If you were to visit ten different churches across the denominational spectrum today, you’d encounter any number of leadership models.
In one church, you might find a single “Lead Pastor” who runs everything—staff, preaching, vision casting, finances—like a CEO.
In another, you might find a bishop dressed in ceremonial robes, overseeing not just one congregation but maybe even an entire region of churches under his authority.
In others, decision-making power lies with a denominational board, a synod, or a general assembly that periodically meets to vote on doctrine, budgets, and policies.
Some systems are authoritarian, others bureaucratic. Some look more like corporate structures, while others resemble religious monarchies. But virtually all of them have one thing in common: They don’t look like what we see in the New Testament.
This confusion over church leadership isn’t a small matter. Leadership doesn’t just affect how churches are organized—it shapes their doctrine, mission, culture, and, ultimately, their witness to the world. A church’s leadership model will influence how power is distributed, decisions are made, accountability functions, and whether Christ truly remains the head of the church or is quietly replaced by systems of human control.
The Restoration Movement’s plea is simple: Let’s go back to the Bible. Let’s stop reinventing church leadership around charisma, efficiency, or tradition and restore the pattern we see in Scripture.
Today, I wanted to take some time to think about the offices of apostles, elders, deacons, and evangelists; how the early church functioned; how leadership naturally emerged from within the community; and how modern models have diverged—sometimes drastically—from what God designed.
At the heart of biblical church leadership is not power, control, hierarchy, or performance—it’s shepherding. And the church desperately needs shepherds again.
Biblical Offices in the Early Church
The Apostles
When we talk about apostles in the New Testament, it’s important to recognize that the term apostle (Greek: ἀπόστολος, apostolos) is used in two ways: in a narrow, formal sense and in a broader, functional sense. Distinguishing between these is essential for understanding the original apostles’ unique authority and the broader idea of being “sent.”
The Twelve Apostles
The Twelve—Peter, Andrew, James, John, and the rest—were personally chosen by Jesus during His earthly ministry (Matthew 10:2–4; Luke 6:13). They were selected not just to follow Him but to be His authorized representatives. They walked with Him, heard His teaching firsthand, and witnessed His resurrection (Acts 1:21–22). When Judas fell, the remaining apostles insisted on choosing a replacement who had been with Jesus from the beginning, reinforcing how foundational and unrepeatable this office truly was (Acts 1:26).
Though not one of the original Twelve, Paul was later called directly by the risen Christ. He describes himself as “an apostle—sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father” (Galatians 1:1). His authority was not second-tier. In fact, Paul fiercely defended his apostleship in several letters (e.g., 1 Corinthians 9; Galatians 1), affirming that Christ commissioned him just as He had the Twelve.
Together, these apostles laid the foundation of the church (Ephesians 2:20). They were entrusted with revealing the gospel, establishing doctrine, and organizing the life of the church. Their teaching—preserved in the New Testament—continues to govern the church today.
Other “Apostles” (Sent Ones)
Beyond the Twelve and Paul, the New Testament occasionally uses the word apostle to describe others—though in a looser sense. Barnabas, for example, is called an apostle alongside Paul in Acts 14:14. James, the Lord’s brother (not one of the Twelve), is called an apostle in Galatians 1:19. In Romans 16:7, Andronicus and Junia are described as “outstanding among the apostles.”
These individuals were likely called apostles because they were sent out by churches or the Spirit to carry out missionary work. The word apostolos literally means “one who is sent.” In this broader sense, we might think of these individuals as missionaries or church planters—not governing authorities over the church universal.
Here’s the critical distinction: while all of the Twelve were apostles, not all apostles in the NT held the same foundational office as the Twelve or Paul. The Twelve had unique authority. The others were “sent ones” working within the boundaries of local congregations or apostolic missions, but they did not function as inspired, authoritative leaders laying down universal doctrine.
The Apostolic Office Was Not Perpetual
Unlike the roles of elder or deacon, there is no biblical evidence that the office of apostle was meant to continue beyond the first generation. The qualifications in Acts 1 (eyewitness of the resurrection, personally commissioned by Christ) cannot be met today.
We also have no evidence that the apostles were ever replaced after their own generation. Even in the face of new challenges and church growth, no apostles were “ordained” to succeed the original ones.
Scripture is also clear that the apostles and prophets were foundational to the church—meaning their role was once-for-all, not repeatable:
“Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone.” — Ephesians 2:20
The New Testament presents apostles as a closed group whose unique authority was tied to their direct relationship with Christ. Once the foundation was laid, the structure of the church was to be built—not continually relaid.
Elders (Presbyteroi) / Overseers (Episkopoi)
After the apostles, the most consistently mentioned and clearly defined leadership role in the New Testament is that of elders—also called overseers. These two terms refer to the same role, not separate offices. In Acts 20, Paul calls together the elders (presbyteroi) of the church in Ephesus (v.17) and then refers to them as overseers (episkopoi) who are to “shepherd the church of God” (v.28). Likewise, in Titus 1, Paul tells Titus to appoint elders in every town (v.5) and immediately describes their qualifications using the term bishop or overseer (v.7). The terms are interchangeable.
Elders were charged with spiritual oversight: teaching, guarding doctrine, protecting the flock from false teachers, and serving as examples of godly character (1 Peter 5:1–4; 1 Timothy 3:1–7; Titus 1:5–9). But importantly, they were not called to rule from above—they were to shepherd and serve the people among whom they lived. They weren’t managers, bureaucrats, or distant authorities—they were local men of maturity, deeply embedded in the life of the community.
Here’s a critical point that distinguishes many modern churches from the New Testament church: every New Testament church with elders had more than one. Plurality wasn’t optional—it was the assumed pattern. Paul and Barnabas “appointed elders for them in each church” (Acts 14:23). Paul greets the “overseers and deacons” at Philippi (Philippians 1:1), not a singular leader. Peter exhorts the “elders among you” (1 Peter 5:1). It’s always plural. There’s no biblical example of a single elder or “Lead Pastor” overseeing an entire church alone.
Another key feature is how elders were recognized and appointed from within the congregation. They weren’t external hires or celebrity speakers brought in from other cities. Instead, they were men whose faith, character, and service had already earned the respect of the local Christian community. Elders were not created by degrees or job titles—they were already shepherding informally before being appointed officially.
Look at the elders’ qualifications listed in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. Paul’s letters emphasize character over charisma. A man is to be “above reproach,” “sober-minded,” “self-controlled,” “able to teach,” and a faithful leader of his household. These aren’t professional benchmarks—they’re spiritual ones. Eldership wasn’t designed for the most impressive speaker or visionary planner—it was for humble, wise, Spirit-led men who were already known and trusted by their local community.
In short, the biblical picture of church leadership is not a pyramid with one man at the top. It’s a team of shepherds working together to care for the flock, accountable to one another and Christ.
Deacons (Diakonoi)
While elders are responsible for the spiritual leadership of the congregation, the deacon’s role is to meet the church’s practical needs. The word diakonos, in Greek, simply means “servant.”
The roots of the role are seen in Acts 6 when the church was overwhelmed with the daily distribution of food to widows. Rather than having the Twelve abandon their primary calling to prayer and the ministry of the word, they instructed the church to select seven spiritually mature men to handle this important responsibility. These men were not apostles or elders, but they were appointed by the church under the direction of its leaders to serve in a specific, tangible way.
Later in the New Testament, the role of deacon becomes more clearly formalized. Paul greets the “overseers and deacons” in Philippians 1:1, and 1 Timothy 3:8–13 provides a list of qualifications for deacons, similar in many ways to elders—highlighting integrity, family faithfulness, and spiritual maturity.
Here’s what sets deacons apart: deacons serve; they do not govern. There is no biblical indication that deacons made congregational decisions or ruled alongside elders. Instead, their service supported and enabled the elders to focus on their God-given responsibilities. This division of responsibility—shepherds tending to the spiritual well-being of the church and deacons handling matters of ministry and logistics—creates a healthy, functional, and biblically grounded balance in church leadership.
The title “deacon” has been co-opted or misunderstood in many modern churches. Deacons function almost like a governing board or mini-eldership in some Baptist and Evangelical circles. In other contexts, they may be honorary titles with little active meaning. But the New Testament portrays deacons as essential, servant-hearted members of a fully functioning body who make ministry possible by meeting needs with diligence and humility.
Like elders, deacons are appointed from within the congregation—not imported from outside. Their work is vital, their example is to be respected, and their service is deeply spiritual, even though it’s rooted in practical ministry. Paul writes, “those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and great boldness in the faith” (1 Timothy 3:13).
Other Ministry Roles
In addition to elders and deacons, the New Testament mentions other critical functional roles within the early church—such as evangelists, teachers, and prophets. These roles were vital for building up the church, equipping believers, and spreading the gospel. Still, it’s important to note that they were never presented as governing offices.
Paul tells Timothy, “Do the work of an evangelist” (2 Timothy 4:5), and we see figures like Philip (Acts 21:8) serving in this role as well. Evangelists were gospel preachers, often moving from place to place to strengthen churches, teach new converts, and proclaim Christ in new regions. Their work was highly respected, and they were often delegated to help in difficult ministry situations—like Timothy and Titus, who were sent to organize and support local churches.
However, evangelists in the New Testament were not congregational rulers. They weren’t elders (although elders may possess these gifts) and weren’t given governing authority over the churches they served. In fact, Timothy and Titus are often misunderstood in this way—especially by those who argue they were early “bishops.” But the biblical evidence shows they were apostolic delegates, temporarily assigned to appoint elders and strengthen churches—not to serve as long-term, singular overseers (Titus 1:5; 2 Tim. 4:5).
Ephesians 4:11 lists “pastors and teachers” as part of Christ’s gift to the church, and 1 Corinthians 12 includes “prophets” and “teachers” among the various roles given for the edification of the body. In the church’s earliest days, before the full canon of Scripture was available, prophets played a crucial role in delivering instruction and encouragement by the Spirit (1 Corinthians 14:3–5). Likewise, teachers helped ground believers in the faith and explain the apostolic message.
But again, these roles were gifts, not offices. Paul makes it clear in Romans 12:6–8 and 1 Corinthians 12 that different members have different functions, and all are needed—but that doesn’t mean that all are leaders. Teaching is a ministry, not a governing title. Prophecy served the church’s growth, but it didn’t place someone in charge of the congregation.
In the Churches of Christ, local preachers are often called to fill these functional roles, and they typically serve in one congregation for an extended period. However, unlike many Protestant “Lead Pastor” models, preachers and ministers in the Churches of Christ are not placed above the elders; they work under their oversight to serve, teach, and exhort the congregation.
The Rise of the (Singular) Bishop
Despite these biblical definitions and patterns for leadership, it didn’t take long after the apostolic era for that pattern to shift. By the early 2nd century, a hierarchical structure emerged in which one elder was elevated above the others and given authority over multiple congregations. This individual was called a bishop (episkopos)—a title that, in the New Testament, was simply another term for elder. However, the “bishop” became a distinct and superior office in this new system.
Early Christian writings from leaders like Ignatius of Antioch show this shift already taking place within a generation or two after the apostles. Ignatius urges congregations to submit to a single bishop as the primary authority, with presbyters (elders) and deacons serving under him. His letters reveal a concern for unity and defense against heresy, but regardless of how anyone feels about doctrinal development, this solution reflects a departure from the New Testament model, not a continuation of it.
This change likely arose in response to very real problems: false teaching, persecution, and the logistical needs of growing churches spread across cities and regions. But reactive theology is still bad theology. Just because a structure is practical doesn’t mean it’s biblical. And nowhere in the New Testament is a bishop presented as a higher office above local elders. The terms elder and bishop are used interchangeably, and authority is always shared within a local body—not centralized in one man.
What About Timothy and Titus?
Some traditions—especially Catholic and Orthodox—point to Timothy (in Ephesus) and Titus (in Crete) as examples of early bishops. They are believed to have served in ongoing, regional leadership roles over multiple congregations, laying the foundation for later episcopal structures. But this interpretation doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.
Here’s what Scripture actually shows:
* Paul never calls Timothy or Titus “bishops.” Instead, he refers to them as evangelists (2 Timothy 4:5) and coworkers in the gospel (2 Corinthians 8:23; Titus 1:4).
* Their task was to appoint elders (Titus 1:5), not to become authority figures in and of themselves but to teach churches according to the pattern that the apostles taught all churches to follow.
* Their role was transitional and apostolic. They functioned as delegates, moving from place to place as needed but not remaining as permanent overseers.
* They were not examples of a new governing office but extensions of the apostolic mission during establishment and organization.
This distinction is essential. Neither Timothy nor Titus served as long-term local bishops with ruling authority over elders. They were missionary troubleshooters, not institutional prototypes. The push to read hierarchical leadership structures back into their roles reflects later church traditions and developments, not New Testament teachings.
The rise of the singular bishop may have been historically understandable, but it was also biblically unwarranted. It opened the door to developing an ecclesiastical hierarchy, centralized power, and the gradual drift away from the simple, shared leadership model Christ intended for His church.
Denominational Structures
Many churches today operate under broad institutional structures—Baptist conventions, Methodist conferences, Presbyterian synods, and Catholic/Orthodox dioceses—each representing a significant departure from the New Testament model of local autonomy.
In Baptist traditions, churches often claim autonomy but are heavily shaped by national or state conventions, influencing hiring, missions, funding, and doctrinal positions. Failure to comply can even lead to churches being kicked out of the convention. Mainline denominations like the United Methodist Church or Presbyterian Church (USA) use regional conferences or general assemblies that vote on theology, leadership assignments, and even church property. The Catholic and Orthodox place authority in bishops who rule over entire regions within a diocese.
These systems contradict the biblical principle that each congregation is to be led by its own plurality of elders, accountable only to Christ (Acts 14:23; 1 Peter 5:2–4). They introduce external control, dilute local responsibility, and allow unbiblical decisions to be imposed from above. The New Testament presents no example of a regional governing body dictating doctrine or leadership to multiple churches (and no, Apostolic authority doesn’t count for reasons previously stated).
A Return to the Biblical Pattern
In a world of denominational layers, hierarchical titles, and complex church systems, the image we see in Scripture almost seems countercultural: local churches, rooted in their communities, led by spiritually mature men who shepherd God’s people as fellow servants under Christ.
This is where the Churches of Christ draw a clear and deliberate line.
We reject the singular “Lead Pastor” model common in Evangelical circles, which concentrates authority on one man, often resulting in personality-driven churches and limited accountability. In contrast, we affirm the biblical model of a plurality of elders in every congregation (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5), each qualified by character, not charisma, and already known for their faithful example among the people they serve.
We reject the idea of hierarchical bishops or regional ecclesiastical authorities ruling over multiple churches. Although the rise of monarchical bishops in the early centuries of church history may have been well-intentioned, it was a departure from the biblical pattern, not a development of it.
We also oppose denominational frameworks like conventions, synods, and general assemblies, which often override local autonomy and impose decisions from the top down. Whether in Methodist conferences, Presbyterian structures, or Baptist conventions, the trend is the same: human institutions take the reins, and local congregations lose their scriptural distinctiveness and spiritual responsibility.
Instead, Churches of Christ believe that each congregation is complete in Christ, fully equipped by the Holy Spirit to function under the leadership of its own elders and accountable to no one but the Chief Shepherd (1 Peter 5:4). Evangelists, preachers, ministers, and teachers serve the congregation but do not govern it. Deacons meet practical needs with humility and excellence but do not lead with the same authority as elders. Ultimate authority resides not in offices, titles, or traditions but in the Word of God.
This model may not be flashy or institutionalized, but it’s biblical. It fosters accountability, humility, and spiritual maturity. It honors the Spirit’s work in developing leaders from within the community rather than outsourcing authority. It also ensures that the church’s mission stays tied to its head—Jesus Christ—not a boardroom, bishopric, or brand.
In short, the Churches of Christ are not trying to innovate. We’re trying to restore—not to a golden age of tradition or a trendy new structure—but to the ancient path laid down in Scripture: simple, shared, Spirit-filled leadership in local churches, all under the lordship of Christ.
Why It Matters
Church leadership isn’t just about who makes decisions or who preaches on Sunday. It’s about the community’s spiritual health, stability, and direction. Leadership sets the tone for discipleship, accountability, conflict resolution, worship, and mission. And when the structure is unbiblical, the consequences often ripple out in painful and visible ways.
When leadership is centralized in one individual, as with the “Lead Pastor” model in many Evangelical churches, the church becomes vulnerable to spiritual burnout, pastoral abuse, and celebrity-driven culture. Without shared authority, accountability suffers. The moral failures and public downfalls of high-profile pastors in recent years are not just personal failures—they are structural failures, symptoms of a system that was never meant to rest on one man.
The church becomes bureaucratic and distant when leadership is hierarchical and institutional, as in Catholic, Orthodox, and many mainline Protestant traditions. Doctrinal drift can be imposed from above, and local congregations are often powerless to resist. Truth is too often subordinated to tradition, and unity is preserved through control rather than conviction.
But the church flourishes when leadership is biblical—shared among a group of spiritually mature elders who shepherd the flock with humility and wisdom. This model reflects Christ’s design:
“Shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight... not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock.” — 1 Peter 5:2–3
It also guards against the pitfalls of pride and isolation. When elders lead as a team, they sharpen one another, carry one another’s burdens, discern together, correct each other when needed, and model for the church what shared spiritual responsibility looks like.
Likewise, when deacons serve faithfully under elder oversight, the church’s physical and logistical needs are met, freeing spiritual leaders to focus on prayer, teaching, and shepherding. When evangelists preach without ruling, and teachers instruct without usurping, the body functions in harmony.
Biblical leadership creates space for spiritual growth, mutual service, and healthy accountability. It prevents both authoritarianism and chaos. It lifts up Christ, not personalities. It calls every church member to participate in the mission and become more than just attendees and consumers.
Conclusion
In an age of religious confusion and institutional fatigue, biblical leadership isn’t just the right model—it’s the healing one. It’s humble, local, and accountable. It doesn’t draw attention to itself and doesn’t centralize power. It reflects Jesus, the Good Shepherd, who leads not by force but by example.
We’re not looking for one man with all the answers. We’re not building power structures. We’re not outsourcing authority to distant boards or denominational offices. We believe that the church belongs to Christ—and He has already given us everything we need to lead it well through His Word and His Spirit.
When we strip away the layers of tradition, hierarchy, and modern strategy, we’re left with a stunningly simple and beautiful vision for church leadership: shepherds who know their sheep, serve their people, and follow their Lord. That’s the model we see in the New Testament, which the Churches of Christ strive to restore. We don’t claim to have invented this. We’re simply trying to return to it.
