The Church at Jerusalem

The Danger of One-Man Rule

The church is peculiarly the sphere of the Lord's predominance. Paul well sums up the fact in his words to the Ephesians, 'And he hath put all things in subjection under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all' (Ephesians 1:22-23). Little wonder that one of the great battles of the ages has been to dethrone Christ from His place of rightful pre-eminence in the midst of His people. The fact of spiritual leadership through those particularly set apart by God need not be questioned, and there is ample scope for it within the fellowship of the assembly, but we must also remember that it is a small step from spiritual leadership to human enthronement.

Principles for the administration of the local church are clearly set down in scripture. Spiritual rule and direction are in the hands not of one man, but of a body of elders. Nowhere is any particular method prescribed whereby these elders should be set apart, but this is completely in consonance with the nature of New Testament revelation which is primarily concerned with divine principles and is not merely a book of organizational procedures.

The church at Jerusalem initially seems to have been governed b the apostles themselves, and it was quite natural that they together should form the administration of the original Christian assembly. Later, however, we find leadership exercised by a body of elders, and the apostles were freed for a ministry over the ever-widening area of the influence of the gospel. This, of course, was of particular importance at the outset of the church's history when the ministry and authority of apostleship were exercised directly through gifted men, and not through the completed revelation of the written Word as it is today. Nevertheless, even taking into account the unique position of the apostles of that early age, it is important to note that, during their period of rule within the Jerusalem church, they administered its affairs jointly.

The spirit of regeneration is the spirit of fellowship and should characterize every level of church life. Most important of all is that it should be strongly established in the assembly leadership, else where is the example to the flock of which Peter speaks (1 Peter 5:3), and if fellowship cannot find a very practical demonstration among elders who are supposed to have reached a certain degree of spiritual maturity, it is difficult to know how this most basic of all things can be expected to characterize the lives of those who are so much less advanced in the way of truth. The relationship of elders to the local church is clearly brought out by Peter (1 Peter 5:1-4). They are shepherds of the flock, but under-shepherds who are themselves under the authority of the 'Chief Shepherd.' The administration of the local church is not, therefore, congregational in concept. Everybody does not have a right to have a say in everything. It is not a democracy. But neither is it a dictatorship. It knows the rule of no single man, but the pre-eminence and rulership of Christ to whose authority elders and others, all alike, must equally bow.

Following the transition of the leadership of the apostles to that of the elders in the Jerusalem assembly we find the gradual emergence of one man who ultimately dominates the scene, namely James the brother of our Lord. Initially, James appears on the administrative scene as first among equals. He was, for example, spokesman or chairman for the company as in the discussion on circumcision recorded in Acts 15, and such a spokesman is obviously necessary. It is hardly practical that all the elders should be required to speak in unison! But James eventually came to occupy a position which was much more than this. From being first among equals, he became first pure and simple.

The development of James's position can be traced in the book of Acts. Early mention of the church makes reference to 'the apostles and the brethren' (Acts 11:1). Later, however, James comes in for special mention. 'Tell these things unto James, and to the brethren,' says Peter as he announces his deliverance from gaol (Acts 12:17). Still later, when Paul is making his final visit to Jerusalem, we read, 'Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present' (Acts 21:18).

Now we must not be thought to disparage the ministry of James in Jerusalem. He was a man of outstanding qualities and, looking at things from a natural point of view, he guided the assembly with admirable grace and wisdom through considerable difficulties. His saintliness of character is attested by the name which history has given to him, James the Just. He was the perfect peacemaker who always saw both sides of any dispute, but it is obvious from the position he occupied that he was also of very considerable strength of character. He held an exquisite balance between the more moderate of the Jerusalem believers and the thorough-going legalists. There may have been a few rebel extremists, but the outcome of the discussion on circumcision recorded in Acts 15 indicates that James carried the loyalty of the church with him as a whole. Of the decision reached, scripture records that 'it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church' (Acts 15:22).

What was the attitude of James to the Judaizing teachers from Jerusalem who were to cause so much confusion in the churches, and who were the means of influencing even such stalwarts of the faith as Peter and Barnabas (Gal. 2:11-13)? Those who fomented the discussion which brought Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-2) had certainly exceeded the terms of their commission, whatever exactly that was. The letter circulated to the churches from Jerusalem speaks quite clearly of them. 'Certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls; to whom we gave no commandment' (Acts 15:24). It is not absolutely clear whether this means that these people separated themselves from the church or went out bearing their message with the church's blessing. The least we can say is that what they preached in Galatia and Antioch did not have the approval of Jerusalem, and it may also be that they were self-appointed in their position as teachers. But in writing to the Galatians Paul distinctly speaks of certain such teachers coming from James (Galatians 2:12), and we must conclude that they were persons held in trust by James; a trust which they knowingly or unknowingly abused in the perplexity they created among the believers.

Is it too much to suggest that this shows up a certain weakness in, James's powers of discernment? Of his moderation there is no doubt; he certainly did not go all the way with the extreme legalists within the church, although he may have exercised a tolerant spirit towards them. At the same time, he was well aware of the danger of such extremism, and of the militant nature of its advocates. Men who could cause such havoc, and whose persuasive powers were such as to sway the minds of Peter and Barnabas, were obviously men of very strong personality, and we have to believe either that James did not fully understand this, or that he did understand it and was largely in favour of the influence they would exert.

There is still another factor which this brings to the fore, and that is the influence that James's dominant position in Jerusalem exercised upon those who went out from the assembly. There seems to have been an unmistakable air of authority which attached itself to those who were James's emissaries. He may not at all have set his seal of approval upon what these Judaizers were teaching, but the delicate balance which he maintained between the two Jerusalem factions may have given them reasonable ground to believe that what they were teaching was not distasteful to him. When Paul speaks of the influence these men had upon Peter, the distinct inference is that what weighed most with Peter was the authority of James which lay behind it all. James's position overawed him, and when he saw the strength with which it was upheld by others, it was just too much for him (Galatians 2:12-13). James's personality exercised an influence far beyond the confines of the Jerusalem church.

What we have said has been in no sense to denigrate James, but simply to demonstrate that, with all his excellent qualities, he was a fallible human being subject to the limitations of all men. It was not wrong that his gracious nature should have gifted him admirably as a conciliator, nor that he should have had such a wide influence, but his venerated position of dominance in the assembly and out of it created a situation where his very conciliatory gifts could become a snare, and his weaknesses were perpetuated unchecked along with his strengths. His influence was effective not only when he was right, but also when he was wrong.

No man is free from the liability to err, a fact which is equally true in matters affecting spiritual judgment. The complexity of human nature with its innate prejudices and subtle temptations to self-pleasing is such that infallibility is something we can expect only when we know even as also we have been known. Even the apostle Paul did not presume upon the measure of his discernment. 'I think that I also have the Spirit of God,' he says. It is, of course, true that as one man may err, so may a body of elders, but it is also true that the latter is part of divine order as a spiritual check upon the lack in an individual. Philip was deceived in the baptism of Simon the sorcerer, but correction came through the discernment of Peter (Acts 8). There is no man who does not require a loyal opposition, and the Lord has provided for it in an eldership that is subject to Him. Sad is the position of any man who cannot accept a spiritual check from others who fear the Lord in a spirit of humility.

James seemed to have no such opposition. He ruled as the gracious despot with exquisite tact and wisdom, but unquestionably as the man in the seat of power. A benevolent spiritual despotism carries with it tremendous dangers. To work under it can be one of the easiest things in the world, provided a person is tainted, as most people are, with the faculty of hero-worship, and is bowled over by the benevolence. Best of all, it can allow a complete relinquishment of any sense of personal responsibility. Everything can be left to God and James. Its dangers, however, lie mainly in its effect upon the realm of human personality, and since that in turn affects the whole life of the church, the dangers are far-reaching and profound.

One of the most unfortunate factors is that the gracious despot will always find many more disciples of his despotism than of his grace. Many may be attracted to him by his love, but they will leave to dominate others by his absolute authority alone. Witness the Judaizers of Galatians 2. It is remarkable that although the Son of God had all the authority in the world, He never asserted it upon His disciples. 'No longer do I call you servants,' He said to them, 'for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth; but I have called you friends; for all things that I heard from my Father I have made known unto you' (John 15:16).

There is no adequate substitute for the principle the Lord Himself has laid down, the principle of His pre-eminence in the church, and the under-shepherds through whom He rules and guides His flock. One man, be he ever so saintly, is a poor substitute for the direct rule of Christ.

The end was sad--very sad. James, whose piety had for long protected him from the hands of wicked men, was eventually seized and executed. The church, stunned by the loss, could find no man of comparable character to occupy his position. Only God was left. So the church at Jerusalem went into retirement.

Next: The Danger of Centralization