The argument is being made more and more frequently that the preacher has authority to ordain elders because Timothy and Titus had the authority to ordain elders.
Maybe. But we really have to approach these questions with the greatest of humility — because it’s just not clear that the early church had a uniform practice for ordaining officials. Moreover, it’s far from clear that Timothy and Titus were ministers in the same sense as the modern pulpit minister.
For example, Paul instructed Timothy to ordain deacons as well as elders. But in Acts 6 — almost certainly about the first deacons — the deacons were selected by the membership, not the preacher.
Which is “the pattern”? Why might the process have differed? I have a theory, but in fairness, I have to tell you that it’s just a theory. I wouldn’t at all insist on this as doctrine.
I don’t see Timothy and Titus as examples of First Century located preachers. First of all, Titus was charged to ordain elders in multiple churches. He evidently had oversight of several congregations in Crete.
Second, Timothy and Titus were both subject to the oversight of Paul. If these men had fallen into serious sin, Paul could have disciplined them and even removed them from their duties.
Who, in the modern church, is the equivalent of Paul? Who would hold the minister to account if he were to need it — and if the elders were ordained by him? After all, I know of far too many cases where a church’s minister controlled the eldership by controlling the ordination process — perhaps not officially but practically. It’s always a very bad thing.
And what if the preacher is 23 years old? What if he has no experience? He has no sponsoring church to lean on for support. He has no supporting organization to call on for help. How does he deal with appointing elders when he’s in over his head?
As a result, my theory is that Timothy and Titus are the ancient equivalent of modern missionaries. And it would make perfect sense for the missionary who founds a congregation to ordain its first elders.
Missionaries are subject to the oversight of their sponsoring church, in modern practice. Many are also coached and mentored by a professional missions organization, such as MRN (an excellent organization). These men are not unaccountable. They have a “Paul” who can hold them to account and offer wisdom, counsel, and advice.
This theory explains why the Jerusalem congregation selected its own deacons and yet the church in Ephesus had its deacons appointed by the missionary. Well … kind of. The idea is that Jerusalem, as an established church, let the members ordain their deacons. The churches in Ephesus and Crete were mission churches, and so the missionary made the selections, in light of the inexperience of the new congregations.
The problem with my theory is that Ephesus has already had elders appointed years before when Paul served as apostle-in-residence there — as shown by Acts 20. 1 Timothy was surely written well after Paul had left (although there are just all kinds of dating issues with 1 Timothy).
It’s hard to reconcile the church having elders, presumably ordained by Paul, and the elders and deacons having to be ordained years later by Timothy unless we assume either of two things —
* It could be that Timothy’s ordination was of men selected by the members — rather like the modern practice. That is, it may be that the membership nominated the elders and deacons and the missionary then approved the selections. I have to admit that I have trouble finding any evidence of this in 1 Timothy. But it could be true.
* More likely, it could be that the church in Ephesus had fallen on hard times and had to be, more or less, replanted by Timothy. This is a very common circumstance in mission areas. The first generation of elders may have failed or may have been overcome by persecution, forcing Timothy to ordain a new generation.
I can’t prove this, but it would make sense and is very consistent with the mission world. Moreover, it’s consistent with the ordination of deacons in Acts 6 by the membership — by a mature, established church.
And this theory, as unprovable as it is, avoids the problem of overly empowering the preacher.
The papers are filled with scandals where a preacher committed sexual or financial sin and his leadership failed to act to deal with the sin because the leaders were under the thumb of the preacher.
We also see cases where a preacher leads a congregation into false doctrine — legalism, the prosperity gospel — and the leadership of the church is too intimidated by the preacher to cry foul.
I’ve worked with many nonprofit organizations where the executive director controlled the board — often leading to scandal.
My experience in churches and nonprofits is that any system that leaves the dominant personality — the preacher — unaccountable in practice is a bad system. Unaccountable elders may be a terrible system, but unaccountable preachers are even worse. It’s just so much easier for one man to fall into sin.
Therefore, I have no problem with a missionary having power to ordain elders — because those elders won’t be his boss. He answers to the sponsoring church. (Missionaries should not become located preachers, because when they do so, they cease to be effective as missionaries. Moreover, they create a serious conflict between the authority of the sponsoring church versus the local elders.)
However, I would object to the wisdom of giving that authority to a located preacher. If he controls the ordination process, he can easily become unaccountable — and I’ve seen horrible results from exactly that structure.
Elders are, at least, accountable to each other. They should also be accountable to the preacher and the membership, as described in earlier posts. This system works well when the other elders and the preacher are willing to exercise the ability they have to call an elder to account when necessary.
The problem with most elderships is not the inability to hold an elder to account but the refusal to do so because we church people are just so conflict averse. And this results from a lack of training and of good examples.
If our elders were better trained and if they were to associate with other elderships and hear of how other elderships hold one another to account, our elderships would be much more functional and our churches much happier.
Finally, as I said early on, I believe that ideally elders and the preacher work together as peers. Whether we find the job description of the modern preacher in 1 Timothy or the job description he works out with his elders, the responsibilities of the preacher and elders heavily overlap.
Both should be key players in the church’s teaching ministry. Both should carry pastoral responsibilities — to visit the sick, counsel those in need, and such. Both should be involved in discerning a vision for the church. Both likely have responsibility for the oversight of various congregational ministries. The preacher’s job description is just very similar to an elder’s. Therefore, they have to work together.
I strongly recommend that the elders meetings include the preacher. He should be a full participant in just about everything other than his own salary and benefits and job review. He should be seen as a peer, not a mere adviser. Churches just work better when this happens.
When it’s time to ordain new elders, the preacher should be part of the process. He should be in the room to advise whether a given candidate is qualified. He may well know things about a nominee that the elders don’t. They should combine their experience, knowledge, and wisdom in making certain only truly Spirit-filled men are ordained.
I have little interest in whether the minister should or must be an elder, because in my view, he is a peer of the elders whether or not he carries the title. And so it just shouldn’t matter whether he gets the title.
On the other hand, I can see the wisdom in keeping the preacher formally not an elder, because this sets up a dynamic making him more easily held to account by the elders — and making the elders more easily held to account by him.
There is a difference between selection and ordination. Deacons can be selected by the church AND still ordained by the preacher/evangelist.
Paul didn’t actually tell Timothy to appoint elders. He told him how to prepare men who aspired to become elders. Paul intended to come soon (1 Tim 3:14) so he could have appointed elders himself. They already had elders (Acts 20:17, Tim 5:17-20) so there was no urgency to appoint more.
The scriptures give qualifications for elders and deacons but not for evangelists. It seems reasonable that the role having more responsibility and authority would have stricter entry requirements.
A church may have elders but no evangelist. Apparently that was the case in Philippi since Paul mentioned the elders and deacons in his greeting, but not the evangelist (Php 1:1). That seems to have been the norm by the time of the 2nd century writers. So it must at least be appropriate for elders to appoint another elder.
In addition, I think it’s relevant to note that in the NT examples. The evangelist was not an employee of the congregation, nor a long term resident in the area. They were transient, so their interests were not in appointing people who they would later have to “deal” with, but rather people who could truly spiritually lead a congregation.
Alan, Timothy was an apostle– Paul calls him one– so the idea that Timothy would be taught to disciple potential elders but could not appoint them has no real foundation in reason that I can see. Certainly Titus was doing such a work.
Jay calls Titus and Timothy “missionaries”, which is merely applying modern terminology to the NT term “apostle”, especially if you look at Paul’s work. I think Jay’s description of the relationship between these two men and Paul is likely accurate.
But what we have done in putting the “ordination of elders” into the hands of a religious hireling is a classic example of the doctrinal reverse-engineering we so often undertake. We take our hireling and try to find his analog in scripture (rather than the other way around). Then we do a chicken-and-egg dance in calling our hireling an “evangelist” because we think Timothy is the nearest analog, and Paul told Timothy to do the work of an evangelist, so we call Timothy an evangelist and thus we call our hireling an evangelist. Dizzying, isn’t it?
Then, having named our hireling after Timothy, we ascribe to him whatever authority Timothy might have had, which is not entirely clear to us (because we ignore or reject his apostleship) but we need a scriptural nail upon which to hang this tatterdemalion doctrine, because our current congregation/clergyman/board of directors model requires it.
I think it would be far more honest if we dropped this tenuous and threadbare attempt at connecting our own elder selection methods to scripture at all. If we were to claim a freedom to move past the apostolic model we see in scripture and just admit it, perhaps church members could be more accountable to one another for their selections to their local board.
**I know that the word “hireling” may be seen as unnecessarily harsh and unkind toward some well-intentioned and godly men. But when a shepherd leaves the flock when his paycheck stops, there is no other definition which is more apropos. We have created a hireling clergy to meet our needs as consumers of religious thought, and to make possible the large and impressive religious organizations we so admire.
Skip I agree with you that churches select elders and the evangelist ordains them. Regarding many of the other comments once again Churches of Christ don’t know what to do with the preacher in terms of church polity. At least the Timothy as an evangelist model is biblical. After all Paul did tell Timothy to do the work of an evangelist. Of course Timothy was more than an evangelist. He certainly was a missionary but missionaries and evangelists are hardly mutually exclusive. Besides where are missionaries mentioned in the NT as a distinct category of leaders/servants? The attempt to explain away Timothy as an evangelist and as a biblical precedent for our ministers today only leaves Churches of Christ even farther in the dark in having a biblical connection between our actual practice of church government today and the practice of the early church. The other option of seeing Timothy and Titus as bidhops over the churches is not an attractive one given the democratic American mindset of Churches of Christ. Yet it may very well be the truest to what we know of the evolution of churches during and soon after the apostolic age. We do not find in the second century autonomous congregations with elders answerable to no one. Isn’t it likely that those who had a living memory of the apostles understood their will regarding church polity better than a Christian movement born on the American frontier in the early 19th century?
Could I please interrupt this discussion , with a question for those among you (the progressives) who claim “holy spirit” guidance in all things religious . “Where is that guidance now, when you really need it”? Did he become so frustrated, that he just gave up on you all? seems to me you progressives don’t agree on very much, if anything at all.
You sure do reference the written word a lot when you encounter a problem, which seems to be often.
Gary,
A good summary of the evidence regarding single bishops over a plural presbytery may be found at http://www.iamadisciple.com/articles/papers/TheRiseOfBishops.pdf. This article reaches the same conclusion I’ve found in a number of other scholars, that is, that the single-bishop structure was not of apostolic origin, but developed later — beginning most likely in Syria (home of Ignatius) and spreading westward from there.
The earliest evidence is that the apostles established plural elderships. The elevation of a single bishop came later, although many authors attributed this practice back to the apostles, but such attribution appears to be a post-hoc rationalization.
I’ve always taught that the church only recognizes God’s leading in the life of an individual. The “ordination” process is simply the church saying “yes we believe this person is called of God for this ministry”.
Caleb, if what you think is true, why would a candidate for that office need to be presented by another “elder” or someone in the congregation? Why would the candidate not just come before the congregation and say “God has called me to have authority over you, I come forward to offer my services” . (and if every one accepted his authority over them, he would be ordained as such) After all, an individual calling is between God and the called as I understand it, at least that is how it works with preachers, or so they say. money or power never enters into the equation.
Laymond complains when we speak of being led by the Spirit, and now complains when we seek guidance and insight from scripture and from the practices of other saints. I suspect that it is not really either one which creates a problem for my brother here, but simple dyspepsia.
No Charles, it is not anything I have eaten, it is something you are trying to feed me, but I refuse to swallow. You teach one thing, and practice another. Lead by example , practice what you preach, ask the HG and give us the answer. How could you possibly go wrong? I don’t recall where it is written that any of Jesus’ twelve apostles ever did that, but I am sure that if they did they would get the truth, how do I know that, because Jesus told them so.
On the other hand, maybe there was no need for them to call upon the HG the spirit of truth, maybe they already knew the truth because the spirit of truth indwelled them.
Sounds like a bellyache to me.
Well , I am blessed to have a great physician I can depend on. If truth is the medicine he is the doctor.
Jay, I’m open to evidence to the contrary on this.I tried to click the link but a 404 error notice came up. The testimony of Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus is so clear and plain that bishops had authority in the churches of the second century that it will take a lot of evidence to the contrary to convince me otherwise. Ignatius died in 108 and was almost certainly personally acquainted with one or more of the apostles. By the way the issue is not one bishop or more than one. There were almost always multiple bishops but with a senior or lead bishop. We’ve had many Churches of Christ with a dominant elder for years at a time so I’m not sure what the difference would be. I knew a dominant or lead elder of a large Church of Christ in Nashville who doubled for many years as the Chairman of the Board at Lipscomb. As far as I know he only used his power and influence for good. In cases where there was only one bishop you and I have agreed in the past that a church can validly have a single elder so the same would apply to a single bishop in a diocese. I’m speaking here of a bishop or bishops who exercised authority over the church as a whole in a city or metropolitan area even when there were multiple congregations assembling at different places. Our system of local congregational autonomy with each congregation having elders that were accountable to no one outside that particular congregation is a much later innovation. I don’t believe that makes it wrong or sinful but I do think it is better that we admit that it is an innovation. I don’t think any one would seriously argue that there were multiple independent elderships in a single city in the early centuries of the church.
Gary,
Try this link: /wp-content/uploads/2013/08/TheRiseOfBishops.pdf
Not sure whether this will work for you. Don’t know why the original link broke, but I fortunately saved a copy!
Gary,
See also http://www.lessonsonline.info/Ignatius.htm quoting Everett Ferguson, “Early Christians Speak.”
and http://www.davidwfletcher.com/resources/Ignatius%20and%20the%20Monarchical%20Episcopate.pdf
and http://rdlindsey.com/churchhistory/Chist6.htm (Monarchical bishop not universal until AD 160).
Jay, Humphrey’s work is not convincing to me at all. Some of his own assertions seem to me to prove the existence of the bishop. It’s more of a stretch to see Timothy, Titus and other apostolic representatives as “resident apostles” than as proto-bishops but at most the two terms are synonomous and in the eye of the beholder. He admits Polycarp saw himself as a bishop in the same sense as Ignatius of Antioch saw himself to be a bishop. Whether there happened to be a single bishop in Phillipi or not at that time proves nothing. Again the point is not that there had to be a single lead bishop in every city. I don’t believe it was that uniform until much later. In some locales the presbytery does seem to have been more collegial and in others there definitely was a lead, senior or dominant bishop as Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus amply attest. I’m not saying that one was right and one wrong. Both were right and permissable and evidently appproved of God. In the same way some CoC elderships are more collegial and others definitely have a dominant or lead elder in all but name only. Either can glorify God and bless the church. That being said the undeniable direction of the church in the second century was toward a single authoritative bishop but still with a presbytery of auxiliary or assisting bishops. If those who personally knew the apostles saw that practice as a reflection of the will of the apostles anyone today contending that the single bishop is contrary to the will of the apostles has a heavy burden of proof. Humphrey does not succeed in my opinion in meeting that burden of proof. How likely is it that Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus were all wrong? How could anyone today convincingly show that they were all wrong? Their proximity in time to the Apostles has to be given a great deal of weight.
I’ll read the other sites tomorrow. Thank you for sharing them.
Caleb suggested, “I’ve always taught that the church only recognizes God’s leading in the life of an individual.”
I would note James’ terminology in Acts 15, regarding the racial scuffle in Antioch, “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things…” There seems here to have been a group consensus among the elders and apostles on where the Holy Spirit was leading, and it resulted in considerable specificity of action.
I think this may be the component most often missing from the life of the church today. Where the individuals in any group all seek and hear the same Spirit, consensus is much more likely than if they are all simply trying to do what is right in their own eyes. No matter how honorable their intentions, nor how many bible verses get quoted.
OTOH, it may be that, say, in Crete, that Paul trusted Titus to hear from the Spirit, but was not confident in these relatively new believers to do so effectively just yet. Thus, Titus’ appointing of elders rather than leaving that to the various groups of believers to do this for themselves.
Jay asks a reasonable question here. “Who, in the modern church, is the equivalent of Paul? Who would hold the minister to account if he were to need it — and if the elders were ordained by him?”
Being held to account is always either a matter of coercion or of submission. If a believer submits to the oversight of another believer, this is a voluntary union. It is best done when this relationship has been revealed to both people -independently- by the Holy Spirit. Thus, the first answer to Jay’s question is “anyone”. Anyone, that is, who has the spiritual gravitas and wisdom necessary. We expect the church members to submit in this exact manner to a local elder, so why should we not expect such voluntary submission on the part of a preacher to someone else? I think Titus submitted to Paul’s oversight. But to think that only an apostle could give spiritual oversight to another believer is not a limitation found in scripture. But as a result of our unfounded assumptions in this regard, we have turned to coercion by checkbook to keep the local preacher in line; we have the threat of disfellowship to sort out everyone else. In our present herd of cats, it is the easiest way.
The idea of a personal “pastor”, indeed the idea of personal submission to any single believer is simply not part of our Protestant religious tradition. When I came out of the CoC, the Holy Spirit connected me with a godly brother who has been my pastor and my friend now for over 20 years. This came after a prophetic word to me in which the Lord said, “You do not submit to anyone else’s authority. Indeed, you don’t even know how.” It was true. But I learned. I also learned a strong lesson, that those who submit “only to God” often don’t do that, either.
Even in the tiny segment of the CoC with which I still associate, I can think of at least a half-dozen mature and godly brothers whom I would gladly trust to give extra-local oversight and support to preachers or elderships, as Paul did. For us to unconsciously assume that this capacity has left the church leaves us as the man foundering in the water in sight of a life raft, having been convinced that life rafts ceased to exist upon the publication of a book entitled “How To Swim”.
Regarding the article by Dan Petty he contradicts Humphrey who admits that Polycarp did see himself as a single bishop. Petty cites Everett Ferguson as denying that there was any extension of authority to a single bishop during the lifetime of Ignatius of Antioch. I have only the highest respect for Ferguson but Ignatius of Antioch, widely believed to have been a student of the Apostle John, is on record that there was a single authoritative bishop at least in Antioch and many other places. Ignatius knew the apostle John. Everett Ferguson obviously has known none of the apostles. No offense to Ferguson but I have to conclude that Ignatius knew the will of the apostles better than Everett Ferguson. Again it does not matter that Phillipi and Rome were still operating with a collegial system of bishops. The situation was admittedlymixed in the early second century but everyone agrees that by the latter half of the second century the practice of a single authoritative bishop usually with a presbytery of assisting bishops was the norm. According to Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus this development was fully in accord with the will of the Apostles. How can anyone today prove that they were mistaken? I think Humphrey and Petty are attempting, very unconvincingly, to read their preference regarding church government back into history.
Jay, Fletcher makes some interesting observations but his conclusions are only his own assertions buttressed by Lightfoot. Lindsey/Eubanks reach their conclusion from their first sentence practically and simply give a standard CoC position that is devoid of any critical thinking or evidence. I still think that our system of autonomous congregations, often multiple ones in the same city, led by elders who are accountable to no one outside their congregations is an innovation, an acceptable innovation, but an innovation nonetheless.
Another thought- after the departure of the Apostles from Jerusalem wasn’t James the bishop and patriarch of the mother church in Jerusalem until his death? The Apostles registered no objection to his dominant leadership from what we know from the NT. If that was acceptable how could a single bishop in any church be unacceptable?
Charles,
I have to agree that the Holy Spirit’s leading is discerned by the congregation, not each individual. Many a man considers himself called to be an elder only to have the church disagree. Most of the time, the church is right.