This series is reviewing Rethinking The Wineskin by Frank Viola. See my introduction to the series, if you haven’t already, for the background discussion about the book.

In my last post, I discussed elders. Specifically, that in the New Testament elders are referred to as having a position of oversight over the church.

But what about visionary leadership? What about the direction of the church?

To truly understand the function of elders, we have to discuss a little bit what they are not. They are not the visionary leaders of the church. They are not really even the “leaders” of the church.

The Bible puts great stress on the fact that leadership in the kingdom of God is drastically different from leadership in both the Gentile and Jewish worlds. Unlike the Gentile notion of authority, the Christian approach to leadership does not link authority with rank-and-file power and hierarchical structures… Unlike the Jewish notion of authority, the Christian approach to leadership does not link authority with outward ordination, office, position, title, or protocol… The Christian orientation links spiritual authority with spiritual function and maturity. It is based on the servant-leadership model that was a common them in our Savior’s teaching… In this context, the Christian model of leadership served as a safeguard to the real and living Headship of Christ. It was also a check against authoritarianism, formalism, and clericalism.

Today’s dominant church leadership design looks more like a combination of the Jewish and Gentile systems than the Christian system described in the New Testament that is supposed to reflect the Kingdom of God. Today’s model is that of a modern corporation with a CEO. Managers handle resources. We have growth strategies, statistics, and charts. We count the number of cars in the parking lot. We consider church organization as appropriate, yet the New Testament relies on the principle of a church organism.

Our primary relationship to each other is that of brothers and sisters. The modern corporation model ruins that.

Plainly stated, leadership in the early church was non-hierarchical, non-aristocratic, non-authoritarian, non-institutional, and non-clerical. More importantly, God’s idea of leadership is functional, relational, and collective.

To have the leadership of the church function according to the same principles as that of a corporate executive in a business or an aristocrat in an imperial caste-system was never our Lord’s thought. It is for this reason that the NT authors never chose to use hierarchical and imperial metaphors to describe church leadership.

Images of slaves and children depict leadership rather than lords and masters (Luke 22:25-26).

So the elders did not lead the church like a CEO. Who, then, led the church? Who provided visionary direction?

The answer is more simple than you might think. It was Christ who led the church, through the Holy Spirit.

Consider what Christ said to Peter:

On this rock I will build my church, and the power of death will not be able to defeat it. (Matthew 16:18 NCV)

He did not say that “on this rock you will build my church.” Christ said that on this rock Christ would build His church.

Paul frequently refers to the church as the body of Christ, with Him as the head. This is why it is so important to follow the New Testament model of leadership – if we put ourselves in too prominent a place of leadership, we stand in the way of Christ’s leadership as the head.

But what about practical implementation? How do we see the mind of Christ and the direction of Christ in the life of the church? It is easy enough for a leader to get up in front of the church and say that He feels Christ wants the church to do x, y, and z. But how is the church to know if this is truly the will of Christ?

The New Testament has only one answer – consensus.

The apostles, the elders, and the whole church decided to send some of their men with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch. They chose Judas Barsabbas and Silas, who were respected by the believers. (Acts 15:22 NCV)

The apostles didn’t just choose who to send. They didn’t pray with the elders and then decide who they felt “led” to send. They decided along with “the whole church.”

Numerous times in his letters, Paul begs the believers to have one mind:

I beg you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that all of you agree with each other and not be split into groups. I beg that you be completely joined together by having the same kind of thinking and the same purpose. (1 Corinthians 1:10 NCV)

Why is this important? If consensus is desired, the decision making process has to model the same process discussed about gatherings – that of the Spirit being in control, moving through each believer, where each believer has the opportunity to share what God has laid on their heart.

In another example of a bad translation, someone would probably point to Hebrews 13:17 and say that leadership in the church is more authoritative:

Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you. (Hebrews 13:17 NIV)

Viola describes what the word used for obey means:

The Greek word for obey in this passage is no hupakuo, the garden-variety word for obedience used elsewhere. It is peitho [middle-passive form] which means to yield to persuasion. The author of Hebrews is simply saying “allow yourselves to be persuaded by those who are more mature in Christ than you are.”

A better translation for Hebrews 13:17 actually supports the practice of consensus, not undermine it.

Consensus is not easy. Most of the time it will be a struggle, but it is exactly this kind of struggle that builds community. A charismatic leader pushing forward his own agenda requires others to submit to his will. A body of believers working towards consensus requires all to submit to each other. It requires love and respect for each other. Viola quotes Christian Smith:

Consensus is not strong on efficiency, if by that we mean ease and speed. It can take a long time to work through issues, which can become quite frustrating… consensus is strong on unity, communication, openness to the Spirit’s leading, and responsible participation in the Body. In achieving those values, consensus is efficient. Deciding by consensus, then, simply requires belief that unity, love, communication, and participation are more important in the Christian scheme than quick, easy decisions. It requires the understanding that, ultimately, the process is as important as the outcome.

We are not supposed to be simply pragmatic. We are supposed to be obedient. The New Testament places a great deal of emphasis on unity, and the church being of one body, under the leadership of head, which is Christ.

In summary:

The NT knows nothing of an authoritative mode of leadership. Nor does it know a “leaderless” egalitarianism. It rejects both hierarchical structures as well as rugged individualism. Instead, the NT envisions leadership as coming from the entire church! Direction and decision-making are supplied by the brothers and sisters by consensus. Oversight is supplied by the seasoned brothers.

It should be obvious why modern church leaders stand so strongly against authors like Viola and others who are calling the church back to New Testament methods and practices. They have the most to lose. Their entire career is based on a leadership model not found in scripture. If the church were to truly move back towards New Testament methods and practices, which requires a return to the New Testament model of leadership, not only would these leaders lose their position, office, and authority, they would lose their career. In a way, I feel sorry for them, because it is difficult for them to objectively evaluate these issues.

But these very leaders’ talents and gifting are actually better suited to New Testament methods and practices. Because in a more intimate, open, participatory format, leaders not only teach but they train. They not only impart their wisdom through teaching, but have a closer relationship with younger Christians through oversight.

But let’s not take the task of building and providing direction for the church away from Christ. Those who seek to further utilize the organizational structure of the modern church miss out on one of the things that made the early church so unique at that time of history – that this was the time when God finally ruled His people directly, as He had always wished to do with Israel before they sought out a king. We should seek to restore that distinctive character of the early church.

This series is reviewing Rethinking The Wineskin by Frank Viola. See my introduction to the series, if you haven’t already, for the background discussion about the book.

Even more than the location of the church, the leadership of the church is the biggest and most important aspect of the early church that looks completely different today. And it is this topic, more than any other, that causes modern Christians to shun the house church movement. And I also believe that this is one of the reasons that house churches continue to struggle – we have to re-learn leadership in light of Scripture.

It all comes down to clergy.

Because the NT knows nothing of “clergy,” the fact that a separate caste of the “ordained” permeates our vocabulary and practice illustrates rather forcefully that we do not yet take the NT very seriously. (Jon Zens)

And now, a word to you who are elders in the churches. I, too, am an elder and a witness to the sufferings of Christ. And I, too, will share his glory and his honor when he returns. As a fellow elder, this is my appeal to you: Care for the flock of God entrusted to you. Watch over it willingly, not grudgingly – not for what you will get out of it, but because you are eager to serve God. Don’t lord it over the people assigned to your care, but lead them by your good example. And when the head Shepherd comes, your reward will be a never-ending share in his glory and honor. (1 Peter 5:1-4, NLT)

The New Testament refers to a type of person in the early church, referred to by several words, including “elder” (which means “mature man”), “overseer” (bishop), and “shepherd” (pastor).

In today’s church culture, we have a difficult time seeing these words as simple descriptions. We give these words weight based on recent church tradition more than based on the descriptions of these titles in scripture. But I’m convinced that the words themselves are more descriptive than we give them credit for.

The term “elder” refers to their character. The term “overseer” refers to their function. And the term “shepherd” refers to their gifting. Their chief responsibility was to supervise the believing community in times of crisis.

In terms of character – “elders” are simply mature men of God. Those who have been through good and hard times in the faith. Those who can help younger, more immature Christians to persevere during times of trouble.

In terms of function – the role is not that of visionary leadership. Every description of leadership of elders in the New Testament is that of oversight (“watch over”).

In terms of gifting – there is no doubt that elders had the gifting of care, love, and selflessness. Their calling was one of service to the church.

Elders were not church planters. Note how Paul and Barnabas only appointed elders in Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch when they returned to those churches (Acts 14). There are other examples where elders are only mentioned years after a church had been planted. A new church will not grow elders for years, because it is a recognition of maturity. Before elders were recognized, the oversight of a church was handled by the apostle(s) who planted it – who would return from time to time.

The Greek words translated “ordain” in Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5 simply mean to “acknowledge” someone that others have already endorsed. This means that the church trusted the elders.

Unfortunately, the American penchant for “offices” and “positions” has caused many believers to bring these ideas to the Biblical text and view the elders as official. Such thinking confuses the oversight of the early church with modern social conventions. It also strips the leadership terminology found in Scripture of its native meaning.

Another principle about this oversight leadership that is missing in today’s church is that of plural oversight. Just about everywhere you see the term “elder” in the New Testament, it is in the plural, even among a particular church. You will not find the concept of “lead elder” like you have in today’s “head pastor.”

Plural oversight in the church protected the sole Headship of Christ. It also served as a check against despotism and corruption among the overseers.

Should these elders be paid? Many people point to 1 Timothy 5:17 to say that they should be paid a salary:

Elders who do their work well should be paid well, especially those who work hard at both preaching and teaching. (1 Timothy 5:17, NLT)

This is one of the greatest examples of a translation using a modern interpretation of a function and simply rendering it incorrectly. Look at the footnote for the New Living Translation for this verse, attached to “paid well:”

Greek – should be worthy of double honor.

The New Century Version is much clearer:

The elders who lead the church well should receive double honor, especially those who work hard by speaking and teaching. (1 Timothy 5:17, NCV)

Viola explains this very well:

Some have tried to argue for a professional clergy from this one isolated text. But the context of the passage reveals otherwise. First, the specific Greek words that the NT uses for “pay” or “wages” (misthos and opsonion) are not used here. The Greek word for “honor” in this passage is time, and it means to “respect” or “value” someone or something.

The same word is used four times in 1 Timothy. In every case, it means respect. God is to receive honor from man (1:17; 6:16), elders are to receive honor from the church (5:17), and masters are to receive honor from slaves (6:1). Another form of the word is used when Paul says that widows are to be honored by the church (1 Tim. 5:3). (Incidentally, time is never used in first-century literature to refer to “honorarium.”)

Second, all believers are called to honor (time) one another (Rom. 12:10). It would be absurd to take this to mean that all believers are to receive payment from each other. Those elders who serve well are to receive more honor – or greater respect.

Third, the fact that respect is what Paul had in mind is born out by verse 19. Paul goes on to say that the elders are not to be accused (dishonored) unless there are two or three witnesses to confirm the accusation.

Finally, elders were leaders in the church, but they did not lead the gatherings. They did not take a visionary role or make executive decisions. They were not clerics or priests. Their ministry did not interfere with the ministry of others in the church. You will not find a justification for these roles of an “elder” in the New Testament. They simply aren’t there.

The clergy profession is a mammoth institution that is far removed from the NT concept of leadership. And its mere presence hinders the cultivation of mature, relational, functioning churches that deeply express the Headship of Jesus Christ…

The modern day pastor system of Protestantism is a religious artifact that has allowed the Body of Christ to lapse into an audience due to its heavy reliance on a single leader. This unscriptural, clergy-dominated structure has done untold damage to God’s people. It has turned church into the place where Christians watch professionals perform. It has transformed the holy assembly into a center for professional pulpiteerism supported by “lay-spectators.”

The pastoral system has turned ministry into an elitist right. It has stolen your right to function as a member of the ekklesia! And it has lamed the believing priesthood! In short, the clergy concept of church leadership invariably crushes Body life.

All of this begs the question: what about visionary leadership? Next, we’ll look at how the New Testament describes that. But if we intend to take the New Testament seriously, our thoughts about local church leadership must shift radically.

This series is reviewing Rethinking The Wineskin by Frank Viola. See my introduction to the series, if you haven’t already, for the background discussion about the book.

One of the primary characterizations of Christ’s ministry was that of relationship. So much so, that He singled out twelve of his followers and treated them like brothers. Friends. Family.

We don’t usually equate this topic with the Great Commission, but look at what Jesus said:

Jesus, undeterred, went right ahead and gave his charge: “God authorized and commanded me to commission you: Go out and train everyone you meet, far and near, in this way of life, marking them by baptism in the threefold name: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Then instruct them in the practice of all I have commanded you. I’ll be with you as you do this, day after day after day, right up to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18-20, The Message)

What I love about this paraphrase in The Message is that it makes something exceedingly clear – Jesus was commanding them to continue what He had been doing with them, and to take it out into the world. And a key, central aspect to that was with the way He created a family atmosphere among them.

Families typically eat together. They greet one another with affection. They squabble. They reconcile. They protect one another. And they help each other in a pinch. The early church embodied all of these family norms.

We are supposed to resemble a family, not a corporation. We are supposed to be sharing “Christ-like care and compassion,” not approving budgets, hiring CEO’s, and watching growth projections. Some churches even count cars in the parking lot to measure their success. There is little resemblance of this kind of thing to the church that is described in the NT.

Significantly, the NT writers never use the imagery of a business corporation to depict the church. Unlike the institutional church, the early Christians knew nothing of spending colossal figures on building programs and projects at the expense of bearing the burdens of their fellow brethren.

Many contemporary churches have essentially become nothing more than high-powered enterprises that bear more resemblance to General Motors than to the apostolic community!

Viola eloquently points out that part of this problem is that it takes away from the simple, honest implementation of following Christ and replaces it with something much more complex. Viola quotes A.W. Tozer on this point:

Churches run toward complexity as ducks take to water. What is back of this? First, I think it arises from a natural but carnal desire on the part of a gifted minority to bring the less gifted majority to heel and get them where they will not stand in the way of their soaring ambitions… the itch to have the preeminence is one disease for which no natural cure has ever been found…

In all our fallen life there is a strong gravitational pull toward the complexity and away from things simple and real. There seems to be a kind of sad inevitability back of our morbid urge toward spiritual suicide. Only by prophetic insight, watchful prayer and hard work can we reverse the trend and recover the departed glory.

While the “one another” commands are best suited for use in a house setting, they actually require a family atmosphere in order to work at all. If our churches do not truly resemble a family, then they do not resemble the body of Christ.

This series is reviewing Rethinking The Wineskin by Frank Viola. See my introduction to the series, if you haven’t already, for the background discussion about the book.

I clearly remember my early experiences with communion as a child. One of my very first times taking communion, I somehow managed to spill the grape juice all over my light yellow pants. My mother was not pleased!

Modern communion is a formal event. Whether Catholic or Protestant, there really isn’t much difference. It is a quiet, somber occasion. We pick up (or are given) a piece of a cracker or bread. We follow that with a small amount of juice, or even possibly actual wine.

Yet the Lord’s Supper was a meal. They were celebrating the passover feast. It was in this context that Christ first shared with them the breaking of bread and the drinking of wine as an occasion to remember him.

Somehow, modern church has reduced communion from a meal to a simple religious ritual. In the early church, communion was clearly a full meal. Viola says it this way:

The whole of 1 Corinthians 11 makes clear that the believers gathered to eat the Supper as a meal. One would find himself hard-pressed to get drunk on a thimble of grape juice or satisfy his hunger with a bite-sized cracker!

Of course, the history behind this is rooted in the Catholic church. But as I’m learning more and more, Protestantism was primarily concerned about reforming the theology of the church, and largely left the structure and the practices of the church untouched.

The Lord’s Supper also witnesses to the three chief virtues: faith, hope, and love. Through the Supper, we re-ground ourselves in that glorious salvation that is our by faith. We re-express our love for the brethren as we reflect on the one Body. And we rejoice in the hope of our Lord’s soon return. By observing the Supper correctly, we “proclaim (present) the Lord’s death (past) till He comes (future).”

Catholics have made the Lord’s Supper literal and sacrificial. Every time they take the Eucharist, they believe that Christ is being re-sacrificed for our sins. Protestants have made the Supper merely symbolic and commemorative. They believe it is merely a reminder of the cross.

But the Lord’s Supper is neither a perpetual sacrifice (the Catholic view) nor an empty ritual (the Protestant practice). It carries no sacramental overtones. Nor can it be properly conceived as simply a memorial.

The Lord’s Supper is a spiritual reality. The Holy Spirit is present in it. Through the Supper, the Spirit reveals the living Christ to the hearts of His beloved saints. In the Supper, we sup with Him through the one loaf and the one cup.

The NT clearly reveals communion as a meal shared in the context of the church gathering together.

When Christ introduced communion, they were eating bread and wine. This was something they did regularly, including after Christ rose from the grave. He was turning a regular, daily, mundane task – eating food – into an occasion of remembrance, reflection, and celebration. Which do you think held more power in the apostles mind – when they broke bread with Christ before He died on the cross, or when they broke bread with Christ after He rose from the grave?

By introducing communion in the context of a meal, was Christ creating a new ritual, or injecting new meaning into a daily task? I believe it was more of the latter than the former.

We have lost much of what the original church believed and practiced in the communal meal. We have turned church gatherings into a presentation around a pulpit, whereas in scripture they look more like relationships around a table with food. If we were to regain the concept of church around a table instead of church around a pulpit, we’d be on the right track towards making our church gatherings relational and renewing the church back to God’s original design.

I picked up a phenomenal book a couple of weeks ago, and it is taking a while for me to digest and work through. It’s called Rethinking The Wineskin by Frank Viola, and it is doing an incredible job bringing together a lot of what I’ve been working through over the last couple of years.

I’ll start this series out with a quote from the book. It’s a long one from the introduction, but it is a good summary of what the book is about.

Church history is rife with examples demonstrating that every past renewal has repackaged the new wine into old wineskins. By the old wineskin, I mean those traditional structures that are patterned after the old Judaic religious system. A system that separated God’s people into two separate classes; required the presence of human mediators; erected sacred buildings; and laid stress on outward forms.

The facets of the old wineskin are many. The clergy/laity distinction. The spectator-performer styled church meeting. The single pastor system. The program-driven worship service. The passive priesthood. The edifice complex. All of these features represent Old Covenant forms in NT garb!

Accordingly, the present cry of the Spirit for genuine renewal will never become a reality for those who ignore His concurrent voice regarding the new wineskin. God himself fashioned this fresh wineskin. He made it to perfectly hold the wine of His life. In this way, the wine always precedes the wineskin.

Sadly, not a few have presumed that God has left the wineskin of church practice to the pragmatic whims of well-intentioned men. But the Lord has not left us to ourselves regarding the practice of His church.

We so often forget that the church belongs to Christ and not to us! As in the Old Testament type, no peg of the tabernacle was left to the imagination of man. Rather, the house was to be built “according to the pattern” given from above.

This does not mean that the NT supplies us with an ironclad, meticulous blueprint for church practice. It does not. Therefore, it is a gross mistake to tease out of the apostolic letters an inflexible code of church order that is as unalterable as the law of the Medes and Persians! Such a written code belongs to the other side of the cross.

On the other hand, the NT introduces us to a number of clearly defined practices that characterize God’s spiritual house. And it is these practices that make up the “Divine pattern” for the ekklesia (church).

Going through the description of the church in the NT is what the book continues to do. It talks about the following aspects:

• Gatherings
• Common Meal
• The House
• Family/Community
• Leadership – Oversight
• Leadership – Visionary
• Purpose
• Membership
• Boundary
• Tradition
• Conclusion

I plan on sharing in more detail about each of these. More of my study has been focused on the description of the church in the NT, apart from the trappings of the modern church. I’ve been reading bits and pieces here and there, but it’s awesome to see how so many people have been struggling with this, for so many years. Viola doesn’t pretend to be alone in this – his book is full of quotes from other authors. But Viola’s style and approach are needed today. He’s clear, conversational, and confrontational. Had I read this book four years ago I would have been deeply disturbed by it. Which would have been a good thing!

I can see why Barna is partnering with Viola for his next book – Revolution was simply an introduction to renewing the church. It’s not just about the house. Or open meetings. Though those are certainly good places to start. The NT is full of descriptions of the church that we should be paying attention to. Rethinking The Wineskin does a very good job of sifting through, organizing, and presenting these descriptions.

Final note, and this is important. I fully realize that the things I regularly talk about may seem impractical. Too far removed from where church currently is. And too far removed from what many people will realistically understand, because their view of church is rooted primarily in tradition – the way they grew up understanding church. There is a benefit to continuing to have churches that do things the “modern” way.

Yet it is also critical for us to evaluate what the “modern” way is in light of scripture. And it is critical for us to seek out what God desires for the church. Any criticism you might see in what I’ve written is as much a criticism of myself as it might be of anyone else. The only possible difference is that I’m determined to push forward in church renewal – not renewal to more modern music styles, more relevant evangelism methods, or more appropriate post-modern theology. But renewal back towards what is described in scripture.