The apostles learned how to lead from Jesus.
NT REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT. The New Testament church began in Acts 2 needing only minimal governance. How so? Because the believers stayed amazingly united, one in mind and heart and soul. For the Holy Spirit guided them.
“Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple”, they kept praising God and having favor with all the people” (Acts. 2:46-47). In prayer “they lifted their voices to God with one accord” (Acts 4:24). “And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul” (4:32).
Until chapter six, the book of Acts mentions only one function of church government: that the apostles received the generous freewill offerings from the believers, to “be distributed as any had need” (4:34-35; 5:1).
More problems mean more government
The first division in the church happened when needy widows of non-Hebrew birth were overlooked in the distribution of food. As a result, the apostles asked the congregation to choose seven wise and Spirit-filled men to “put in charge of this task” (Acts 6:3). More problems mean more government!
Leaders today should follow the same principle when people come to them with problems. Ask them to solve their own problems with their own choice of leaders. That’s representative democracy at its best. The best government governs least, and governs locally. In other words, the people closest to the problems are in the best position to find and apply the solutions.
In contrast, an authoritarian or statist leader sees local problems as an opportunity to increase the central authority of the state. He appoints underlings who answer to him and not to the people.
When Paul planted churches, he also “appointed elders for them in every church” (Acts 14:23). But he let those local elders govern as they saw fit, applying the teachings Paul had given them in person and later in his letters. Paul usually wrote his letters to the whole congregation, and not just to leaders. This implies that both leaders and congregation were accountable to each other to follow his teachings.
Paul did not try to control the churches he planted from a distance, as statist leaders do with their subjects. He did not set up a centralized bureaucracy to which they must report. Nor did he pester them with frequent visits. In fact, he visited them only rarely, such as in times of severe crisis. Or he sent emissaries like Timothy and Titus in his place.
Local elders in a representative government
The fact that Paul calls the local leaders “elders” tells us much about his attitude toward the churches. An elder held the ultimate responsibility for the people he represented. In the Old Testament, “elder” usually meant the eldest male of a family, or one of the eldest males in a clan or tribe.
Seniority counted because of the experience and maturity expected from people of greater age. However, the Hebrews made exceptions when God clearly chose otherwise. For example, God exalted the younger brothers Jacob, Moses and David over their elder siblings.
An elder represented his family, clan or tribe. In the same way, an NT elder (also called “overseer” in the NT because of his function of overseeing his people) probably represented a house church or a group of related house churches. For he was required first to “manage his own household [family] well” before he could “take care of the church of God” (1 Tim. 3:4-5).
At that time, churches met in houses. Therefore, as the churches grew, the number of houses grew, and so did the number of elders needed to oversee them. And to meet together to address shared issues. But even growing churches sought to maintain their inter-personal relationships as an extended “family of God.”
In the NT a fellow believer is called a brother or a sister far more than by a title. The fivefold ministry, mentioned once in the Bible, does emphasize a title for the leader of each of five major church ministries. But instead of dominating the saints, those leaders equip the saints to do the work of building up the body of Christ in love (Eph. 4:11,12,16).
Statism exalts hierarchy
In contrast, statism exalts hierarchy and devalues relationships. Obedience to one’s superiors counts for more than responsiveness to one’s “inferiors”.
The Antichrist sees his subjects in categories of rank: “the small and the great, the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves” (Rev. 13:16), Unfortunately, the “free men” lose their freedom once they take his mark.
As the state grows, its hierarchy grows, and it imposes more and more laws and rules and regulations on localities. Though Scripture calls the Antichrist “the man of lawlessness” (2 Thess. 2:3)—that is, above the law—he imposes oppressive laws on others. His laws intrude on religion—all subjects must worship him (Rev.13:12,15) —and on economic life—all subjects must take his mark before they can buy or sell (Rev. 13:17).
We must resist such statist tendencies among ourselves and in our nations. Instead, we must stand for representative government that:
- governs least from a central authority (Ex. 18:13-26; Acts 15:22-40).
- enables localities to solve their own problems (2 Chron. 19:5-7; Acts 14:23; Acts 15:40).
- values family and community relationships as well as national or larger corporate identity (Dt. 29:10-13; 1 Tim. 3:1-7).
- maintains freedom of religion for all. Without that freedom, people cannot freely choose Christ or reject Him. For faith is a matter of choice, not force (Josh. 24:14-15; Acts 17:26-27).
Representative democracies, such as the US, originated with Christian leaders who followed such biblical principles. But these democracies have developed in nations with a large share of non-Christians.
Our next article in this series will consider how such nations have maintained freedom of religion and expression for all, while also trying to maintain their Christian foundations.
See How Believers Will Rule the Earth with Christ
More ETG articles related to NT Representative Government vs. Statism
Related sources for NT Representative Government vs. Statism
