastors), and instruction (teachers) is not a man-made concept. The Holy Spirit called such men to specially-ordained offices of the church for the purpose of protecting and promoting orthodox belief and practice. And Paul’s instruction in 2 Timothy 2:2 indicates that the offices were to have a permanent quality.

In fact, Clement—a contemporary of the apostles and later the pastor of Rome around A.D. 96—recalled the establishment of this order by the apostles that remained in his own day: “The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ has done so from God. Having therefore received their orders . . . . they [the apostles] appointed the first-fruits of their labors, having first proved them by the Spirit, to be overseers and deacons of those who should afterwards believe” (1 Clement 42:3–4). Later Clement wrote, “Our apostles also knew . . . that there would be strife on account of the office of the overseer. For this reason . . . they appointed those ministers already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry” (1 Clement 44:1–2). Just a few years later (A.D. 110), the aged pastor of Antioch and personal acquaintance of the apostles said of the ordained pastor, elders, and deacons in a local congregation: “Apart from these, there is no church” (Ignatius, Trallians 3.1). This is what we mean by the essential Mark of Order—that leadership established by the apostles intended to continue on to our own day.

Church Leadership

Through the apostles God has established an order of leaders to shepherd, train, and exhort believers. Around A.D. 58, the apostle Paul made a brief stop in Miletus where “he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders of the church” (Acts 20:17). There he gave that specific group of officials the following charge: “Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood” (Acts 20:28). From Acts 20 we see the convergence of three key terms that identity the same body of leadership: presbyeroi (elders), episkopoi (overseers), and poimaino (to pastor or shepherd). At this early stage in the development of local church order, “elders” and “overseers” were interchangeable terms, and these officers of the church were responsible for pastoral leadership. When we read in Ephesians 4 of those men given to the church as “evangelists,” “pastors,” and “teachers,” Paul was referring to the elders of that church. About five years later the apostle Peter also used the same united trio of titles—elders-overeers-pastors—indicating that these various responsibilities rested within the same group of leaders in the churches (1 Peter 5:1–2).

As this apostolic order matured, a presiding elder, known as the “overseer” emerged as the prime among equals. Timothy and Titus were early representatives of this office, as were the “messengers” (angelos) of the seven churches mentioned in Revelation 2–3. It’s also possible that the “evangelists” (euangelistes) of Ephesians 4:11 identified this office in the local church. Equivalent to our modern day “senior pastor,” he was to lead the counsel of elders, who themselves were responsible for the preaching, teaching, and pastoring ministries of the church. So, in the biblical and early church order, all pastors were elders, and there were no elders who were not ordained, gifted, trained, and qualified men who were actively engaged in the pastoral and teaching work of the church.

Working under the authority of the ordained elders (preachers, pastors, and teachers), the deacons assisted in the work of the ministry (Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:8–13). These leaders were responsible for more than merely temporal affairs of the church. They ministered as junior leaders in whatever capacity was necessary, including the administration of the ordinances under the authority of the elders.

Neither Anarchy nor Democracy

The Bible’s description—read in light of the actual situation in the ancient church—presents a clear picture of the apostles’ established church order. The official ordained group of “pastors-overseers-elders” were in charge of teaching, preaching, shepherding (1 Timothy 5:17; Titus 1:9; James 5:14; 1 Peter 5:1–2). Some—but not all—elders were paid (1 Timothy 5:17). But all of the pastors were elders. There is no biblical or historical justification for separating elders and pastors.

The biblical church order makes it clear that the church is not an anarchy, an assembly without clearly-defined leadership. In fact, God never established any secular or sacred institution that lacked clear order. From human government (Romans 13:1) to the family (Ephesians 5:22) . . . from Israel (Exodus 22:28) to the church (Titus 1:5)—God’s institutions reflects order. Even within Triune equality, God the Father functions as the head, sending the Son and the Spirit into the world (John 14:16–17; Galatians 4:4, 6; 1 Corinthians 11:3). A groups of Christians without ordained leadership is not a church.

Neither is the church a democracy, in which final authority over the shepherds is distributed among the flock. I’m reminded of the Latin words engraved above the House Chamber of the Minnesota capitol: VOX POPULI, VOX DEI—“The Voice of the People is the Voice of God.” Unfortunately, many Christians believe this is how God leads the church—by majority rule. But not if the Bible has the final say! God intends that the local church have ordained leadership. The elders—a term synonymous with pastors and overseers—were to be the leaders of the church, to shepherd the flock as servant-leaders, yes, but as leaders nonetheless.

Some of you may be thinking, “Doesn’t this kind of elder authority rest decision-making in a select few—the pastors and teachers of the church?” Yes. This is the counter-cultural teaching of Scripture. To be sure, the covenanted members are to be involved in ministry as the Lord gifted each one (see 1 Cor 12—14; Eph 4). However, their primary relationship to the appointed elders was to submit without grumbling or complaining.

Now that’s a word Americans hate: submit. In a nation birthed in rebellion, the suggestion of submission to our human leaders sends chills up our spines. Yet Scripture is clear. The congregation was to pray for, support, and follow the leadership of the ordained pastors (Hebrews 13:7, 17). When we read the Bible in its historical context, letting it say what it says (and not what we want it to say!), then there’s nothing ambiguous, nuanced, or complex about this. Submit. Obey.

Anticipating objections, though, the writer of Hebrews adds the fact that elders will “give account for their work” to God. We often forget that since God is sovereign and Christ is the head of the Church, every elder is under the headship of God and Christ. Instead, we think they are under our headship and try to turn God’s order upside down. We treat elders like our representatives, as if they were supposed to be moved and molded by the whims of the masses or champion the agendas of their “constituents” (again, Vox Populi rears its ugly head).

In other words, both the ordained elders (pastors and teachers) and the covenanted members (congregation) each have their biblical roles and responsibilities. Leaders shouldn’t abdicate . . . and members shouldn’t usurp. Leaders should pastor . . . and members should submit. Only when we align ourselves closer to the biblical Mark of Order—and not our own personal opinions—can we move beyond the preference-driven church.

In the first article of this series, I proposed a simple schematic illustrating the essential Marks and Works of a church. These essential Marks include Orthodoxy, Order, and Ordinances. And the vital Works include Evangelism, Edification, and Exultation. In this second article of the series I focus on the fundamental Mark of Orthodoxy.

Orthodoxy Revisited

What comes to mind when you hear the word orthodox? For some it conjures up icons, incense, altars, and priests rattling off ancient liturgies in Greek or Russian. Others might associate the term orthodox with their own personal doctrines. That is, their beliefs are orthodox, so everything else is heresy.

Actually, orthodox is a Greek word meaning “correct opinion.” As such, orthodox believers have always held to the essential, unchanging truths of the Christian faith—the “things” Paul instructed Timothy to “entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Timothy 2:2). These unchanging essential truths, expressed in different language throughout history, were originally summarized in brief hymns or creedal statements that appear in the Bible (see John 1; Romans 1:1–4; 1 Corinthians 15:1–5; Philippians 2:5–11; Colossians 1:15–18; 1 Timothy 3:16). Later this same set of essential truths, usually summarized in confessional statements like the Apostles’ Creed, formed the basis for early Christian discipleship—especially preparation for baptism and admittance into the church (as is likely the case for the “elementary principles” described in Hebrews 5:12–6:5).

From an Evangelical Protestant perspective, these essential truths include, inter alia: (1) the doctrine of the Trinity—one God in three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; (2) the incarnation, virgin birth; atoning death, resurrection, ascension, and future return of Christ; (3) the creation, fall, and depravity of humanity; (4) salvation by grace through faith; and (5) the inspiration and authority of Holy Scripture. To err in matters of orthodoxy has always meant to err in matters that form the very heart and life of the Christian faith. For most of these issues, eternal life is at stake. For all of them, spiritual health is on the line. So heresy, the opposite of orthodoxy, is “damnable doctrine”—opinions held by false Christians.

Beyond these essential truths, various churches and denominations may have their own theological and doctrinal “preferences.” That is, their unique identities as churches or denominations are often driven by their preferences regarding everything from angels to end-times . . . from church governance to spiritual gifts. Now, there’s nothing wrong with having and teaching “distinctives.” But if a tradition allows its distinctives to invade the inner sanctuary of orthodoxy, then the Mark of Orthodoxy is actually weakened, not strengthened.

Catholicity Reclaimed

When I was in grade school, our teacher explained that most people in America were Christians. Then she polled the class: “How many of you consider yourselves to be Christians?”

All the students raised their hands . . . except one girl. She looked nervously around the room, spotted one of her friends raising her hand, and shouted, “Hey, Tina, put your hand down! We’re not Christians, we’re Catholics!”

For most Evangelicals the word “catholic” brings to mind Popes, statues, rosaries, and the Spanish Inquisition. But the term catholic actually comes from a Greek word meaning “universal” or “general” as opposed to local and particular. Ignatius of Antioch, around A.D. 110, was the first to use this term in reference to orthodox Christian churches. In order to strengthen the Mark of Orthodoxy and prevent heresy, Ignatius instructed the local church in Smyrna to trust the teachings of their bishop (or “head pastor”), Polycarp, who had been a personal student of the apostle John. Ignatius wrote, “Wherever the bishop appears, there let the congregation be; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church” (Ignatius, Smyrnaeans 8.2). In this original context catholic refers to the body of Christ throughout the world under the headship of Jesus Christ (not the Pope!), just as the local church in Smyrna was under the headship of their bishop, Polycarp. (I’ll address the issue of pastors, elders, bishops, deacons, and members next time when I focus on the Mark of church Order.)

Are You an Orthodox Catholic Evangelical?

Properly understood, Evangelical Christians must be orthodox. And if they are orthodox in their beliefs and practices, they are part true catholic Christianity of ages past and places present. Being orthodox and catholic means that we’re united on the essential truths that Christians have believed from the beginning. Individual churches may be “separated” by language, culture, geography, distinct traditions, and organizational preferences. But all churches that center on the ancient and enduring orthodox beliefs that have always been the warp and woof of the Christian faith are truly and properly catholic. Whether Lutheran, Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, Episcopalian, Independent Bible, or something else, Evangelical churches share this common Mark of Orthodoxy with each other.

But here comes the warning. Sometimes our own preference-driven distinctives can be so emphasized that we lose sight of the foundational Mark of Orthodoxy. We can easily fall into the error of thinking everything we believe is fundamental, essential, and of utmost importance. And then the truly orthodox doctrines are merely assumed . . . then neglected . . . then forgotten . . . and eventually lost. In response to this preference-driven mentality, we need to reassert the Evangelical Mark of Orthodoxy. It’s not enough to bury the essential truths in a lengthy doctrinal statement at the same level as the origin of angels and the order of the end-times. More than anything else in our postmodern, post-Christian culture, Evangelical churches must clearly, unambiguously, and intentionally identify themselves with the biblical and theological core of the ancient Christian faith.

An official statement of essential truths that focuses attention on the Mark of Orthodoxy would be a good place to start. And, like the apostolic and ancient church, actually reaffirming these orthodox essentials for membership, baptism, discipleship, and discipline would be a proper function of these truths. Also, keeping our own personal theological distinctives out of that ancient and unchanging center would go a long way to promote humility and unity. Only when we restore the essential Mark of Orthodoxy to its proper place of centrality—not merely in our doctrinal statements, but also in our teaching—can we move beyond the problem of the preference-driven church.

We’re seeped in a culture where preference rules. As a result, many American Evangelicals treat church like malleable clay to be molded and shaped into whatever form they think it should be. Our expectations for what a church is and what a church does too often reflect our personal preferences. We may prefer contemporary music or traditional hymns . . . dynamic youth activities or deep discipleship . . . personable pastors or powerful preachers . . . state-of-the-art facilities or stunning sanctuaries. But do these preference-driven churches really reflect the biblical marks and works of a church?

The solution to a preference-driven church mentality isn’t to compose a new “me-centered” wish list, but to identify and adopt God’s essential marks and works for an authentic and healthy church. When we do this we’ll be equipped to focus on our church’s central strengths and address inevitable weaknesses, establishing reliable criteria for recovering a lost identity. But first we need to remind ourselves of the fundamental marks and works of the church. And to do this, we need to have a bit of historical perspective.

During the sixteenth century Reformation, Protestant leaders like Luther and Calvin sought to define what it meant for a congregation to be counted as an authentic Christian Church. They knew they couldn’t define themselves by medieval Roman Catholic standards under the Pope with his seven saving sacraments and rigid rituals. But amidst a growing diversity of Protestant practices, what could they identify as the essential marks of a true church? The Lutheran Augsburg Confession put it this way: “The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments rightly administered” (Article 7). Later the Westminster Confession expressed a united Protestant perspective on what it meant to be truly “catholic” in the Protestant (not Roman Catholic) sense: “This catholic Church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them” (Article 15.4).

Of course, we aren’t bound by the original Protestant confessions, but as the Evangelical heirs of that great Reformation tradition, we should be just as careful as they were about answering the question, “What makes a congregation of believers a true and faithful church of Jesus Christ?” I find it helpful to think in terms of essential “Marks” and “Works” of a true church, incorporating biblical and historical emphases that have stood the test of time. In the remainder of this article, I want to briefly summarize these Marks and Works illustrated in the diagram. In later articles I will further develop each of these with concrete, practical suggestions on how they can be reinforced today. Though my terms are different, these Marks and Works fit the classic early church and Reformation “marks of the church.”

The pillar of essential Marks includes Orthodoxy, Order, and Ordinances. Orthodox believers are those who hold to the essential truths of the Christian faith—those fundamentals of the faith that have been believed everywhere, always, and by all. It corresponds with the Protestant emphasis on the “Word of God purely preached and heard” (1 Tim 3:14–15; 2 Tim 1:13–14; 3:13–4:5). Order emphasizes the necessity of trained, trusted, and tested pastors, teachers, and shepherds of the church, to whom the orthodox faith has been entrusted to pass on to the next generation (Eph 4:11–12; 2 Tim 2:2; 1 Tim 3:1–13; Titus 1:5–9; Heb 13:17; 1 Pet 5:1–3). And the term Ordinances refers to the sacraments of the church, including baptism and the Lord’s Supper as closely associated with discipline and purity of the church’s members (Matt 28:18; 1 Cor 11:23–26; 1 Pet 3:21–22).

The pillar of essential Works includes Evangelism, Edification, and Exultation. Evangelism is primarily world-focused, emphasizing local and global missions. It includes invitation and initiation into the church through the gospel of salvation by grace through faith in the person and work of Christ (Matt 28:18; Luke 24:46–49; John 20:30–31; Acts 1:8; Eph 2:8–9). Edification describes the church’s role of building up believers in love and good works through the participation of its various members in their Spirit-gifted ministries, resulting in unity and maturity (Matt 28:19–20; Rom 12:4–8; 1 Cor 3:10–17; Eph 2:19–22; 4:11–13; Heb 5:12–14; 10:23–25). Finally, Exultation refers to the purpose, goal, and focus of the church—to glorify God the Father, through the Son, and by the power of the Spirit. The church must exult God through corporate worship and prayer as well as by a God-glorifying presence in the world (Matt 5:16; 25:34–40; Rom 11:33–12:2; Gal 1:3–5; 1 Pet 4:8–11).

If a local church is not consciously employed in the business of continually revisiting and strengthening the pillars of essential Marks and Works of the church, eventually these will erode, crack, and crumble. And it doesn’t take a structural engineer to predict what will happen to the structure when its foundational piers collapse! Personal preference and me-centered pragmatism can not determine what the church should be or what it should be doing. Only a careful reflection on the defining Marks and Works of a healthy church can keep us focused on what God wants us to be and do in the twenty-first century.

(To be continued…)