Church Government: Jesus Style and Moses Style — David Guzik

All right, tonight we're going to take a break from our normal through the Bible study on Wednesday night, and we're going to take a look at something that's topical in nature. If I were to give a title for this message, which I usually don't feel I'm very good at giving titles, I'd call it the Moses style and the Jesus style.

And the question I'm seeking to answer is, should a senior pastor or should a team of elders lead the church? Now this may be a question that's of no interest to you at all. You may feel like you want to go to sleep tonight and take a nice nap.

Well, I'm glad that you've come anyway. You can sort of get some refreshment from your time of sleep. But for most of us, and I think for all of us, this should be a question of some importance. For no other reason than simply put, you want to know that the church you attend has a biblical form of church government.

Three Historical Forms of Church Government

Now through the history of the church, there's classically three forms of church government. These are known as congregational, Presbyterian, and Episcopal. And congregational means that the leadership is entrusted to the majority vote of the congregation.

When it comes time to make decisions, when it comes time to exercise leadership, you take a majority vote, the 51 or the 60 or whatever it is prescribed in the bylaws, that's what carries the day.

That's the congregational form of church government. Then secondly, you have what's known as the Presbyterian form of church government. Now, that really doesn't have anything to do with the Presbyterian denomination, though of course, as you would expect, by and large Presbyterian churches have this form of church government.

But the Presbyterian form of church government comes from the ancient Greek word for elder, which is presbyteros. That means that leadership is entrusted to a group of men, or sometimes not men in today's culture, it can be women in today's culture, though I wouldn't regard that biblically, but in today's culture there are women elders in many churches.

In any way, it's this group of elders or presbyters that lead the church. They're the ones entrusted with leadership. So we have congregational, we have Presbyterian or elder-led church government, and then finally we have what's known as the Episcopal church government.

Now again, this doesn't have anything really to do with the Episcopalian church, though you might expect that many Episcopalian churches might have this structure, at least in name. But the word Episcopal comes from the ancient Greek word that's translated in our Bibles overseer, or bishop, and that means that leadership is entrusted to an overseer, to a man who leads the church.

And so basically you have three different forms of church government, congregational, Presbyterian, and Episcopal. Leadership by the congregation as a whole, leadership by a group of elders from within the congregation, or finally leadership by one person, typically the pastor, who leads the church.

Now at different times and at different places, any one of these three forms have been more or less popular. For example, in some countries, especially European countries, most all churches are congregational.

I've found this very interesting in many of my travels, especially for example in Scandinavia, but my particular knowledge is in Sweden. Most every church there in Sweden comes from a congregational form of church government.

Now in America, I think that the predominant form of church government is Presbyterian. I would have to say that in my opinion, most churches in America are elder-led, although I don't have any statistical data on that, really that's just a guess of mine.

But you could talk all day long, what's the European favorite, what's the American favorite, what's the Asian favorite, but we need to realize that this isn't a matter of American opinion or European opinion or Asian opinion.

The New Testament Does Not Prescribe One Precise Structure

What really matters here is what does the Bible say? That is the most important question for any of us to ask, isn't it? What does the Bible teach on this very important question of how church leadership should be exercised and what sort of structure should it have within a body?

Now I'll just cut to the chase and give you my bottom line opinion on what the Bible says. The bottom line is simply this, there is no precise direction given on how churches should be governed in the New Testament.

Now we're given many titles for leaders, we're told that there's elders, we're told that there's pastors, we're told that there's deacons, we're told that there's apostles, we're told that there's overseers.

But their relationship to each other and their relationship to the congregation is not really detailed. I mean you're going to look high and low through the New Testament to find a place that says elders should be subordinate to pastors or pastors should be subordinate to elders or apostles or this or that.

Now we certainly have the eminence of the apostolic office and apostle if you would say with the capital A, that passed from the scene with the New Testament apostles. But we do have to say that when you take a look, a careful honest look at the New Testament, there is no specific form of church government laid down.

Now Jesus and the apostles never told us about any kind of detailed structure or arrangement for church leadership to put in place. Instead what Jesus and the apostles emphasized was the heart of leadership.

They told us what kind of men should be leading the church. We're told with the heart that they should exercise leadership but we're really not told very much about structures at all. Now there have been many great scholars, biblical scholars and historical scholars who see this point very clearly and I'm going to quote to you just a few of them.

For example the well-known church historian Philip Schaff writing in his History of the Christian Church. He says, At the same time, Jesus laid down no minute arrangements, but only the simple and necessary element of an organization, wisely leaving the details to be shaped by the growing and changing wants of the Christian church in different ages and countries.

You see what Schaff is saying there. Jesus and the apostles, they laid down no minute arrangements. They just left sort of a flexible structure that could be adapted as the needs arise. Here's another well-known historian named Williston Walker.

His well-known work, A History of the Christian Church, has for many years been sort of a standard textbook. I think it's sort of passe in the minds of a lot of people now but it's a good work. In A History of the Christian Church, Williston Walker writes,.

No question in church history has been more darkened by controversy than that of the origin and development of church offices, and none is more difficult owing to the scantiness of evidence that has survived.

It is probable that the development was diverse in different localities. Not all early Christian congregations had identical institutions at the same time. In other words, what's Williston Walker telling to us?

Well, Professor Walker is letting us know that there was no universal form of church government. That there was an adaptability of structure and form from place to place. Let me quote to you one more scholar, a favorite of mine, a biblical commentator and theological writer known as Leon Morris.

By the way, let me throw a little plug in for Leon Morris. I think that he writes spectacular commentaries and if you're interested in deeper Bible study and want to get your hands on a good Bible commentary, put your hands on anything written by Leon Morris.

But this is a writing of his from a Baker's Dictionary of Theology under the heading of church government. Leon Morris writes, quote, It is better to recognize that in the New Testament church there were elements that were capable of being developed into the Episcopal, Presbyterian, and Congregational systems, and which, in point of fact, have so developed.

But while there is no reason why any modern Christian should not hold fast to his particular church polity and rejoice in the values that it secures to him, that does not give him license to unchurch or disfellowship others whose reading of the evidence is different.

In other words, Leon Morris is saying, listen, you can find some scriptural support or some scriptural precedence for any one of these forms of church government and if you want to choose to exercise it, and if you want to enjoy the particular advantages of that form of church government, fine, God bless you.

But Leon Morris would caution us, and I would echo his caution, against saying that your form of church government is unbiblical, your form of church government is heretical. Let me just sort of share with you my opinion here.

I believe that God deliberately left the specifics flexible when it comes to church government and structure so that they could adapt to changing people and changing situations. You may have a situation where a church is being planted among people where there is no leadership, and where there is nobody capable to take leadership of the church, then maybe a community of elders or a group of people, it is the best way to lead the church.

But perhaps that would change over time as godly men would arise within that church family, men of vision, men of the word, men of prayer, who could rise up and lead the church effectively and maybe it would be proper then for the church to transition into a place where a single pastor led that church family.

Again, I think that God deliberately left the specifics flexible so that they could adapt to changing people and changing situations. So therefore, if somebody wants to have a congregational, or an elder led, or a pastor led, a form of church government, I won't dispute any of those biblically.

The Case for Pastor-Led Government at Calvary Chapel

Now at the same time, let me say this, I may have convinced many of you that I am sort of wishy-washy on this whole subject, and that I don't prefer any one form of church government, or think that any one form is any better than the other, and I don't want to give you that opinion at all, because I believe that definitely among the three forms of church government, people led, elder led, and pastor led, that one of them is clearly preferential.

One of them is clearly best. I believe that one of these forms is definitely to be preferred, and it is the form of government that we practice here at Calvary Chapel. Let me read you a quote from Pastor Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel at Costa Mesa, of course.

He says in his book, The Philosophy of Ministry at Calvary Chapel, he says, We feel that this is the form of government God desires for his church. Jesus Christ is the head of the body, the church. He established the episkopos, or bishop, who we call the pastor, who is responsible to Jesus and who must recognize and bear the responsibility to guide and direct the ministry of the local church, guided directly by Jesus Christ.

Under the pastor, in some cases, you have the assistant pastors, equivalent to the priests under Moses' rule. So I would agree with Pastor Chuck on that, and by the way, I don't agree with it because Pastor Chuck said it.

I agree with it because my own reading of the scriptures and my own understanding and experience in church life bears out exactly what he says to be true, that the preferential form of church government, the form of church government that we practice here at Calvary Chapel, has Jesus Christ as the head of the church.

And then under Jesus is the pastor, who you might call the overseer, or the bishop in biblical terms, the episkopos, if you want to use the ancient Greek word. He is responsible to Jesus, and he must recognize and bear the responsibility to guide and direct the ministry of the local church.

He's helped by godly counselors and godly helpers around him, elders, and there are assistant pastors there to help him execute what needs to be done within the church. But there's no doubt that God calls one man to lead the church in our form of church government, and that man is the pastor.

Now, you should know that there are some people who say that the form of church government that we practice at Calvary Chapel is not biblical. Usually this comes from people who believe in elder-led churches.

They will say that the Bible supports only their form of church government. And what I want to do in this message is show two things. You may be wondering, when is he going to get to the Bible, and when is he going to stop giving the history lesson?

Well, we'll talk about the New Testament passages that talk about these areas in just a few moments. But I want to do two things in this message. First, I want to show you that the pastor-led church government is totally biblical and supported by the New Testament.

Second, I'll spend just a few minutes speaking about why I think it is a better form of church government than the other two forms. However, I want to remind you again that my quarrel or my dispute isn't with those who want to practice congregational or elder-led church governments.

If that's the form of church government that you want to practice, God bless you, do your best with it. However, I think you can find some biblical precedent for those forms. Nevertheless, I believe that the predominant and most effective form of church government in the New Testament is pastor-led.

Moses-Style and Jesus-Style Leadership

Now in teaching and writing about church government, Pastor Chuck shows how the leadership structure of Israel under Moses is one example of a biblical pattern for our form of church government. And because he uses the structure of Israel under Moses as an example, some people like to call this model of church government, Moses-style church government, or the Moses principle church government.

You should know that I've never heard or read a place where Chuck Smith uses those titles. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. I really don't know. But I know that he definitely uses the governmental structure of Israel under Moses.

If you want to call it the theocratic kingdom when God was the king and Moses was his representative and the overseer over the nation, Chuck definitely uses that as a model for church government or as an example of church government for Calvary Chapel.

Now, some of those who use those titles want to twist the words of good men to make their own point. And some people just like to criticize the Moses style by saying that it's either unbiblical or just for the Old Testament.

I've run across it from time to time, place to place. The people will say, you have the Moses style of church government, or the Moses principle. Well, you should be in the New Testament, brother. You should follow Jesus' example for church government.

And to that I heartily say, Amen. Let me tell you something, and you'll see this clearly in the time and the word that we're about to spend in just a few moments. The pattern of church government exhibited and exampled by Moses in the Old Testament is exactly the same pattern and example of church government modeled by Jesus, modeled by the apostles, and modeled by the successors of the apostles.

It's the same. So when I told you that the title of this message was the Moses style or the Jesus style, I want you to know that I believe they're the same. I believe that the scriptures tell us that they're the same.

Responding to Critics of Senior-Pastor Leadership

Now there are some strong critics of this kind of church government. There are some very strong critics of the kind of church government that we practice at Calvary Chapel. There are some who believe that the modern concept of the pastor is unbiblical.

They would exhort every pastor to resign their post, and that they should adopt what they believe is to be a biblical church government. And usually what they mean by that is ruled by elders and without any pastors.

Or if there are pastors, they say that none of them should be a senior pastor. And all the pastors should just work together as a team, and none should have any authority or any responsibility or any accountability over the other, or be an overseer over the entire congregation.

Well let me say this. I am the senior pastor of Calvary Chapel of Simi Valley. You should know that I never really emphasize the senior aspect of my title and how do I refer to myself, or how I prefer others to refer to me.

It's just fine with me if somebody calls me David. They don't really have to call me Pastor David, though it's a nice show of respect and honor when they do. But it's not like I'm around waiting for people, or it's not like I really notice if they don't.

But especially I don't feel like people need to go around calling me Senior Pastor David. You know, I just don't think that that's really necessary. But at the same time, I don't have any hesitation in saying that I am the senior pastor of this church.

I am the one with overseeing authority at our church, and all the other pastors, all the other staff, all the other ministries, whatever they may be, few or many, they answer to me. So it's my pleasure to you tonight to explain to you why I have no intention of resigning my post.

And it's even more of a pleasure to explain why single pastor or senior pastor leadership is a biblical form of church government. Now as I said before, when you look at leadership structures in the early church, you just don't find much at all to guide you.

You won't find instructions on how many elders you should have, and what their specific responsibilities should be, and how they should relate to the pastor and so forth. You won't find the minutes of an elders meeting recorded in the New Testament.

Godly Character Matters More Than Leadership Structure

What you will find is a lot of teaching on character. So here's a principle that I would really like you to grab a hold of, and that's simply this. The godliness of leaders is far more important than the structure of leadership.

I believe that very strongly, and I want to say it again. The godliness of leaders is far more important than the structure of leadership. Now sometimes when people have problems in churches, especially personal conflicts with those in leadership, they want to blame not only the leaders, but also the structure.

And the bottom line is that any church government can work, and work well, depending on the godliness of the people in the structure. What I'm trying to say is simply this. You can find plenty of horror stories from any side.

You can always find a pastor who rules like a dictator. And then you can always find the elders who run the godly pastor out of town. And then you can find the congregation that stands in the way of true vision and growth.

When you want to prove your point, sometimes people will do the very false assumption of comparing the best of one system against the worst in another system, and that's totally unfair and unwise. For example, they'll say, well I want to prove to you that the system of elder-led church government is superior.

And so they'll take a church where the church is being run by a dozen godly, godly men. Just wonderfully godly men. And then they'll compare it to a church where it's pastor-led, and the pastor is an ungodly man and a man of disreputable character.

Now what you're doing is you're comparing the best of one environment to the worst of another. And that's just no way to make a comparison. You could turn the tables very easily. A godly pastoral leadership, a church led by him, is going to be far more effective and far more working under the Holy Spirit's direction than will be a church of elders, ruled by elders I should say, if they're not godly men.

And so I want you to understand that oftentimes people do this in discussing this issue, is they'll want to compare the best of one system to the worst of another, and you just can't do that. Now we have to admit though, that there are unwise and occasionally ungodly pastors who rule in a manner contrary to the Scriptures.

1 Peter 5 and the Character of Pastoral Oversight

Now finally we're going to open up our Bibles here tonight, and I'm going to read you from 1 Peter chapter 5 verses 1 through 3. Listen carefully as I read this to you. 1 Peter chapter 5 verses 1 through 3.

The elders who are among you I exhort, who am a fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed, shepherd the flock of God. Now that word for shepherd is the same word as pastor.

Pastor the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion, but willingly, not for dishonest gain, but eagerly, nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock.

Friends, let us admit that there are senior pastors in pastor-led systems of church government who don't follow these instructions from 1 Peter. They're not serving well as overseers. They serve for dishonest gain.

They're lords over those entrusted to them, and they're not being good examples to the flock. We should also recognize that there are foolish men in the pastorate sometimes, men who don't take counsel from elders, men who don't take counsel from other godly people in the congregation, and they're headstrong, and they simply plot their own destruction.

Proverbs 11. Verse 14 says, Where there is no counsel, the people fall, but in the multitude of counselors there is safety. Proverbs 12. 15 says, The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but he who heeds counsel is wise.

And then Proverbs 13. Verse 10 says, By pride comes nothing but strife, but with the well-advised man is wisdom. Well, there are some pastors who don't take this instruction from the Word of God, and they reject the godly advice.

They reject the counsel of people around them, and those do not make, I should say, and I want to emphasize this point strongly, these ungodly or headstrong or stubborn or pastors of low character, their foolish actions do not make their form of church government unbiblical.

It only shows that they apply it in an unbiblical and foolish manner. And I would say that the same thing is true for other forms of church government. The renegade, dictatorial elder who wants to pull strings behind the scenes, the elder who comes to the pastor when the pastor comes and takes the church for the first time, and he says to the pastor, well, pastor, let me tell you something, I've outlasted many guys before you, and I'm going to be here when you're gone.

I want you to know that I'm running things around here, and not you. That dictatorial headstrong elder, he doesn't discredit the elder form of church government. He just shows his own heart to be wrong, not his form of church government necessarily.

Now I do believe that the pastor-led leadership structure is a biblical form of church government, and I'm going to carefully explain why in just a few moments, but I also believe that the New Testament, and I'm emphasizing this point again and again, you might be tired of me repeating it, but I want to really get it through our minds, that the New Testament doesn't tell us enough about church government to say that this is the only biblical form.

Why Elder-Rule-Only Arguments Go Too Far

Now I really have no disagreement with those who favor elder-ruled congregations, or those who favor congregational-ruled congregations. My only disagreement is with those who insist that elder rule, or congregational forms of church government, are the only New Testament forms.

You see, those who hold a dogmatic, elder-rule-only view of church government, they beg the question. They rightly point out that elders were appointed in many New Testament churches, and they assume that they know what that means.

They know that they're prominent in leadership passages in the New Testament, but in no place does the New Testament explain just what the relationship between the offices of elder, deacon, or overseer, and bishop, and pastor are.

The people in the elder-rule camp assume that they know, and their faulty conclusions are based on those faulty assumptions. Now I think that the biggest problem with the elder-rule-only group is that they neglect the clear models of leadership presented in the New Testament.

Now, there isn't much teaching on specific leadership structures, but there is abundant modeling of leadership, and most of these models point towards a pastor-leadership structure. So let's take a look at some New Testament examples consistent with senior pastor leadership.

Jesus as the First Model of Pastor-Led Leadership

The first example I'd like to challenge you with is the example of Jesus. Consider just for a moment, what was the Jesus structure of leadership? When a destination had to be chosen, when a decision had to be made, how do you think Jesus decided it?

Did he leave it up to a majority vote of the disciples? Maybe of the entire multitude of disciples, the, oh, 100, 120 that followed him around. Do you think he took a vote of the congregation, so to speak?

No. Do you think Jesus took a vote of the elders? Let's say those were the apostles with him, or even the inner circle of the apostles. Many people say that Peter, James, and John were sort of an inner circle of the disciples.

Did Jesus take a vote of them? No. Jesus led. Now certainly he led with love. Certainly he led with humility. Certainly he led of sensitivity, and there was no doubt that the leader of the group was Jesus and no one else.

Now I know what some people might be saying in their mind right now. They might be saying, well, listen, pastors aren't Jesus, and you're absolutely correct. But let's just admit something right up front.

If there is a system of church government modeled in the ministry of Jesus, it's not congregational rule. It's not elder-led rule. It's pastor-led forms of church government. And I want you to remember what Jesus said in John chapter 20, verse 21.

John chapter 20, verse 21, Jesus said, So Jesus said to them again, Peace to you, as the Father has sent me, I also send you. No, not for a moment do I think that I'm Jesus. And any pastor who goes around thinking that he has the same authority that Jesus has is mistaken.

But friends, I want you to get the point here. Jesus said, just as the Father sent me, so I'm sending you. Would it surprise us that Jesus had ordained for the church the same form, the same basic system of government that he exercised in his own ministry?

Paul and the Apostles as Leaders

First and foremost, Jesus is the example of a pastor-led form of church government. Secondly, you have the apostles. Consider the apostles for just a moment. How did Paul lead in Ephesus when he was there for three years?

Do you realize that Paul stayed at the city of Ephesus and taught there for three years? Acts chapter 20, verse 31, Paul says this to the Ephesian elders. He says, Therefore watch and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everybody night and day with tears.

Now I'm asking a question that can really be only answered if you're familiar with the New Testament and if you're familiar with this man, Saul of Tarsus, who we came to know as the Apostle Paul. What kind of man was he?

What kind of leader was he? Do you think that when Paul served for three years at the church of Ephesus that he just left things up to a congregational vote? Do you think that Paul stepped back from leadership and said to the elders, well, you know, guys, I'm no more important or no more than any of you.

You just decide what you want or we'll decide it together, and my voice doesn't have any more meaning than you. No. Everything we know, the entire tenor of Paul's ministry as described in the book of Acts and as described in his letters makes it tough to believe that he was only one among a group of elders with no greater voice than any other elder had.

Paul was a leader, and Paul led. Now, again, I know what some of you might be saying. You're saying, well, Pastor, do you think that you're Paul? Do you think that you're an apostle? And the answer is no.

I don't think that I'm the Apostle Paul, and I don't think that I'm an apostle in the same way that Paul was. Yet at the same time, I believe that I am simply doing what Paul told me to do. 1 Corinthians 4, verse 16 says, Therefore I urge you, imitate me.

Paul said to every believer that they should follow him as he follows Jesus Christ. And so should it surprise us that the form of church government that God has ordained and blessed for the church today, the senior pastor or the pastor-led form of church government, that it was exemplified in the ministry of Paul and the other apostles.

Timothy and Titus Appointing Elders

So far we have two examples. The ministry of Jesus, the ministry of the apostles. Let's look at a third example. These two men, Timothy and Titus. Now, you sort of see a progression. First, of course, you have Jesus, the Lord of glory, the head of the church, in fact.

It doesn't surprise us. And then we have the apostles. But then there is another third critical step in this progression when we come to Timothy and Titus. They weren't apostles, and of course they weren't Jesus, but yet they still exercised the same kind of authority coming forth from a single man the same way that Jesus exemplified and the apostles exemplified.

You see, Timothy was stationed in the city of Ephesus. Titus was stationed on the island of Crete. And how did Timothy function in Ephesus, and how did Titus function on Crete? Did they really serve as just one elder who was equal among others?

Or did they assume a role more like the model of senior pastor leadership? Of course they did. Now, why else would Paul leave them with the authority to appoint elders themselves? That's what it says in Titus 1.

He says, For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you. Get that point. Paul says to Titus, I left you in Crete.

I want you to set in order the things that are lacking. I want you to appoint elders in every city as I commanded you. Paul left them with the authority to appoint elders. They were given this authority to evaluate and to choose elders, and some people might call Timothy and Titus today dictatorial senior pastors.

But clearly they followed what God directed them to do through the inspired Apostle Paul. So you see, Timothy and Titus, we have no evidence at all that they worked just as one leader among a group of leaders in a church.

Not at all. These were men of bold leadership, and they were in charge of putting the church in order. They were in charge of leading the church, and they were in charge of appointing elders. So that's three examples so far.

James Leading the Jerusalem Council

Jesus, the Apostles, and Timothy and Titus. And next we come to the example of James in Jerusalem. Now, James in Acts chapter 15 is a clear example of single pastor leadership. Now, among the elders of Jerusalem and the elders gathered in Acts chapter 15, James is clearly the one who takes the lead.

And maybe you remember the whole situation there in the book of Acts chapter 15. The situation is simply this. There has risen a huge dispute in the church over this matter of how is a person saved. Must a Gentile first become a Jew before he can become a Christian?

And there were some who were from the sect of the Pharisees, Christians who came forth from the Pharisees, who said that a man can't become a Christian until he first becomes a Jew and is circumcised and comes under the law of Moses.

Well, what about this whole issue? How would it be decided? And what they decided to do was to call a council in Jerusalem. And so you had apostles, you had elders, you had great dignitaries and leaders from all over the Christian world at that time gathering together in Jerusalem for a council.

Now, if there was any time where they just would have decided something on a congregational level, that would have been it in Acts chapter 15. But in Acts chapter 15, James is clearly the one taking the lead.

He even states the decision of the case in the emphatic words, Therefore I judge. Let me read that to you from Acts chapter 15 verse 19. James stood up and he said, Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God.

You see, the words there are very strong. James is standing up and saying, Okay, guys, I'm ready to make a decision. Now, if James had no more leadership than any of the other ones there, if this was just sort of a college of elders or a congress of elders and apostles together, they would have had every right to say, James, who do you think you are for deciding this?

No one man is going to decide this. We're all going to agree on this together. But instead, James stood up and he said, Therefore I judge. And indeed, the ancient Greek grammar there presents it even more strongly.

One of the wonderful commentaries I have is the expositors' Greek New Testament. It's a commentary not on the English text of the Bible, but on the ancient Greek text. And in the expositors' Greek New Testament, on Acts chapter 15 verse 19, they explain how the ancient Greek presents it very strongly as, I determine or I resolve.

This was a very strong statement from the apostle here, James, and he made the opinion. Commentator Adam Clark rightly says about this, he says that the rest either argued on the subject or gave their opinion.

James alone pronounced the definitive sentence. And friends, this was James' leadership at work in the context of reliance on the wisdom and the counsel of others present. Now in addition, when the decision of James was published, it was presented as the mutual decision of everybody present.

In Acts chapter 15 verse 25, when they wrote a letter to the congregations explaining their decision, they said, not that it seemed good to James, they said it seemed good to us. James led. And everybody else acknowledged and supported his leadership.

And they said, James, you're a wise, godly leader. Your decision is our decision. And James' leadership was supported by all present. This is one of the striking examples of pastor-led forms of church government in action in the New Testament.

The Ephesian Elders and House Churches

So far we have four. Jesus, the apostles, Timothy and Titus, and James. Now for our fifth one, I'm going to take you to sort of an unusual place. Unusual. Because if you're familiar with this issue at all, and if you've ever heard somebody try to explain the case for elder-led church government, they'll always take you to Acts chapter 20.