The Approach to Building a Church (1)

Having looked first at the Foundation of building the Church (Leadership), we now look secondly at the Approach to that process (Discipleship) in Ephesians 4:12: For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.

“Discipleship” is a term we hear used often these days but one that few people define. What exactly does “discipleship” or “discipling” mean? The clearest text about this is Matt 28:19-20: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.”

The word “teaching” in verse 20 is the familiar Greek word didasko, which speaks of systematic teaching. The word “teach” in verse 19, however, is matheteuo, which “means not only to learn, but to become attached to one’s teacher and to become his follower in doctrine and conduct of life.” It appears, for example, in Acts 14:21 in reference to Paul’s ministry in Derbe: “And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch.” This shows that evangelism is more than just preaching the Gospel; it is “making disciples,” that is, making followers of Christ who are attached to Him and so obey him in doctrine and conduct. Much “evangelism” today is just getting someone to repeat a prayer or “make a profession,” but Biblical evangelism is making committed followers of Christ. Easton’s Bible Dictionary describes a “disciple” of Christ as “one who (1) believes His doctrine, (2) rests on His sacrifice, (3) imbibes His spirit, and (4) imitates His example.”

So, while Paul doesn’t use the word mathoteuo in Ephesians 4:12, he most certainly outlines what is involved in making disciples using three principles: equipping, serving, and building.

First, Paul speaks of equipping Believers. The word perfecting translates katartismos, which is used only here in the New Testament and means “to put in order, restore, furnish, prepare, equip.” In ancient Greek the verb form was used in a medical sense to refer to setting a broken limb or putting a joint back into its place and in politics for bringing together opposing factions so that government could continue. A New Testament example of the verb is in reference to repairing fishing nets (Matt. 4:21; Mk. 1:19).

So, it was the responsibility of the Apostle and prophet, and it is today the responsibility of the evangelist and pastor-teacher, to put in order, restore, furnish, prepare, and equip Believers. In many Christian circles this has been totally turned around. Many today believe, “The pastor’s job is to ‘win souls’ and build the church; he should spend most of his time calling on people and knocking on doors.” But this is not the New Testament precedent. Many go to the phrase “house to house” (Acts 2:46; 20:20) to teach this. But in each case the context makes it clear that the teaching of believers is in view.

The New Testament makes it clear that the pastor’s duty is to train believers who then go out as the outreach. The shepherd/sheep analogy makes this obvious. The Shepherd feeds and nurtures the sheep so that they are healthy and capable of reproducing. The pastor’s first concern is to be for the occupied seats, not the empty ones.

How does a pastor go about all this? There can be only one answer: all this is done by the teaching of the Word of God. Many today are trying to do it through programs, promotional gimmicks, and marketing strategies. But a truth we need to realize is that when God’s people fail in service, it is not because of weak programs, but because of weak teaching.

An incident that occurred during the Arab–Israeli war of 1967 serves to illustrate this principle. While flying over the Sinai Desert, an American reporter and an Israeli officer spotted some 50,000 stranded Egyptian soldiers who obviously were dying of thirst. They reported their sighting, but each time a plan to aid the stranded soldiers was recommended, some military, diplomatic, or bureaucratic barrier prevented its implementation. By the time help arrived, it was too late for thousands of the soldiers.

That is the situation in the Church today. All kinds of programs, committees, focus groups, and other suggestions for “reaching out” are made, when what is really needed is simply the water of the Word of God. While many today think that the Church should be addressing “felt needs,” the real need is God’s Truth.

Church Leadership: The “Call” to Ministry (2)

Last time we considered a pivotal verse on the issue of the “call” to full-time Church leadership in I Timothy 3:1: This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. Specifically, taken together, the two terms desire and desireth describe the man who outwardly pursues the ministry because of a driving compulsion on the inside.

This principle immediately and fundamentally implies that not just anyone can preach, which is the exact opposite of modern opinion. Why? Because not just anyone can disregard all else to fill that office and then fulfill its responsibilities. A preacher is called of God to preach and does nothing else. Many, if not most, people today believe in “lay‑preachers,” “lay­pastors,” and “lay‑elders.” But these simply do not match the Scripture, no matter how one tries to justify them. Preaching and teaching the Scripture takes the majority of a man’s time to prepare for; it is not something that can be done as a “sideline.”

Many disagree with that view, but think of it in a simple practical way: would any of us want a surgeon to operate on us simply because he read a couple books on how to perform surgery, perhaps one titled, General Surgery for Dummies? Anyone, in fact, could ask the same question of their vocation, such as this: “Could just anyone walk into my office and say, ‘Well, I read a couple of books on your job, so I think I can do it as well as you?’” How ridiculous, and if I may be frank, how arrogant and insulting! But this is precisely what many do with teaching the Bible. They think that just a little time in the Word, such as reading their Sunday School lesson or reading a couple of commentaries, qualifies them to preach and teach. How tragically wrong that is! Yes, a pastor has many duties, but the majority of his day must be spent in the study of the Word so he can adequately prepare to feed God’s people. We submit, if this isn’t a man’s attitude, he doesn’t belong in a pulpit.

Many people today react to this by saying, “You just think you are part of an elite group. Or maybe it’s just that you’re proud and don’t want to share the glory with anyone else.” On the contrary, one of the main reasons we make this clear is for their own protection. As James declares, “My brethren, be not many masters [i.e., didaskalos, teachers], knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation” (Jas. 3:1). Here is a serious warning that seems to be overlooked by almost everyone today. Such would-be teachers, whether a Sunday School teacher, lay-preacher, or other position, have no idea what responsibility they take on when they presume to teach the Scripture. Every person who takes on that task will give an account of it and will be more strictly judged than other believers. James is telling us, “We warned! Don’t take this on unless God has called you and you have properly trained for it.”

As a pastor, this principle hits me every time I sit down to study in preparation for preaching and teaching. I will answer for what I teach, and it is for that reason that I spend so many hours in study. There are times when I will spend hours, or even days, on one verse, or even a single word, because I want to get it right.

The above attitude of the ministry being a “glorious profession” also shows a total misunderstanding of the ministry. If a man preaches the pure, unaltered Truth, especially in our modern pragmatic, relativistic society, the last thing he’ll receive is glory, rather he’ll experience resistance, rebellion, and even rage from many, if not most, hearers.

So, once again we are brought back to a distinct call of God, which takes place between Him and His servants. We see once more that this was true of Paul, as Luke records in Acts 13:2: “As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them” (emphasis added).

Calling is not the end, only the beginning of a long journey. A man must secondly be tested according to the qualifications for leadership (I Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9), thirdly trained in doctrine and practice (I Tim. 3:6; II Tim. 2:2), fourthly ordained by other leaders (Acts 14:21-25; I Tim. 4:14; 5:22; Titus 1:5;) and then finally sent forth by the Church (Acts 13:2-3). But at the very foundation is the irresistible call of God in his life.

If I might interject a personal example, I did not start out to be preacher; I was headed for another vocation entirely, a surgeon. The ministry was not my plan, but it was God’s. He called me to the ministry and put within me that compulsion. We find the same story of men throughout Scripture and throughout Church History. 

Church Leadership: The “Call” to Ministry (1)

In dealing with Biblical Church leadership, facing another issue is unavoidable, namely, the call to ministry, that is, God’s call to “full-time ministry” as one’s vocation. This is something that has increasingly been questioned in the last three decades. More and more church leaders deny the distinct “call” of God. Many say this is “too subjective;” they insist that ministry is more by personal choice or by the choice of the church.

To that we say first, of course it’s subjective, because it’s what God is doing in a man’s heart and mind to compel him to the ministry. This is the precedent we wee throughout Scripture. Second, and more important, it most certainly is not by personal choice or the choice of a church. It is God’s choice alone. Yes, a local church is to train and ordain men to the ministry and thereby show that it recognizes their call and qualifications. But the actual call is God’s and He works it out between Himself and His servants.

As we noted in Ephesians 4:8—[Christ] ascended up on high, he . . . gave gifts unto men—the words He gave literally mean “He Himself gave,” that is, He, and no one else, gave, and gives, these gifts. In short, it is Christ alone Who calls to ministry.

A pivotal verse here is I Timothy 3:1: This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. While context (vs. 2-7) lists the absolutely specific qualifications for leadership, verse 1 deals with the divine call. This verse has been terribly abused! Desire has been twisted to say that anyone can preach or teach as a “side‑line” just because he “wants to.” But the Greek words behind desire and desireth say something quite different. Desire is orego, which means “to stretch.” One Greek authority tells us: “to stretch one’s self out in order to grasp something; to reach after or desire something.” Another adds that metaphorically the idea is to “long after, try to gain, be ambitious (in a benign manner).” So, this means far more than what we usually mean by desire. It speaks of a deep longing, a complete disregard for all else. This is exactly what the call to the ministry is: a desire to preach that disregards all else one could do. There is in this a sense of restraint; one can do nothing else.

How well the great Charles Spurgeon said it in one of his lectures to pastoral students: “In order to a true call to the ministry there must be an irresistible, overwhelming craving and raging thirst for telling to others what God has done to our own souls . . . “Do not enter the ministry if you can help it,” was the deeply sage advice of a divine to one who sought his judgment. If any student in this room could be content to be a newspaper editor, or lawyer, or a grocer, or a farmer, or a doctor, or a senator, or a king, in the name of heaven and earth let him go his way; he is not the man in whom dwells the Spirit of God in its fulness, for a man so filled with God would utterly weary of any pursuit but that for which his inmost soul pants.” Put another way: If a man can do anything else and be satisfied with it, and have peace in it, then he is not called to preach.

Desireth (epithumeo), then, means “to long after, to have a passionate compulsion.” This word often speaks of something bad and lustful, but the word good and the surrounding context make it clear that this is for good rather than for evil. In contrast to orego, (which doesn’t imply inner motive only outward pursuit) this verb refers to the inward feeling of desire. So, taken together, the two terms describe the man who outwardly pursues the ministry because of a driving compulsion on the inside. THAT is the call to ministry.

All this was true of the Apostle Paul. All of II Corinthians 5 is about the compulsion of the ministry. In verse 14 Paul says, “The love of Christ constraineth us.” Even more pointed is I Corinthians 9:16 where Paul writes, “Necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!” This kind of desire transcends mere human desire; it is placed by God; it is given according to His grace. This is not any man’s idea, not something that he desires before the call, not something he chooses to do because it’s as good as anything else. Rather, it is something God does in a man’s life, and that man can do nothing else. A mere human de­sire will fade, as we see more and more today, if a man does what the Scriptures demand of one in the ministry. We’ll conclude these thoughts next time.

Church Leadership: The Pastor-Teacher

Continuing our look at the “office gifts” that Christ has given to His Church, as listed in Ephesians 4:11—And [Christ] gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers—we come to the most important one for our day: the pastor-teacher.

Pastors translates the Greek poimen, which means “shepherd.” In secular Greek, it referred to the herdsman who tended and cared for the sheep. It was also used metaphorically to refer to a leader, a ruler, or a commander. Plato, for example, compared “the rulers of the city-state to shepherds who care for their flock.” This meaning was carried over into the New Testament. A pastor is a man who cares for and feeds the flock.

Teachers, then, is didaskalos, which from Homer (8^th–7^th Century B.C.) onwards was used in the sense of a teacher or tutor. The term covered “all those regularly engaged in the systematic imparting of knowledge or technical skills: the elementary teacher, the tutor, the philosopher, also the chorus-master who has to conduct rehearsals of poetry for public performance.” This is the sense in which it is used in the New Testament: “Men holding this office had the task of explaining the Christian faith to others and of providing a Christian exposition of the Old Testament.” So the Christian teacher is one who systematically imparts Divine Truth and practical knowledge based on the Word of God.

The key to understanding both these terms, however, is that they refer to the same office; they are not to be separated. A misunderstanding of this principle leads to a great deal of error. One Greek authority makes this abundantly clear by explaining what is called the “Granville Sharp’s Rule,” which states: “. . . when there are two nouns in the same case connected by kai (and), the first noun having the article [the], the second noun not having the article, the second noun refers to the same thing the first noun does and is a further description of it.” It’s interesting that more liberal interpreters either downplay this fact or deny it altogether. This is no doubt due, at least in part, to the fact of little teaching and weak leadership in such groups. To deny this fact of the language, however, is blatant folly. The evidence is overwhelming.

This is, in fact, the whole point of the “shepherd” imagery (poimen); the shepherd meets all the needs of the sheep: care, feeding, protecting, exhorting, etc. To divide pastors and teachers into two offices destroys the entire picture. This would have been crystal clear to readers in Paul’s day. The idea of one shepherd who fed the sheep and another who tended to their needs would have been totally foreign to them because a shepherd did both.

May we further add that I Timothy 5:17 clearly puts the two functions together: “Let the elders [another title for pastors] that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.” “Labour” is kopiao, “to labor to the point of exhaustion in word and teaching.” These two functions define the teaching shepherd, because the majority of his time must be spent in the Word of God so that he can adequately feed, exhort, and protect the sheep. A shepherd who does not do that is betraying his calling and hurting the sheep, which is tragically quite prevalent in our day.

Church Leadership: The Evangelist

Ephesians 4:11—And [Christ] gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers—declares that our Lord has given gifted leadership to His Church in the form of four offices. The first two are clearly past and no longer active. An apostle was a man who (1) had seen the resurrected Lord Jesus, (2) was called and commissioned, in person, by the Lord Jesus, (3) received special revelation from God and, therefore, had absolute authority, and (4) had the power to work miracles to prove his apostleship. A prophet, in the official sense of that day, spoke immediately of the Holy Spirit, that is, spoke under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit and spoke new revelation, something that no longer is occurring. Our only authority is Scripture alone. Evangelists and [pastor-teachers], however, are still in force. They are, in fact, the direct descendants of the apostles; and prophets.

What is an “evangelist?” We have heard this term countless times in the last century, but exactly is it? The Greek is euangelistes, “one who proclaims good news,” and seems to indicate that this proclamation was in places where the Gospel was previously unknown. It is found in only two other verses. It first occurs in Acts 21:8, where Philip is referred to as an evangelist. A little earlier in 8:5 we are told that “Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them,” which is what the evangelist did. Later in that passage we also read of Philip’s dealing with the Ethiopian eunuch. The second occurrence is in II Timothy 4:5, where Paul tells Timothy to “do the work of an evangelist,” that is, to proclaim the good news.

The foundational principle here for both the [evangelist] and the [pastor-teacher] (literal translation) is this: these two are the direct descendants of the Apostle and the Prophet respectively. That is, the evangelist is the direct descendant of the Apostle, and the pastor-teacher is the direct descendant of the prophet. Noted pastor John MacArthur puts it very well: “There is no [actual] mention of the latter two gifted offices replacing the first two, because in New Testament times all were operative. But the fact is that, as they continued to serve the Church, the evangelists and [pastor-teachers] did pick up the baton from the first generation apostles and prophets.”

This principle is of vital importance because it follows of necessity. Since the Apostle went about proclaiming the Gospel and planting churches, and since that ministry must continue, it follows that the evangelist continues this work. Likewise, since the Prophet proclaimed and taught the Truth, and since that ministry must continue, it follows that the pastor-teacher continues that work. The Apostle and prophet are gone, but their work, without the miraculous signs and immediate speaking of the Spirit, still continues.

The evangelist, therefore, is to carry on the basic work of the Apostle. What a position and responsibility! Like the Apostle, he goes about proclaiming the Gospel and planting local churches. This picture is not to be confused with what is called an “evangelist” today. To equate the New Testament position with many of the so-called evangelists today, or with what theologian Lewis Sperry Chafer calls “the modern revivalist who bears the name [evangelist], and who has little recognition in the New Testament,” is to insult the Biblical text. In our day, this is often a guy with six suits and a dozen sermons who goes all over the country preaching, which sometimes is the Gospel and sometimes is not. Now while preaching the True Gospel is paramount, it is quite obvious that the Biblical evangelist did far more. He taught people the Word and grounded them in the faith over a period of time. He also, of necessity, founded a local church because that is where the new believer should be. Upon completion of this task, he would move on, leaving a pastor-teacher, the descendant of the Prophet in his place.

This is what is termed “church-planting” and is the Biblical model for “missions.” Strictly speaking, “missions” is planting churches. Why? Because it is the way the Apostle Paul did it. As we will see, the Local church is what God is using to do His work, so it is local churches that we must plant.

The Foundation of a Church: Leadership

Leadership is the unconditional key to building God’s work on earth. It is the breakdown of Biblical leadership, in fact, that is the chief problem today. Leadership, such as those mentioned in the last installment, is the major contributor to the secular direction the Church has taken. I do not wish to sound unkind or divisive, but I want to be totally, absolutely, exclusively Biblical in building God’s Church, and the fact is that that is not the approach of the majority of Church leadership today. We are not attacking anyone here, we are not being personal, rather we are discerning truth from error according to the Word of God alone.

The foundation for building God’s work revolves around what Scripture calls “spiritual gifts,” and specifically the “office gifts” as declared in Ephesians 4:8 and 11: When [Christ] ascended up on high, he . . . gave gifts unto men . . . And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers. Spiritual gifts are essential to all earthly ministry. Without them, in fact, the Church can not possibly function. Without the gift of teaching (Rom. 12:7), for example, there would be no one to teach and preach the Word so people could grow. Without the gift of ministry (service), nothing would ever get done within the Body. Paul deals first with gifted leadership because it is the key to building and maintaining the Church.

The words He gave are pivotal. The Greek here includes an “intensive pronoun” (autos edoken) that yields the literal idea “He Himself gave,” that is, He and no one else. In other words, these offices are God-given only, not by the Church, not by a school, not even by the person who wants to fill an office. The common attitude today is that someone can just say, “I want to teach,” and are then qualified to teach. While such willingness is commendable, it doesn’t qualify. As none of the Apostles appointed themselves but were chosen by Christ, neither does any man appoint himself to any of these offices. As one commentator aptly puts it, “The Jesus Who ascended—this, and none other, is the sovereign donor. The provider and bestower are one in the same.” As we’ll see in a later installment, it is Christ alone Who calls to ministry.

So, these “office gifts” consist of specially gifted men which God has given to the Church as leaders. There can be no doubt whatsoever that the reason for the state of the Church today lies at the doorstep of its leaders. As mentioned earlier, it has been poor leadership that has lead people down the road of secularism, Pragmatism, and Relativism.

Mark it down: the Church will rise or fall based on its leadership. One illustration should suffice. Can we imagine the consequences of sending an army into battle without leadership? What would be the result of the battle if there were no squad leaders, no company captains, no division generals, or any other commanding officers? What would be the magnitude of disaster if we just sent the army into battle with words, “Just do the best you can?” But that is exactly what the church is doing today because of weak and sometimes non-existent leadership. We have neglected the strict qualifications for leadership, abandoned proper training for ministry, and have discarded the entire concepts of the call and ordination.

How to Build a Church

Since the 1970s there has been a massive amount of writing on how to build the Church. As one studies the historical data, however, he discovers that the methods get progressively more modern and secular as the years unfold. This came to final fruition in the mid-1990s with the total abandonment of Biblical methods for building the Church. The method used by a major contributor in the early-1980s was an appeal to every person’s need for self-esteem; he proceeded to build his entire Theology and Church ministry on that so-called “human need.”

From there things got even worse. One of the most prominent figures today in Church building decided that, instead of self-esteem, “personal fulfillment” is the greatest need and built his Church on that sandy foundation. Countless pastors have followed his philosophy in building their churches as well. As a result, gone today are the truths of sin, wrath, and repentance. In their place are “felt-needs,” love and acceptance, and personal fulfillment. Addressing these issues is also radically different from what Scripture says. Doctrine and absolute truth are out, while entertainment, pop-psychology, motivational “sermons,” and other man-centered methods are in.

In stark contrast to the modern secular mind, in a tremendously significant passage, Ephesians 4:7-16, the Apostle Paul outlines God’s four-fold method for building and growing a Church: the Foundation (Leadership, vs. 7-11); the Approach (Discipleship, v. 12); the Purpose (Maturity vs. 13-14); and the Instrument (Truth, vs. 15-16).

While space doesn't allow a full examination of this passage, I want to touch on the major points in the next few installments. My reason for doing so is that the Local Church is the physical arm of God for working in the world. His end is the salvation of people and their subsequent training to carry on service. Now, because this end is spiritual, it can only be fulfilled by a means that is spiritual. And again, many churches are not using spiritual tools to build, rather secular, and even fleshly, tools. Often the message is not even spiritual, rather it appeals to emotions and physical needs. While such things might make people feel good temporarily, they will not meet spiritual needs and hence will have no eternal value. Our concern must be for that which lasts forever, not “the fashion of this world [that] passeth away” (I Cor. 7:31; cf. I Jn. 2:17).

I pray that the next severlal installments will be a blessing and encouragement.