Acts 6
Patrick argues in Part 2 of his series on elders that Acts 6 illustrates that problems should be solved by the membership, not the elders or the minister.
(Act 6:1-6 ESV) Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint by the Hellenists arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution. 2 And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. 3 Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. 4 But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” 5 And what they said pleased the whole gathering, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch. 6 These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands on them.
Notice that the apostles, acting much like elders, did not tell the general membership to solve the problem. Rather, the apostles directed the church to appoint men to handle the problem.
The apostles were not passive. Rather, they specifically declared what the solution would be — with authority — and charged the congregation to select the men who would serve in providing the solution. Hence, “not the elders or the minister” overstates the case.
Obviously, not all decisions need be made by the apostles or elders, but they clearly established by their direction how the problem should be solved. They only left the appointment of particular men up to the membership (Acts 6:3).
Acts 15
In parts 2 and 3 of his series on elders, Patrick argues that elders meetings should be based on the Acts 15 Jerusalem council.
It’s an interesting analogy — especially from someone who just argued “I am not at all sure that these passages were supposed to be normative in every church in every nation throughout all time.” It seems very questionable that the Jerusalem council is intended as normative for all elders meetings in all churches at all times. I mean, that meeting was held for reasons that have little to do with the typical elders meetings.
The Jerusalem church was deciding what missionaries sent by the church in Antioch should be teaching Gentiles in Asia Minor. This was not your typical elders’ meeting!
Patrick concludes, “[T]hey refused to make rules for worship and life for the Gentiles.”
Well, Acts 15:28-29 prohibits the eating of food sacrificed to idols (which affected daily life in a very serious way), consumption of blood and strangled animals (likely not that hard to avoid), and sexual immorality (a necessary but substantial change for many pagans). For many Gentiles, these were major lifestyle changes. Worship was not under consideration, but lifestyle was very much at issue.
Especially the requirement to avoid food sacrificed to idols was extremely difficult for many Gentile converts due to the nature of the Gentile food distribution system. The demand was surely necessary, but this was not at all an easy command for Gentiles to obey. I doubt that the Gentiles converts saw these as minor obligations.
And yet Patrick concludes, “[W]hen elders or apostles are faced with a decision, they pray first and make the least burdensome decision for others that they can while not being afraid to accept huge burdens themselves”
Now, I certainly agree that the apostles and elders were right to pray first. But surely the decision making process is not mainly about how burdensome the decision might be. Obviously, elders should not impose burdens for the sheer pleasure of the exercise of power, but neither should elders be afraid to ask difficult things of their members. This is a cross-carrying religion, after all.
It’s hard to read Luke and conclude that the first concern of an elder should be to make Christianity the “least burdensome.” Our task is faithfulness, not ease.
Based on the Jerusalem council, Patrick concludes that, in the New Testament, “the only elders’ meeting we see was actually a wide open meeting with apostles, evangelists, and ‘others.’ It seems none were excluded.”
I don’t see it. Acts 15:6 is specific that only the apostles and elders gathered to make the decision (Compare 15:23). There are references to the decision being approved by the “whole church” (15:22) — but not to the whole church making the decision. Rather, the point is that the church was filled with Spirit-filled followers who recognized the elders’ wisdom and supported their decision. After all, it’s hard to imagine a congregation of over 15,000 members (Acts 4:4 says the church included 5,000 adult males some years earlier) having a debate in which all members participated.
Think about it. It’s just not possible for a large church to engage all members in decision making. A church of thousands simply cannot have a debate in which each member is given a say.
Small churches often operate by “business meeting,” and yet many a member finds these meetings miserable and ineffective. After all, in a growing church, many members will be novices. Many will be very far removed from understanding the gospel — just because they’re relatively new members.
Moreover, in my experience, most members don’t have the least interest in being involved in every decision made by the leaders. They want the leaders to lead, and they want to follow. And that is, in my view, the work of the Holy Spirit.
A church where everyone wants to be part of the leadership is surely a church that is very unhealthy spiritually. After all, the scriptures are clear that only certain members have been gifted to lead by the Spirit — and if everyone wants to lead, then the Spirit’s work within the congregation is not being honored.
The church is not a democracy. Sovereignty is not in the people. Only God is sovereign, and he exercises that sovereignty through the Spirit. And any theology of leadership, to be truly biblical, must speak in terms of the Spirit.
Jay wrote:
In much of what I have read about the Jerusalem conference,this assumption is made.
Actually, Paul, Barnabas, and others from Antioch went to Jerusalem for several reasons:
1) To let churches (Jerusalem and churches along their travel route) know what God had done among the Gentiles in Asia Minor.
2) For Paul to state the gospel he was preaching before a private meeting of “those who were of reputation” (Galatians 2:2, NKJV). Presumably this would be the elders and apostles.
3) To silence the false brethren who had come to Antioch stating they had come from James (the Lord’s brother and elder in Jerusalem). They were teaching the necessity of circumcising the Gentiles as necessary for salvation. (See Acts 15:1 & Galatians 2:11ff).
The Jerusalem leadership said they had given no such commandment to those who came from there. The “pillars” in the church (i.e., leadership of apostles and elders) openly accepted what Paul & Barnabas were teaching – with the restrictions in the Acts 15 communique. All rejoiced in the power of God displayed among the Gentiles – except that “some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed” (Acts 15:5) insisted that the Gentiles keep the Law of Moses and be circumcised.
It was at this point that the elders and apostles came together to consider the matter (Acts 15:6).
With regard to Acts 6, Jay wrote:
I have a question about this: Were the apostles acting like elders in directing the church what to do about the problem – or do elders today try to act like apostles to direct the church how to go about solving its problems? Here, I think Jay has assumed his conclusion.
As teachers of God’s Word, evangelists AND elders are under the authority of Him who gave that Word. Any other authority they assume must continue to be UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF GOD in applying the Word of God. I believe at least most of us have seen instances where both gospel preachers AND elders have stepped outside the authority of God to dictate to churches what they must do. No, it’s not right. Nor is it pretty when it happens.
Taken to the extreme, it CAN LEAD TO POPERY (and has). Honesty, however, forces us to admit that:
1) every group needs leadership (emphasized by Jay).
2) God has told us the sort of men whom He want to lead His people (emphasized by Patrick).
3) Most elders and preachers honesty attempt to lead God’s people in God’s way (recognized by both).
4) However, all elders and preachers, since they are part of fallen humanity, make mistakes (accepted by nearly all of us as a “given”).
So, why not let’s get over the fussing about who has or doesn’t have authority – when none of us have any authority at all EXCEPT under the authority of King Jesus. Let’s quit presuming to speak in His name when there is no “Thus saith the Lord.” Let’s learn to understand and apply the principles He has given us in His Word to our own unique situations – and let other people do the same.
Even within congregations, many questions of teaching will never be resolved to the satisfaction of honest, godly believers whether the elders make a decision about it or not. Elders’ meetings do not qualify as Jerusalem councils.
Within the congregation, as the primary teachers in the church, the evangelists, “pastors and teachers” must teach to the best of their ability – realizing that only one has “all authority” and that all of us are but “servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God” (1 Corinthians 4:1).
In the same way, we need to realize that we, like John, can try to stop the mouths of some who are following Jesus but are not following “us.” (See Mark 9:38). In other words, we need to quit trying to usurp God’s position – whether to approve or to disapprove of someone else. Let’s instead practice and teach what God has commanded us to the best of our ability. And let others do the same, except as we engage them with love and humility that we ALL might learn the way of the Lord more perfectly.
I like Jay’s emphasis that none of us is to be selfish and arbitrary. I like Patrick’s emphasis on leading in the most unobtrusive way possible. To me, there is between them only the tension that exists many times between preachers and elders. (I speak as one who has served in each of these roles.) Each is tempted to want more authority than He has – and to think God has given it to him. Put them together in the same room, and I believe they would be the best of friends, even if they don’t come to full agreement on every nuance of biblical teaching.
Let’s all become more like that. To this end. let us strive.
James said, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…” Which is exactly how godly leadership must operate, carrying out the real-time leadership of the Holy Spirit, rather than their own mandates. Where we have lost our way is in denying that the Holy Spirit can any longer tell us what to do beyond the generalities of scripture, and yet continuing to attempt to exercise His authority as though we retain the same power and wisdom without His direct input.
A dose of truth serum applied to the same situation today might be illuminating and humbling. Replace James’ words with how we would have to approach the same thing today. “About the only thing we could all agree on, and the most we can likely get anybody to go along with, is,….”