"President" of the Church?

"President" of the Church? 

We're all familiar with the term "president". Head honcho, Top Dog, Chief Executive Officer, are all words we could substitute for the word president. So why not use this word in the leadership of the church? After all there are many denominations who DO use it. 

Well the first question to ask, is the office of president (or the implication of a top dog) Biblical? It couldn't hurt anything could it? Why bother oneself with examining the role? 

To be very honest, I never thought much about it and generally accepted the idea. That is until now. I recently stumbled across the smoldering embers of a formerly strong (10s of thousands) group called "The Way International". We were invited to a local home group hosted by the family of my son's co-worker. Out of respect for the friend of my son's, and for the fact that I support the idea of the home church, we decided to check it out. In defense of the kind local couple hosting the home group, I believe them to be well intended in doctrine and in desire to please God. 

However, the larger group, from which this couple was formerly a part of (The Way International), has a strongly controlled beliefs system, which I'd consider in error. Do a web search to find more information. They're basically home fellowship based groups who have a strong tree like structure. Individuals are "leaves", home fellowships are "twigs", state wide groups of "twigs" become "branches" and the headquarters is referred to as the "trunk". Within this group, the president calls the shots. This man (or woman) writes the doctrines. They claim to have a "research team", but ultimately the founder (at least initially) developed the doctrine. There was no individual examination of the Word. The group member was given doctrine and the president's interpretation of the Bible. Sure, members could read the Bible, but how to interpret it, they had better follow what the president said. As of today, TWI is nearly dissolved, but there are still dozens of offshoots with similar (or the same) beliefs as TWI.

The founder of TWI was their leader, i.e. "president" Victor Paul Weirwille. So with this background, perhaps the office or title of "president" in a "church" may seem ok on the surface, but should groups of Christians follow the filtered doctrines of a man (i.e. president)? Examine some of The Way International's prescribed doctrines and you'll see why this should NOT be! You will find such doctrines as "Jesus Christ is Not God", abortion is allowed, baptism is no more, one must speak in tongues to be "saved". Equally disturbing as these errors, you will find lifestyles in leadership that are not Biblical (i.e. leaders who are alcoholics, immorality is common, financial/tithe abuse, leaders luring vulnerable women into adultery, and more). 

What initially concerned me was that in one of the few meetings I'd attended, I had proposed "line by line" teaching as one method of study that I preferred. The hosts of this small group both made it clear that this was NOT something that would be done here and that the Bible was not ours to "opinionize" over. Knowing what I know now about The Way International, this makes perfect sense! Of course we can't opinionize over the Scripture because TWI's president has already done the research and written out what the group (branches, twigs, leaves structure mentioned previously) will believe. It's much like the early Catholic church (the dark ages) where only the priests were allowed to study the Latin Vulgate Bible. It led to abuse and error then, it will of course do the same now. There's good reason that that era is referred to as the dark ages. Take the Word of God away from the common man and things will get dark! Abuse and corruption become rampant when the Word of God is not in man's heart to keep him from sin.

Quite obviously, this is NOT right! The Bible is our guide. It's for all to interpret and understand. It's for all to reason about and rightly divide. For that matter, fellowship is all about iron sharpening iron. It's our duty as Christians to read and interpret what we read. And there is NO clergy and laity divide shown or directed in the New Testament church.

So back to the topic of "president" in the church. This example of TWI is one obvious case where a "top dog" calling the shots becomes very dangerous. In fact my definition of a cult is one man leading another man or group of men. So does that make the SBC or the AG a cult? I don't know that I'd go there, but from what I can see, a top dog, CEO, President, General Superintendent, or whatever the title may be for a one man leader is NOT Biblical. For that matter, and to take it a step further, I don't see denominations as Biblical either. In the New Testament, we see small groups that make up "the church" as in all who call upon the name of the Lord (we are one church).

There is no formal assembly or organization mentioned in the New Testament church. Sure, we are a whole under Christ, but I wouldn't call Jesus Christ a CEO. That's much too light (and worldly) of a term. He is the Vine and we are the branches as in John 15. Aside from that, all of this is worldly, unscriptural, and unspiritual. In the defense of these two major denominations (SBC and AG), although they have a president or a general superintendent, it is NOT the president writing the doctrine. And although there are belief statements, I don't find these denominations putting the statements (i.e. 16 fundamental truths in the AG) above the Scripture. Also, there is no discouragement or instruction against the individual believer reading and forming their own views. In fact, as one who studied at an AG institution in Springfield, MO, we were instructed to think critically (the very first 101 level Bible course (Essential Christianity) used a text entitled "True Believers Don't Ask Why" (note the strike through on the word DON'T). This, in my mind, redeems the AG denomination in this regard (mind control for doctrinal beliefs), at least to some extent. Does this somehow make the leadership structure in these two major denominations more Biblical? I don't think so. But at least at the individual level, the Christian is encouraged to think for themselves.

In summary, as we can see, one man running the show for an entire group is very dangerous! Does abuse of power by TWI's president (Victor Paul Weirwille) in this example ruin it for all denominations? No. But does the idea of president hold water Biblically? I don't believe so. Study 1 Timothy and Titus. These are the roles we see for church leadership. What we see described is elders (alternatively referred to as bishops/overseers). But let's, for simplicity's sake, stick to the word elders. Note elders is plural in the leadership instructions in 1 Timothy and Titus. In other instructions from Paul regarding the church, we see him speak against following man (followers of Paul or Apollos) in 1Corinthians 3. Only Jesus is worthy of following. Elders are to keep the church (locally small scale) pure and on track from what I can see. We are not to follow elders. According to Matthew 23:8, Jesus is our teacher. We are all (just) brethren.