“CHURCHQUAKE”
by C. Peter Wagner, Regal Paperback, USA, 1999. Subtitle: How the New Apostolic Reformation is shaking up the Church, as we know it.

Reviewed and critiqued by Jim Peacock on behalf of Cultwatch (www.cultwatch.com)

The reviewer asks for the reader’s patience in that there are two appendices attached to this critique in order to better evaluate this influential book

Introduction

C. Peter Wagner makes extensive claims for he calls the “New Apostolic Reformation”.  But how does his controversial interpretation of the term “apostle”, with its assertions of “new apostolic pastors”, “apostolic networks” with “awesome new levels of spiritual authority”, and the “authority of the overseeing apostle”, compare with the New Testament pattern of church government?  Hopefully this critique will sharpen the interest of readers to consult their Bible

The dramatic title of this book indicates what C. Peter Wagner sees as “the greatest change in the way of doing church since the Protestant Reformation” (p. 5) and the “most radical change in world Christianity” since the sixteenth century. (p. 36).  Many historians of church history would probably question that rather extravagant statement.  The main thesis of the book is the “New Apostolic Reformation” [from now on referred to as the NAR], which at present is “only semivisible” (p. 47) or “semi-invisible” (p. 12).

The author discusses what he sees as “new forms and operational procedures in local church government, interchurch relationships…and other important aspects of church life…taking the form of loosely structured apostolic networks.”(pp. 5-6)  However, to attempt to put any label, such as the NAR, on the worldwide activity of the sovereign Holy Spirit is questionable.  Are all the churches he mentions, and others he does not mention, part of the NAR?

In his book Wagner has tried to document the recent and past history of church growth as befits the author’s title of “professor of church growth.” (p. 7).  In this area he appears to be well researched.  While “Renewal” is considered to be a “dead-end street” (p. 61), he claims that there is a “reassuring new look to Protestantism”.  However, he seems to attribute all recent church growth in different countries to his “New Apostolic Reformation” that is nothing less than a “crucial hinge of church history” (p. 16).  At this point he becomes less than convincing.  He is too generous in his description of the NAR.  However, he does modestly admit to being “a novice in the things of the New Apostolic Reformation” (p. 17)

Readability

The book is not an academic thesis; it is generally readable by the non-academic Christian apart from such jaw-breaking words as “contextualization”, “connectionalism”, “intradenominational,” “neo-denominationalism”, and “postdenominationalism”.  All of these examples of “churchspeak” would benefit from a definition in a glossary of terms.  While the book is well referenced at the end of each chapter, it is surprising to find the index of Scriptural references is included in the general index.  Hence this reviewer’s attempt to make a separate Scriptural index as Appendix C.

New Wine In New Wineskins

I agree with Wagner that the contemporary Church needs to understand the parable of new wine in new wineskins because God will always do new things by his Spirit even if the Church refuses them.  He argues forcefully (and correctly) from the parable of Jesus that a new wineskin is needed to hold the new wine of the Holy Spirit.  He makes the point that God’s presence cannot be patched onto dead religious institutions or poured into apostate religious structures.  Some argue that the Church should be an unchanging institution given that the gospel is a timeless message.  Yet the gospel needs contemporary expression as society changes its ethnic composition and becomes more pluralist in values and complex in structure.  We should, I suggest, never be afraid of trying new ways of expressing the timeless gospel message as well as finding new methods of making that gospel relevant. 

In my view Wagner is correct in believing that in general churches are inherently conservative structures that are reluctant to adopt new ideas initiated by the Holy Spirit.  However, his “New Apostolic Reformation” with its “final authority of one [fallible human] leader” simply exemplifies, I think, the fatal human tendency to “bottle up” the Holy Spirit in an unscriptural form or structure.  Wagner’s proposal would make for an unscriptural man-made organization that we probably cause more problems than it would solve.

Useful Insights

Wagner is constructive with some insights that are to be welcomed.  For instance, he points out the essential difference between the transfer growth of a church and its conversion growth.  He statistically documents the rise and fall of various churches and offers valid reasons for these trends.  Further, he gives a timely reminder in the age of the mega-church and the cult of personality that Christ’s humility provides the pattern for Christian service.  Not many believers would doubt that “God’s work must be done in God’s way”, but we all need a reminder from time to time.  In particular he finds that Christian social responsibility is mandatory and not optional.  I enjoyed his perceptive comment that, “Going to extremes while emphasizing a half-forgotten Christian truth is not unusual” (p. 253) with the examples of “prosperity theology”, faith healers, and legalistic holiness.  Does this comment also apply to “apostolic networks”?

In chapter seven he discusses the controversial question of appropriate versus unsuitable types of church music as understood by different churches and different generations of believers.  Among other things, he points out the important difference between a church choir or group of musicians performing for an audience of spectators in the pew, and musicians leading a congregation to participate in community worship

Opponents Of Wagner’s Proposal

Wagner correctly predicted that, “Some, indeed, may not even like this book!” (p. 133).  However, given human infallibility it is arrogant presumption by Wagner to label his opponents as satanically inspired.  I am disappointed to read, “Undoubtedly the devil will go to any extreme possible to derail the New Apostolic Reformation.” (p. 118).  Wagner believes that “recognizing apostles…will stir up opposition in the invisible world.” (p. 111).  He quotes Cannistraci as saying “Satan knows this, and I’m sure all of hell shudders at the prospect of a revitalization of apostles and apostolic people.” (p. 111).  “Nonadopters” and “traditionalists” and “denominational executives” Wagner’s opponents may be, but it is better to debate their ideas on the basis of Scripture rather than judgmentally ascribe evil motives to them. 

The Final Authority Of One Leader

It would be unfortunate if Wagner’s ideas were accepted uncritically.  Judged from the theological perspective of most commentators on church government, the difficulties begin when Wagner attempts to defend his charismatic view of the word “apostle”, and when he argues for an apostolic team that “has voluntarily submitted to the final authority of one leader.” (p. 129).  (Italics added) This dangerous proposal is a reminder that a Protestant pastor may claim a type of papal infallibility and practice a spiritual despotism that is normally associated with the Roman Catholic Church.  Even a casual glance at 2,000 years of Church history, including Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant denominations is a sober reminder of Lord Acton’s saying: “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Wagner also appears to contradict himself.  Having made the case for “the final authority of one leader”, he also says that apostolic networks are based on relationship and partnership and “only minimal legal and financial control are imposed.” (p. 128).  Later he says, “a central headquarters will not dictate policy for local churches.  Every church is to be autonomous.” (p. 131).  The italics are mine.  He admits there is a danger of a “centralizing authority, insisting on uniform practices, and creating bureaucratic layers of approval.” (p. 133).  This abuse of authority is precisely what his critics anticipate would potentially happen with any proposed “apostolic networks.”  In the New Testament each local church had its own administrative independence, and each church had direct responsibility to the Lord.

Who Is An Apostle?

Crucial to Wagner’s argument is “recognizing the New Testament office of apostle as alive and well in churches today” which constitutes “the biggest leap with which many readers [including this reviewer] of this book will be confronted.” (p. 46).  Much of his argument rests on Ephesians 4:11-12, which the Church has long debated how to understand.  Various answers have been offered.  Some commentators argue that Ephesians (4:11) teaches that apostles and prophets will always be given to the church.  Others see them as figures of the past, with evangelists and pastors replacing them.  Wagner calls this later group “Cessationists”.  He represents the former school of thought, often called “Restorationists”, that is popular with some members of the charismatic branch of the contemporary church. 

Wagner offers this definition of an apostle: “The gift of apostle is the special ability that God gives to certain members of the Body of Christ to assume and exercise general leadership over a number of churches with an extraordinary authority in spiritual matters that is spontaneously recognized and appreciated by those churches.” (p. 105).  The italics are added.  At the time of writing this book Wagner remained uncertain about the definition of “many other kinds of apostles” (p. 105).

Wagner contends that today the office of an apostle includes overseeing large sections of the Church.  He argues that a pastor has a “strong territorial commitment, accompanied by awesome levels of authority.” (p. 93).  He quotes Roberts Liardon, a new apostolic leader, as saying, “Apostles are divinely appointed to a given territory or region.  Some of these territories make up cities or counties while others are regional, national or international.” (p. 127).  The italics are added. 

Does Wagner imagine that today’s apostles (and pastors?) have the same absolute and unquestioned authority as the original twelve apostles or that of the apostle Paul?  Who appoints these apostles or are they self-appointed?  Does Wagner give himself the authority to appoint them?  Wherever we read of the appointment of apostles it is always the Lord who chooses them.  Man does not select them, nor commission them, or ordain them.

Critics of Wagner see in his proposals of “a number of churches” and “territorial commitment” and “territorial spheres” the danger of empire building and the cult of personality, despite assurances that any apostolic network is a “voluntary, interdependent, relationship.”  He naively assumes that apostolic leaders can be trusted with extensive authority when the spectacular moral failure of many prominent charismatic church leaders in the contemporary Church, and the ensuing disastrous consequences, would suggest otherwise.  Wagner’s proposal seems reminiscent of the medieval papacy with its autocratic leadership.

The Nature Of The Authority Of An Apostle Is Debatable

Contrary to Wagner’s rather simplistic view of an “apostle” there has been much debate over the criteria for an “apostle”, the nature of the authority of this position, and the relationship between the original mission of the New Testament apostles, and the permanent and local ministry of pastors and leaders in today’s Church.  The situation is not as clear as Wagner would have us understand.  Moreover, the emphasis in the New Testament is on healthy doctrine, not church structures. 

Even when Wagner quotes from C. Brown’s scholarly Dictionary of New Testament Theology to explain the origin of the word “apostle”, he fails to read further in the same article where his understanding of an apostle is contradicted.  D. Müller says, “Paul gives no suggestion that the apostle’s special position exalts him above the church and distinguishes him from the others with spiritual gifts.  His spiritual gifts are there to fulfill definite functions in the church…His authority is not derived from some special quality in him, but from the gospel itself in its truth and power to convict.  That is why Paul takes pains to make it clear when he is giving his own opinion.”  Muller concludes, “One thing is certain.  The New Testament never betrays any understanding of the apostolate as an institutionalized church office, capable of being passed on.”  The reader of this review is referred to Appendix B for a more detailed discussion of the word “apostle.”

The Question Of Accountability

Wagner’s idea of an “apostolic network” with an “overseeing apostle” is highly questionable.  Moreover it is a dangerous argument that makes for a spiritual despotism or dictatorship that is completely unfounded in Scripture.  To whom is this “super-apostle” accountable?  Wagner becomes engagingly vague at this point.  In particular his associated idea of local church pastors being accountable to their apostles is less than convincing.  In Wagner’s words the accountability of local pastors is like “the relationship of a leader to subordinates, just as is the pastor’s role with the local church elders” (p. 122). 

It is hardly surprising that Wagner admits that on the question of accountability he has “not received consistently clear answers” (p. 122) and that “on this one, the jury is still out.” (p. 123).  His best suggestion is that “apostles” be accountable to their “legitimate apostolic peers” or “the authority of the overseeing apostle.” (p. 123).  Instead of consulting with “top leaders” of the NAR to solve this problem, he would do better to read his New Testament more carefully. 

Wagner’s idea of an “apostolic network” sounds rather like a re-make of the discredited “Shepherding and Covering Movement” that began within the house churches that sprang up in the 1960s and 1970s, and influenced charismatic churches within some denominations.  At one point the movement included such well-known charismatic leaders as Bob Mumford, Derek Prince, and Don Basham, all of whom later renounced the movement.  “Covering” meant that a church member must have any important decision, and sometimes less important ones, ‘covered’ or approved by their house-group leader, elder or pastor.  Examples of decisions for covering by a leader are: moving home, employment, and marriage, even an appointment with the doctor.  The lack of clear accountability of the apostles of the NAR puts them at risk of becoming autocratic.

The General Consensus Of Evangelical Scholars

It is the general consensus of evangelical scholars that the teaching of the twelve apostles and Paul was binding on the whole church, but no such group of apostles exists today.  In the New Testament the term “apostle” is used in a special sense of the Twelve and Paul who saw the resurrected Christ and were personally commissioned by Christ to establish the Church.  They had a unique authority within the Church that does not exist today.  Paul says that the Church is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.” (Ephesians 2:20).  They were foundational gifts to the Church and for this reason they are mentioned first and second in 1 Corinthians 12:28.  Their authority and their message remain preserved in the writings of the New Testament that is valid for the Church for every age.  This original and fundamental revelation recorded in the New Testament can never be replaced by any later revelation or prophecy (Galatians 1:6-9). 

Therefore the office of an apostle in this specialized meaning is unique and unrepeatable.  The original apostles can have no successors as Wagner imagines.  There are no apostles today in the strict New Testament sense.  Wagner himself quotes an exponent of this view but he rejects it: “It seems better to take ‘apostle’ as a technical term, not transferable to an office in the post-apostolic age.  This precludes the ‘apostolic succession’ in the Church of Rome.” (p. 108)

There is the additional danger that Wagner’s over-emphasis on apostles would lead to an imbalance among the ministry gifts and the neglect of other equally valid ministries.  Furthermore all believers are priests through Christ and have equal access to the Father (1 Peter 2:9; Hebrews 4:15–16).  The Spirit’s wisdom is given freely to anyone who asks for it (James 1:5).  It is one matter for an individual to ask advice of another believer, but no individual has an exclusive right to claim to know God’s particular will for another believer.  Such heavy-handed church authority as proposed by “apostolic networks” inevitably leads to spiritual abuse, spiritual immaturity, loss of individual liberty of conscience, and a legalism that is foreign to the spirit of the New Testament. 

An analysis of the limited number of Scriptures used by Wagner (See Appendix C) would suggest that he has approached his subject with a predetermined idea and failed to find biblical support for it, rather than making the text of the New Testament itself his starting point.  This is disappointing, as he believes that the Bible “is the absolute authority for faith and practice.” (p. 67) Wagner comments that “the churches of the New Apostolic Reformation appear to be the nearest thing to applying the principles of the book of Acts.” (p. 15).  Yet there is only one Scriptural reference to the book of Acts (1:8) in Churchquake!  It is important to make use of every text on any biblical subject rather than a very limited number of references as Wagner has done.  In this respect he denies a belief held by all conservative evangelicals.

New Testament Principles Of Church Government Disprove Wagner’s Argument

The New Testament teaches some general principles of church government that are examined in more detail in Appendix A.  The main principles of New Testament church organization that disprove Wagner’s argument for a New Testament “apostolic network” are:

1. There is no single pattern of church government or order in the New Testament.  Jesus gave his disciples no formal prescription for the organization of the church and this is one explanation for the different forms of church government are used today.  Three different types of church government have developed since the early Church: Episcopal (Anglican and Roman Catholic), Presbyterian, and Congregational.  Each type of church government can mine the New Testament and find support for its particular system.  Most scholars recognize that there were elements of each type in the New Testament depending upon the context of time and place.
2. There is no support in the New Testament for merging local churches into a centralized organization ruled by an apostolic hierarchy.  In the New Testament there was no centralized government of the whole Church.  The apostle Paul had a general oversight of some of the Gentile churches but this authority was spiritual and not organizational.  Instead churches were encouraged to rely upon the Word of God as their final authority (2 Timothy 3:14-17; Titus 1:7-9).
3. Each local church had its own administrative independence, and each church had direct responsibility to the Lord.  No local church and its leaders had any authority over another local church and its leaders, or any group of churches.  No church had superiority over any other church.  On this principle the Protestant Reformation specifically rejected the jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome over other churches.  (It is pleasing to note that Wagner says, “The bedrock theology of the Protestant Reformation is not up for revision.” p. 18)
4. Usually no church leader had jurisdiction in any church except his own church.  There was no formal organizational link or alliance or federation between Paul’s churches.  In the book of Revelation each of the seven churches is treated independently.  There was no coalition of Asian churches that checked the moral or doctrinal affairs of one of its members.  This is not to say that there should be no fellowship or co-operation between churches.  There should always be the bond of practical love.  For example, Paul encouraged the Gentile churches to contribute to the Jerusalem church.
5. The New Testament gives no detailed set of regulations for the government of the Church.  The New Testament churches all acknowledged the supreme authority of Christ exercised by the Holy Spirit.  Their unity lay in the gospel itself, and in their acceptance of the Old Testament.  Churches founded by an apostle generally recognized the authority delegated by Christ to their founder apostle.  In Paul’s case, all churches founded by him were expected to submit to his authority.  However, much of his communication tried to persuade rather than to dictate.  Consequently Paul wrote letters and sent Timothy.  However, this authority was spiritual and advisory, not based on force (2 Corinthians 10:8; 13:10).  (See Appendix A points 5 and 9)
6. The apostle Paul did not tyrannize the faith of those he shepherded.  He said, “Not that we lord it over your faith, but we work with you for your joy, because it is by faith you stand firm.” (2 Corinthians 1:24).  Apostolic authority did not give Paul any right to “lord it over” (NIV) or “dictate the terms of” (NEB) or “dominate” (Phillips) the faith of the Corinthian believers.  The Corinthian believers were to stand by their own faith, not by Paul’s control.  Paul was careful not to seek a spiritual tyranny over the faith of others (cf. 2 Corinthians 4:5; 11:20).
7. The authority exercised by the apostles was exercised democratically, not autocratically.  The Jerusalem Council (about 50 AD) illustrates the working of the early Church where a strong leadership also involved the participation of the congregation (Acts 15:12,22).  Luke states that the apostles were careful to include the elders and the “whole church” when approving the decisions that were made: “Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas.” (Acts 15:22 cf. verse 12)  The whole church expressed its opinion and unanimously agreed with the recommendation of the apostles. 

In another example, the proposal made by the Twelve to select men for practical service was approved by “all the disciples” and “the whole group” of believers (Acts 6:2,5).  The entire church in Jerusalem selected the Seven who were possibly “deacons”; the apostles themselves did not make the choice of the Seven.  The church selected the seven men; but the apostles approved the selection and appointed them to their office.

8. For all his close ties with his churches, Paul gave them considerable freedom to develop their own life in different ways.  Diversity within unity would seem to be the New Testament pattern.

The interested reader is referred to Appendix A for a fuller discussion of New Testament church government.

Tithing And Church Finance

In the concluding chapter of his book Wagner discusses the thorny question of church finances and disappointingly he favours the Old Testament system of tithing in the New Testament age of grace.  This reviewer agrees with the Baptist leader who is disapprovingly quoted by Wagner as saying, “The tithe was…promoted through legalism rather than calling people to a grace-filled response.” (p. 248).  Nowhere does the New Testament command Christians to tithe.  Significantly in this chapter Wagner quotes only one New Testament verse (Luke 6:38) and the last five words of 2 Corinthians 9:7 (i.e. “God loves a cheerful giver.”) to justify his argument for tithing which is almost entirely based on the OT text of Malachi chapter 3. 

He seems totally unaware of the grace principles of 2 Corinthians chapters 8 and 9.  Paul’s teaching suggests that giving is voluntary (“Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” 2 Corinthians 9:7) and in proportion to income (“in keeping with his income.” 1 Corinthians 16:2).  In the New Testament the stress is on generosity, not OT tithing.

Christian giving is not limited to the tithe of one’s income.  There is no specified amount or set percentage for those who live by the principles of grace giving.  Law and grace are opposing principles.  To recommend or enforce compulsory tithing for the believer creates a false synthesis of law and grace.  [The reader is referred to a detailed discussion of Christian giving in this reviewer’s paper on the Cultwatch website, www.cultwatch.com]

Wagner Is Charismatic But Unscholarly

Many readers of Churchquake share Wagner’s concern for world evangelism.  While his book offers encouragement and motivation for church growth by evangelism, he has proposed a flawed blueprint based on an inadequate understanding of the New Testament that is not only misleading, but also dangerous.  While his viewpoint is evangelical, his main idea is flawed.  We do not need any “super-apostles”; we need a genuine move of the Spirit of God untarnished by human manipulation or power politics or “apostolic networks”.  Human planning in the things of God easily becomes doing what we like in our own way.

Wagner is a useful meeting point of evangelical issues but he relies too heavily on a narrow base of Scripture for his argument rather than a study of the New Testament itself.  As a respected leader he has a great deal to teach us about church growth.  Regrettably, he has at best a superficial understanding of church government in general and, more seriously, of orthodox Christian teaching on the meaning of “apostle”, in particular.  A major problem with this book is Wagner’s dogmatism in the face of New Testament scholarship.  He makes unjustified conclusions too easily that ignore the total evidence of the New Testament.  It is disappointing that an influential evangelical leader is so careless in matters of theology.  In short, Wagener is charismatic but unscholarly.  It has been said that, “Nothing is more dangerous than an idea, when you only have one idea.”

However, since “new apostolic churches put a high value on being biblical churches” (p. 196) and “new apostolic leaders are not questioning…the authority of Scripture” (p. 18), there remains the hope that the truth of Scripture will ultimately prevail over Wagner’s misinterpretation of New Testament church government.  One may confidently hope for a refining of Wagner’s ideas from this pioneering study. 

Three Key Questions

There are three key questions that are difficult to answer: What is an apostle?  Who were the apostles in the New Testament Church?  Are there apostles in the Church of today?  We do not know enough to be dogmatic.

Our English word “apostle” is a transliteration of the Greek “apostolos.”  It has been suggested that the best translation for the Greek “apostolos” is “envoy.”  In the New Testament the apostles included the Twelve and Paul, all of whom had been appointed by Christ.  “Apostles” also included others such as James and Barnabas, and possibly Silas and Timothy.  This latter group had the gift of apostleship but not the apostolic “office” as did the Twelve and Paul. 

The apostle Peter gave the two essential requirements of the original twelve apostles in a key text: “Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.” (Acts 1:21-22)  The first apostles who laid the foundation of the New Testament Church in one sense have no successors.  Their task was to establish churches and to make sure that they were soundly based on the gospel of Christ.

An apostle was one who carried the gospel of Christ with God’s authority.  Thayer explains the verb “apostello” as meaning, “to order (one) to go to a place appointed.”  The apostle is primarily someone who is sent forth on a certain mission.  In one sense every missionary (a word that comes to us from the Latin language) of Christ is an apostle commissioned and sent forth.  In another sense every preacher of the gospel of Christ is an apostle; s/he is God’s ambassador. 

As the word “apostle” means “one sent with a commission”, or “one sent as an authoritative delegate”, in a general sense, all Christians have an apostolic ministry.  Jesus said, “As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.”  (John 20:21) but we should not claim to be apostles!  In general, the word “apostle” has a fluid usage that the NAR probably would not recognize.  Our commitment as believers is to the apostolic faith and doctrine of the New Testament rather than the NAR.  The apostolic role of the Twelve and Paul is fulfilled today by the Bible, which remains the benchmark for the Church.

Conclusion

In conclusion, evangelicals are generally agreed that in the parable of Jesus, wine is a symbol of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and wineskins are a symbol of the structures of the Church.  Jesus meant that the wine is primary and the wineskins are secondary.  I agree with Wagner that the new wine of the Holy Spirit requires new wineskins but his proposed man-made model of apostolic networks led by apostolic superstars is an unbiblical answer.  Ultimately it would destroy a healthy diversity within the Church.  Further there is the potential danger of a “super-apostle” becoming a superstar and a “control freak” who damages churches and other Christian organizations.

So the question remains, “What sort of church structures are best suited to the gospel of Christ in our rapidly changing contemporary society?”  The risen Lord Jesus Christ who administers the Church by the Holy Spirit best answers that question.  Therefore, “It is the duty of anyone who can hear to listen to what the Spirit is saying to the churches.” (Revelation 2: 7 Barclay Translation)  While creative solutions are required, the Spirit of God will never contradict the written Word of God

APPENDIX A: NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH GOVERNMENT AND ORGANIZATION

This appendix is not intended to be an exhaustive study of this complex subject.  Instead its purpose is to provide a basis of comparison between the New Testament and the type of proposal favoured by C. Peter Wagner.  Those readers interested in this subject are referred to my paper “A Study of Authoritarian Church Leadership and The Individual Freedom of Church Members” found on the Cultwatch website (www.cultwatch.com)

1. Although church organization varies from denomination to denomination today, the pattern and purpose of the New Testament remains a model for churches that accept the supreme authority of Scripture.  However, Jesus specifically commanded no detailed system of church government and the organization of the early churches was not governed by a rigid plan that each church had to follow.  The guiding principle was that the church was the body of Christ with a mission to accomplish, and each local church was free to respond to the Holy Spirit in fulfilling its responsibilities (Romans 12:1-8; 1 Corinthians 12:4-11; Ephesians 4:11-16).
2. Organization was a matter of gradual growth suggested by emerging needs, and the different functions in the church were due to the different gifts given by God to church members (1 Corinthians 12:28).  The necessities of government, of discipline, and of regular instruction meant that in the first century AD a local ministry fulfilled some of the functions of apostles and prophets.  The organization of the early churches was not necessarily the same in every locality.  A large church needed more organization than a small one.
3. Authority was not the sole right of the apostle.  Paul recognized both individual and corporate forms of authority in the church.  For example, he required the Thessalonians to acknowledge “those who stand before them in the Lord” (1 Thessalonians 5:12).  This was an authority that came from their work not their personal position.  As such, they are to be held “in high esteem” (1 Thessalonians 5:13)
4. New Testament church government was collective and corporate rather than hierarchical (Matthew 18:19; 23:8; Acts 15:28).  It remains the corporate responsibility of the church (i.e. all believers are involved) to “test” (1 Thessalonians 5:19–21) and “weigh prophecies” (1 Corinthians 14:29), to punish wrongdoing (2 Corinthians 2:6), and to reinstate the repentant (2 Corinthians 2:7–8).  This authority derives from “the power of the Lord Jesus” that is present when believers are “gathered in his name” (1 Corinthians 5:4)
5. Paul exercised his authority with reasoned argument.  In his relationship to his churches he preferred to “appeal” rather than to “command”.  When instructing his churches two of his favourite words were “parakaleō”, (Strong’s # 3870), and “erōtaō”, (Strong’s #2065). A
6. His pastoral work was nurturing and not authoritarian (2 Corinthians 1:24, “not that we lord it over your faith but work with you”).  Paul used the images of family relationships.  For example, “gentle as a nursing mother” (1 Thessalonians 2:7) and “as a father who exhorts and encourages his children” (1 Thessalonians 2:11–12.  This implies that he preferred not to impose his own will upon the churches, but encourage them to make their own decisions.  Paul’s model was the parent-adult child, and not the parent-infant child.  Paul did not want his children to be too dependent upon him.
7. Paul recognized and encouraged local leadership.  He urged the church at Corinth to submit themselves to Stephanas and others who had devoted themselves to the “service of the saints” (1 Corinthians 16:16).  He appealed to the Thessalonians to respect those who “have charge of you in the Lord” (1 Thessalonians 5:12).
8. Paul encouraged his converts to be involved in pastoral care.  Likening the church to a body, he spoke of the members having “the same care for one another” (1 Corinthians 12:25).  Paul urged the Galatians to “bear one another’s burdens” which in turn involved caring for those straying from the faith, restoring the backsliders (Gal 6:1, 2).  The Thessalonians were to “encourage one another and build up each other” (1 Thessalonians 5:11) and “encourage the faint-hearted, help the weak” (1 Thessalonians 5:14)
9. The main day-to-day ordering and governing of affairs of Paul’s churches lay in the hands of the congregations themselves.  In churches, like Philippi, where things were going relatively well, Paul could address problems without reminding them of his foundational role in their life or of his apostolic authority.  In other churches, like Corinth, where things were not going so well, Paul reminded his converts of his role in their life (1 Corinthians 4:15) and play a more directive part in their affairs.  But nowhere does he exhibit an authoritarian position.  Generally in his writings he is more concerned that his converts should “imitate” rather than “obey” him (cf. 1 Thessalonians 3:6; 1 Corinthians 11:1; Galatians 4:12; Philippians 3:17).
10. Although Paul regarded himself as having a special pastoral relationship with his churches, this did not cause him to operate as a solo pastor.  Rather Paul constantly surrounded himself with co-workers who could share in the pastoral task.  Perhaps one hundred people were associated with the apostle.  Timothy was sent to Corinth; Titus was sent to Corinth (Titus 3:12; 2 Timothy 4:10).
11. There was a limit to Paul’s apostolic authority.  Although he played a vital role in the birth and ongoing life of the churches he founded, with other churches he did not assume a pre-eminent position (cf. Romans 1:11–13).
12. Having left with them the gospel, some instruction, his own example and the OT Scriptures, Paul was confident that his churches had the resources to mature in their spiritual life.  He was there if they needed advice on certain matters and would occasionally visit them to see how they were doing.  In a situation requiring discipline, he could be authoritative but not as an external, hierarchical authority so much as a significant fellow member whose spirit was present in their deliberations even when he was absent (1 Corinthians 5:3–5; Colossians 2:5).
13. His aim was to build up the church’s ability to look after such matters, “working with” them rather than “lording it over” them (2 Corinthians 1:24).  His basic authority came from the gospel he had been commissioned to preach, not by right from his apostolic commission itself.  Only so long as his words reflected that gospel (Galatians 1:9), or were in accord with the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 7:40), should his churches give him a hearing.  His authority was subject to the Christian discernment of other believers.
14. Paul’s fellow workers such as Timothy and Titus had only a derived authority, based upon the reputation of the work they have undertaken or upon transmitting Paul’s message to his churches.  They did not have any automatic right of entry into the affairs of churches.  Often he has to argue their case, pointing out their involvement with him and knowledge of his affairs as well as their devotion to service  (Philippians 2:19–23; Colossians 4:7–8).  When visiting churches these colleagues have a role to play but as itinerants (cf. 2 Corinthians 7:15), not in some resident capacity.
15. Paul’s associates Timothy and Titus had no permanent role in the churches they visited but a temporary one (1 Tim 2:12–15; 6:11–12; 2 Tim 1:8; 2:22–24; 3:10; Tit 2:7).  They provided instruction on how the churches governed themselves, but they did not provide regulations (1 Tim 3:6; 2 Tim 2:2–7; Tit 2:1–9).  They were not in a position of command (1 Tim 5:1–2).  The leadership in the churches was held by reliable individuals from within their own ranks (1 Tim 3:1–13; Tit 1:5–9).
16. While Paul said that all believers had spiritual gifts, he also believed that certain believers had a leadership role in the church.  In 1 Corinthians 12:28, he says that God appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers (and then gifts of power, gifts of healing etc.).  This view is also echoed in Ephesians 4:11–13, where it is said that the gifts of Christ included apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers, whose task was to equip believers for the work of ministry, and building up the body of Christ.  Christ gives gifts of leadership not so that leaders do the work of the Church, but to “equip the saints.”
17. In the Pastoral Letters instructions were given to Timothy and Titus concerning the qualifications of those to be appointed as bishops or elders, and deacons (1 Timothy 3:1–7, 8–13; Titus 1:5–9).  Leaders were sometimes appointed by Paul and his delegates (Titus 1:5; cf. Acts 14:23).  The task of the bishop or overseer, involved teaching and managing the household of God (1 Timothy 3:2, 5).  Elders were expected to rule the church (1 Timothy 5:17) and that some of them preached and countered error (1 Timothy 5:17; Titus 1:9).  Little information is given about the responsibilities of deacons beyond that indicated in Acts chapter six.
18. The ministry of the church centered on its use of spiritual gifts which are given to believers by God’s grace and for his glory, as well as for the good of others (Romans 12:3; Ephesians 4:7-16; etc.).  Every believer has a gift of the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:7; Ephesians 4:7).  It is through the diversity of the gifts that the body of Christ matures and is unified (Romans 12:4; 1 Corinthians 12:12-31; Ephesians 4:17-18).  Although there was organized leadership in the New Testament church of elders and deacons, 1 Timothy 3:1-13), there does not seem to have been a gap between the “clergy” and “laity.
19. There is no continuity of the office of apostle as there is no place in the New Testament where the churches were instructed to appoint apostles.  The authority of the apostles lay in their being bearers of Christ’s message and spiritual gifting.  “None represents institutional authority in the sense of a supra-local church hierarchy, which does not seem to appear until the early second century.” (The IVP Bible Background Commentary, electronic edition, Keener, C. S., 1997.  Note on Ephesians 4:11)