I co-authored this article with my M.Th student Malcolm Black and we published it in the SATS Conspectus in March 2008.
This article briefly examines the current return to apostolic Christianity in various parts of the world and references three earlier Christian movements that came into existence at approximately 100-year intervals, beginning with the Methodist movement in the 1700s, culminating with observations of a current apostolic movement that began in the early 1980s, known as New Covenant Ministries International, in an attempt to ascertain how they embraced early apostolic principles.
The article highlights the strengths of several movements but also makes observations about how these movements lost their initial effectiveness by becoming institutional and, in many cases, forfeited their initial vision of impacting the world with the gospel of Jesus Christ. We examine possible reasons why these movements lost their fervour and discuss possible ways of how current movements could learn from their mistakes not only maintain their spiritual fervency but sustain their vision and momentum of reaching the nations with the gospel to succeeding generations.
I wrote this as the introductory chapter in the book Priorities for Evangelical Theological Education published by SATS Press in 2020
The Lord led me to establish the South African Theological Seminary after I had been pastoring the Lonehill Village Church in Sandton for nine years. For the first four years of its existence, my small team and I set in place the legal, institutional, and biblical foundations for the seminary. In August of 2,000 Reuben van Rensburg joined us and six years later took over from me as the Principal. I continued for another nine years as Chairman of the Board until June 2015. Therefore, I have had about twenty years either doing the job of Principal or working closely with Reuben – so I feel reasonably qualified to comment on ‘what it takes to lead a seminary’.
God anoints men and woman to lead; this fact is indisputably taught and demonstrated in both the Old and New Testaments. Unsurprisingly then, anointed leadership is one of the evidences and criteria for the presence of God in a Sunday church service.
In this series, I am considering only what happens in a corporate gathering of the church, such as the Sunday service.
Individual Anointing in the Bible
In the Old Testament there were three special classes of people who the Holy Spirit anointed to lead the people of Israel; Kings, Prophets, and Priests (Exodus 28:41, 1 Kings 19:15, 1 Samuel 10:1). The kings lead the people in national affairs under the anointing power of the Holy Spirit; The Prophets spoke on behalf of Almighty God; and the Priests represented the people to God.
Then came Jesus and fulfilled the prophecy of the coming anointed Messiah (Psalm 2:2, Luke 4:18) to embody all three sacred offices; the perfect King, Prophet, and Priest.
‘God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him’ (Acts 10:38).
Although Jesus perfectly modeled and fulfilled these three anointed offices, when He ascended back into heaven, He passed on these functions to His church. Ephesians 4:8-13 records how Jesus appointed Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, and Teachers to equip and build up the church in order for His people to ‘become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.’ Although not explicitly stated, these five categories of anointed ministry equate to the three Old Testament (OT) offices. The Apostles establish, govern and lead the church (OT Kings). The Prophets speak out the Word of God to the church and the Evangelists proclaim the Gospel to the world (OT Prophets). The Pastors and Teachers are to represent the people of God before His throne and to instruct them in His Word (OT Priests).
Unfortunately, in much of today’s church, these roles and ascriptions have become blurred and confused. Pastors attempt to fulfill the apostolic function, Apostles call themselves ‘Senior Pastor’, Evangelist think they are Teachers, Priests govern, and everyone thinks he is a Prophet.
The Anointed Leaders in a Church Service
Three designated people play dominant roles in most Sunday church gatherings. In the church I attend:
One of the Elders co-ordinates the service (OT King). He greets the people, tells them what is likely to happen during the service, and orchestrates the various activities that follow.
The worship leader helps the people to worship God and to enter as much as they can into His presence (OT Priest).
The preacher speaks the Word of God to the People (OT Prophet).
It matters little who these people are, man, woman, or adolescent, but it matters a lot that they are anointed by the Holy Spirit with grace and power to do what they are supposed to do. And their task is to direct the people, be an example to the people, and point the people to Jesus. Helping the church to focus on Jesus and encounter his presence is paramount. This is what the Holy Spirit does and so this is what His anointing leaders are to do. Jesus said, “the Counsellor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you” (John 14:26).
Pointing to Jesus
Leaders do not represent Jesus so much as point people to Him. So, perhaps it would be useful to give some examples of what this does and does not mean in practice.
When a preacher makes what he thinks is a great point and immediately calls on the congregation to “give the Lord an applause offering”, he is pointing at himself, not Jesus.
When a worship leader takes center stage, sings songs nobody but he and his group can sing and cavorts about in front of the church with great showmanship, then he is pointing to himself and not Jesus.
When the person co-ordinating the service controls everything tightly, dominates and personally performs almost everything except singing and preaching, then he is pointing to himself and not to Jesus.
By the way, I am using the words ‘he’ and ‘him’ simply for convenience. I can’t see valid reasons why women should not lead worship, co-ordinate services, or preach.
So how then should a person co-ordinate a service, lead worship, and preach? By consistently pointing the people to Jesus. They do this by honouring Him with their words and actions, helping the people to encounter Him, and faithfully speaking His words to them. Preaching is a form of prophecy in that it proclaims the Living Word (Jesus) from the Written Word of God (Bible) under the unction of the Holy Spirit. Worship leading is essentially a priestly duty because it helps the congregation to encounter The Lord and to respond to Him in song and in prayer. Leading a service is part of an apostolic ministry in that it lays out the structure of the service, co-ordinates it, and guides the people in responding to the prompting of the Holy Spirit.
And in Conclusion
When the apostolic, prophetic, evangelistic, pastoral, and teaching roles are exercised under the anointing and guidance of the Holy Spirit, then we encounter Jesus. When the OT roles of King, Prophet, and Priest are applied with grace, power, and a focus on Jesus, then surely He is pleased to be in our midst and we are blessed to be in His presence.
What do the Borg of Star Trek fame, South Africa’s ruling party, and the church have in common? All three function in terms of their understanding of the philosophy known as ‘collectivism’.
Now don’t stop reading, because this article deals with an issue that many, if not most, Christians and particularly church leaders have to deal with at one time or another – what is best for the greater good.
Collectivism has been defined in so many ways, but I understand it as the belief that the common good of the group is more important than the good of the individual. The extent of the ‘group’ can vary from the whole of humanity, to a country, a political party, or even a local church. The Borg is a fictional alien species that are linked together by a group mind, a hive mentality, they call The Collective. South Africa’s ruling party (The ANC) also regard themselves as a collective and I suspect they secretly cherish the Borg mantra of “resistance is futile”. I have called this article ‘The Borg Dilemma’ because collectivism creates some real dilemmas especially for those in positions of leadership or influence.
A couple of days ago the Secretary-General of the ANC expressed the nature of the sort of dilemma I am talking about. He stated on national television that in his official capacity he was sometimes obliged to convey decisions and give reasons for these decisions that he does not personally agree with. He explained that he was part of the ’collective’ and therefore was obligated to conform to the group decisions and ‘party line’. In the absence of any biblical values, his dilemma may simply be personal image and reputation versus group cohesion. However, for a person whose conscience is prescribed by biblical values the dilemma is more complex.
Let’s take the case of a church leadership group that takes decisions that compromise the beliefs and convictions of one of its members.
What is that leader supposed to do? On the one hand he or she wants to preserve the unity of the Body of Christ, the church, but on the other hand personal integrity and commitment to truth demands potentially divisive action. Obviously this leader would voice his objection to his peers, but what then? He could continue to argue for a different decision or way forward at the risk of creating disunity first in the leadership group and then in the church at large. He could resign as a leader and if pressured by others to disclose his reasons for resigning he could simply leave the church. Or perhaps he could say nothing and tacitly support what he believes to be a wrong and potentially destructive decision. This is indeed a dilemma because group interest stands in apparent opposition to individual conscience and integrity. To make matters worse, if he is correct in his objections then the church as a whole will inevitably suffer the consequences of the wrong decision, either immediately or later.
A starting point for resolving this sort of dilemma is to realise that there is often a false dichotomy involved. What is best for the group is usually placed in juxtaposition to what is best for the individual, but for the Christian the real question is simply what is BEST. And what is best will always satisfy the criteria of both truth and love. The Ephesians 4:15 injunction to speak the truth in love means that love and truth must be linked, and that truth must be motivated and applied in love. Both the group and the individual good is best served by the loving application of truth.
In the example I cited the dissenting leader would be wise to attempt to speak truth out of a motivation and in a manner that would do least harm to the unity of the church body.
Key elements of this would be humility, refusal to accuse or denigrate others, acknowledgement of the worth and contribution of those holding a different view, and gracious and non-inflammatory communication.
Two proverbs speak to the combinations I am describing; ‘A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger’ (Prov. 15:1), and ‘An honest answer is like a kiss on the lips’ (Prov. 24:26).
The Lord Jesus Christ embodied and epitomised both truth and love (grace) for it is written, ‘The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth’ (John 1:14). And John’s benediction to the church reads, ‘Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and from Jesus Christ, the Father’s Son, will be with us in truth and love’ (2 John 3).
When it comes to local churches, is big always best, or is small better, or does size just not matter at all?
Three decades ago I had the privilege of being called to pastor a tiny but rapidly growing local church. The shack in which we were meeting was scheduled to be demolished to make way for a town house complex and so we had to find other accommodation. The property developer who was demolishing the shack offered us the choice of two plots of land on which we could build; one, a huge area right on the main road through the suburb and opposite the shopping centre, the other was a much smaller stand right in the heart of the residential area. The choice between these two options forced me and my eldership team to think and pray intensely about the nature of the church which any proposed building campus would house. The large site was ideally suited for a big, attractional church model and the smaller site would almost ensure that the church located there would be small, organic, and relational. This led me into a fresh study of the New Testament to discover the principles and values of local church. This is just a sample of what I found:
Other than the first expression of church life in Jerusalem, the local churches were small and intimate extended families. Advocates of larger churches point to the 5,000 member first church that met in Solomon’s porch in the temple campus (Acts 5:12).
The problem is of course that the apostles seemed to have got some fundamentals wrong in those early days and it would be unwise to use the early Jerusalem church as a model.
For instance, Jesus had instructed them to go into all the world (Mark 16:15), yet they remained in Jerusalem until persecution forced them to obey (Acts 8:1). The churches they then established outside of Jerusalem were small, and we can deduce this from at least two main clues:
We know from historic evidence that there were no large meeting places that would have been available to the early Christians.
Paul’s teaching concerning the church is intimate and community/family oriented and he even makes mention three times of the church meeting in private homes (Romans 16:5, 1 Corinthians 16:19, and Philemon 2).
The problem with this sort of reasoning is that it is by no means exhaustive or conclusive. For instance, the church, in say Corinth, may have had to meet as small groups in homes simply because there were no viable alternatives. One cannot conclude from the evidence that large church meetings are unbiblical or inherently ‘wrong’.
For me, it is far more important to try to understand, from the biblical evidence, the dynamics and underlying core principles of local church life.
The questions to be answered would then be, ‘what size and type of local church would best serve these values, and what type of local church would erode these values’?
The New Testament presents three main analogies of local church – Body, Household, and Temple.
The figure of a BODY is a wonderfully descriptive illustration of the functionality of the Church. 1 Corinthians chapters 12-14 develop the concept considerably, as does the book of Ephesians. Individual believers, in this analogy, are like single cells within a body. Each has the complete DNA blueprint of the whole body, yet each is specialised and developed to fulfill a specific function within the body. Each is interdependent, relying on others in order to exist and function. Even the ‘ascension gift’ ministries fit into this paradigm; Prophets, for instance, are like nerve cells which convey information to and from the brain; Pastor and Teachers are like red and white blood corpuscles carrying nutrition and oxygen to the other cells, removing waste, and combating sickness. And so on. The concept of the Church as a body reveals its functionality, inter-relatedness, and organic unity.
A second biblical analogy for the church is HOUSEHOLD. In Matthew 10:25 Jesus refers to his disciples as members of his household, and Galatians 6:10 calls Christians ‘those who belong to the family of believers’. In Ephesians 2:19 Paul calls the congregants’ members of God’s household’, and in 1 Timothy 3:15 he actually defines the Church with the words ‘… God’s household, which is the Church of the living God…’ (Some other references are Hebrews 3:2,5,6 and 1 Peter 4:17).
A household has a patriarchal head; a household has extended family – parents, children and servants (Ephesians 5&6); a household has order and discipline; a household is built around relationships and not structure… and so on. The household concept puts the focus on internal organisation and relationship within the Church.
Now Ephesians is the Bible’s most comprehensive revelation of the Church, and these are some of the terms Paul uses here with reference to the relationships within the Church: ‘Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ … he predestined us to be adopted as his sons … in him we were made heirs … our inheritance … members of God’s household … the Father, from whom his whole family in heaven and on earth derives its name … Then we will no longer be infants … Wives, submit to your husbands … Children, obey your parents’.
Although the additional image of a Temple can be found in Ephesians, by far its most dominant theme is the Church as the Family of God.
The Church is referred to in some texts as the TEMPLE of God. 1 Corinthians 3:16, for instance, states ‘Don’t you know that you yourselves (plural) are God’s temple (singular) and that God’s Spirit lives in you?’ Ephesians 2:21-22 expresses the same idea: ‘In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.’ What a concept! The Church = The Place of God’s Presence.
In Old Testament times God presenced himself in the Holy of Holies, first in the Tabernacle and then in the Temple. This presence was manifest in the Glory Cloud, the Shekinah, which appeared over the Mercy Seat of the Ark of the Covenant. Then, in New Testament (Gospel) times, the triune God presenced himself in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ: John 1:14 reads ‘The Word became flesh and lived (Tabernacled) for a while among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.’ In addition, John 2:19 records Jesus as saying, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days” and verse 21 tells us that the temple he had spoken of was his body. Then, on the day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit descended and presenced himself in the Church. So, Temple One = The Tabernacle; Temple Two = The body of the Lord Jesus Christ; Temple Three = The Church. Truly the Church is the Temple in which God lives by his Spirit! Even the word ‘temple’ evokes images which reveal aspects of the Church’s function, such as worship, sacrament, and the ministry of the Word.
Of these three models, only the church as a temple can apply with equal force to both small and large church gatherings, but the dominant models of Body and Household apply best to small church gatherings.
Of course, a key question for me is always ‘what did Jesus say or model concerning this matter?’ Well, He clearly made no attempt to establish himself in any particular location and then draw a regular crowd. On the contrary, He selected just 12 men and travelled with them all over Israel and Samaria. He regarded them as family and a particularly significant text concerning this is Matthew 12:46-50 which records, ‘While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.” He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” I do not believe that Jesus was harshly rejecting his mother and brothers, as some critics contend, but was rather making the very point that I am highlighting, that his disciples were ‘family’. It is typical of Jesus to use a current incident or circumstance to make an important teaching point.
The church values that yield ‘family’ and ‘body’ are things such as participation, knowing others and being known by others, accountability, being a disciple of Jesus and discipling others, loving relationships, personal ministry, and so on. These values are best lived out in a small church setting. In addition, small churches can be effectively led by a team of unpaid volunteers or a limited paid staff, but large churches invariably need large staff components and hierarchical management structures in order to operate optimally. This kind of leadership is alien to a family environment. Small church congregations can provide relationship, pastoral, and ministry opportunities for all who attend, but in large churches only a small percentage of attenders are known, participate and receive pastoral care. Small churches can add fellowship groups to deepen relationships, but large churches have to rely on such groups to provide any consistent pastoral care… and only part of their congregations are able or willing to attend such groups. Small churches can function organically with minimal organisational aspects but large churches can only function as organisations with minimal organic aspects. I have made some strong but largely unsupported statements here but anyone wanting further discussion can click HERE.
A Respected reformed theologian and pastor has written an article covering many of the dynamics I am touching on here, and, although I do not agree with his apparent underlying assumptions that all churches need at least one full-time pastor and that all churches need to grow numerically as single local churches, I think he makes several valuable observations. The author also appears to assume that a church, to be healthy and successful, needs to grow numerically from small, to medium, to large, to very large. I do not agree at all with this assumption because I hold that by doing so the church loses its fundamental nature of body and family and becomes an organisation and even a business. Never the less he accurately describes the differences in leadership styles and church nature that occur at different numeric sizes. You can find this article HERE but for those who don’t care to read his full article, here are some of his observations (I have been unashamedly selective here):
‘Size has an enormous impact on how a church functions’.
‘Out of necessity, the large church must use organizational techniques from the business world’.
‘The larger the church, the less its members have in common. There is more diversity in factors such as age, family, status, ethnicity, and so on, and thus a church of 400 needs four to five times more programs than a church of 200.’
‘The larger the church, the more staff per capita needs to be added’.
‘The larger the church, the harder it is to recruit volunteers’.
‘The larger the church, the more planning and organization must go into events’.
‘The larger the church, the higher its aesthetic bar must be’.
‘The larger the church, the more it is subject to frequent and sudden change… smaller churches tend to have little turnover… the larger the church, the more it loses members because of changes’.
Now the church model selected by the leaders of a local church yields a set of core values which will determine how the church functions, grows and maintains integrity over time.
My conviction is that leaders should select the model that best represents the biblical pattern for the church.
But there is another way of looking at this in that the core values of church life found in the scriptures should lead us to the biblical model. I have expressed some of these core values earlier, things such as, participation, knowing others and being known by others, accountability, being a disciple of Jesus and discipling others, loving relationships, and personal ministry. There are of course other values such as numeric and spiritual growth, and intergenerational family ethos that need to be taken into account.
So, my conclusions are that (a) the biblical church model and values should dictate congregational size, but (b) congregational size will in turn seriously effect values and the integrity of the church model. Put another way, a family/body church model, and the values that flow from and underpin this, cannot be easily or adequately expressed and maintained in a large congregation. Size most certainly does matter.
For those of you who interested in further detail and observations regarding this topic, please click HERE. As always, I appreciate comments and interaction on the articles I post, but please use the comments facility on the Blog, rather than emailing me directly, because in this way others will get to benefit by what you write.
My name is Christopher Peppler and I was born in Cape Town, South Africa in 1947. While working in the financial sector I achieved a number of business qualifications from the Institute of Bankers, Damelin Management School, and The University of the Witwatersrand Business School. After over 20 years as a banker, I followed God’s calling and joined the ministry full time. After becoming a pastor of what is now a quite considerable church, I earned an undergraduate theological qualification from the Baptist Theological College of Southern Africa and post-graduate degrees from two United States institutions. I was also awarded the Doctor of Theology in Systematic Theology from the University of Zululand in 2000.
Four years before that I established the South African Theological Seminary (SATS), which today is represented in over 70 countries and has more than 2 500 active students enrolled with it. I presently play an role supervising Masters and Doctoral students.
I am a passionate champion of the Christocentric or Christ-centred Principle, an approach to biblical interpretation and theological construction that emphasises the centrality of Jesus
I have been happily married to Patricia since the age of 20, have two children, Lance and Karen, a daughter-in-law Tracey, and granddaughters Jessica and Kirsten. I have now retired from both church and seminary leadership and devote my time to writing, discipling, and the classical guitar.
If you would like to read my testimony to Jesus then click HERE.
God anoints men and woman to lead; this fact is indisputably taught and demonstrated in both the Old and New Testaments. Unsurprisingly then, anointed leadership is one of the evidences and criteria for the presence of God in a Sunday church service.
The figure of a BODY is a wonderfully descriptive illustration of the functionality of the Church. 
The church values that yield ‘family’ and ‘body’ are things such as participation, knowing others and being known by others, accountability, being a disciple of Jesus and 
