One In Jesus

When we consider the ecclesiology (doctrine of church organization) for elders, we tend to get lost in the weeds. The passages are just not real clear on lots of questions, and expert theologians disagree about all sorts of things.

But the big picture — which is far more important — is actually quite plain. Therefore, we do best when we decide on procedures and select men with the big picture in mind.

Here are some big-picture ideas — Continue reading →

I’ve decided to cut this series short for now. The degree of personal attacks in some of the comments and private emails is disappointing. It’s as though we can’t disagree on this topic without declaring the other person wicked.

When good people are reduced to personal attacks, it’s time to move on to other topics for a while.

Sadly, some readers perceive animosity between me and Patrick, when there is none. We just disagree on some things. We agree on most things, as I said in the first post. But we don’t agree on everything. Continue reading →

Back in post 3B 1/2 (I really have to figure out a better numbering system), I proposed a fact pattern for a church without elders and asked the readers to respond with their own solutions.

I found several of the responses extremely helpful to my own thinking, and I appreciate all the answers.

In fairness, I figure I should put my own thinking out there for consideration.

I’ll not restate the facts here. Go back to the previous post to see them. Continue reading →

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.

Continue reading →

So why do there continue to be individual members — and even a few ministers — who contend that Lipscomb was right — that elders have no positional authority? Well, reasons vary, but here are a few I’ve observed —

1. First, some are genuinely convicted that the Bible gives no authority to elders. Typically the argument is based on Matthew 20 and 1 Peter 5:12, which we’ve covered earlier. Patrick argues more from Acts 6 and Acts 15, which we’ll consider in a future post.

2. Second, there are Churches of Christ where the elders are truly horrid leaders, where they do indeed “lord over” the church, or otherwise act contrary to the image of Christ.

In such churches, people are deeply wounded and are often desperate to find a way out from underneath such atrocious leadership — and that makes Lipscomb’s teaching attractive. Continue reading →

In the early Restoration Movement, Thomas Campbell and Alexander Campbell were both elders of their congregations. In their minds, the roles of elder and preacher were much the same, as the Bible plainly anticipates that some elders may preach —

(1Ti 5:17 ESV) ¹⁷ Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.

However, by 1840 or so, according to the Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement, “Elders,” some congregations began to hire men to preach. This was a controversial innovation — a controversy that lasted for 100 years. Continue reading →

It’s easy to criticize the current Church of Christ system of congregational governance. In many of our congregations, it’s plainly broken. It’s an important and worthwhile discussion.

But the discussion is ultimately useless unless a better system is put forward — and I find that very few critics are willing to suggest a better way.

I hardly blame them. Anyone who puts forward a proposal will be roundly criticized — and yet nothing will change until a better plan is put forward and shown to be consistent with scripture. Criticism, therefore, only has value if accompanied by a proposed better way to do things. Continue reading →

We should next consider —

(Eph 4:11-14 ESV) ¹¹ And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, ¹² to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, ¹³ until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, ¹⁴ so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.

Paul explains that shepherds are gifted by God for that task. Their task, along with teachers and others, is to “equip the saints for the work of ministry.” That is, the elders are to prepare the members to serve others.

Continue reading →

Let’s think a bit about elders and positional authority.

God as giver of authority

I quote frequent commenter Price, who said it better than I could —

Was there ever a time in the history of mankind that God didn’t put some person or group of people in charge ?  Patriarchs, Judges, Kings, Prophets/Priests, Apostles…  Elders were a spiritual gift to the church…their leadership as mentioned along with Apostles seems quite evident to me… And, there seems to quite a bit more scriptural support for there being leaders with some oversight responsibilities which common sense suggests some authority (solving disputes such as Jerusalem council), being appointed as Apostolic representatives in various churches, etc…. than there is scriptural support for no leadership whatsoever…  I don’t remember anywhere scripture suggests that everybody just does what they feel is appropriate.

Assuming all elders with authority abuse their authority

We can’t have a serious discussion about the scriptures on this topic and assume that if an elder has positional authority, he will necessarily abuse it. Obviously, plenty of elders have done just that, and so we can’t ignore the possibility, but neither may we begin with the assumption that all elders with positional authority abuse their authority.

There are good reasons for this. First, I know too many elders who don’t abuse their authority. There are lots of them, and it’s terribly unfair to them to stereotype all elders as abusive.

Second, when we reflexively blame the elders for the members’ rebellion, we excuse a great sin. Rebellion against the legitimate decisions of elders violates the scriptures. After all, according to the scriptures, elders who’ve been rightfully selected and ordained are chosen by God’s Holy Spirit. Which brings us to —

Third, it’s surprising how rarely we speak in terms of the Spirit when speaking of elders, even elders who are exactly the sort of men who ought to be elders. The scriptures plainly credit the Spirit with selecting elders —

(Act 20:28 ESV) Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.

— not to mention Eph 4:11 ff, Rom 12:6-8 ; and 1 Cor 12:28. Now, if the Spirit gifts certain men to be elders, leaders, pilots (helmsmen), and shepherds, it is surely a very serious sin to rebel against such persons if they are not abusing their calling from God.

Positional authority does not mean only positional authority

I have not suggested that elders should lead their churches based solely on their positional authority. I’ve agreed that they should be authentically following Jesus. I’ve agreed that they must honor the teachings of Jesus in Matthew 20.

And yet some  readers wish to speak as though I’ve argued that elders should rule as despots. It’s a false dichotomy — that is, a false choice. Another possibility, of course, is that an elder leads his congregation based primarily on the authority that comes from a life well lived and personal relationships he has with the members, but nonetheless he has real positional authority. It’s entirely possible for these things to coexist — and I know plenty of elders who do this and do it quite well.

Again, we can’t seek a biblical doctrine regarding elders by assuming all elders are unqualified and abusive. Nor can we constantly raise the requirements for an elder to be respected so that all rebellion is excused because no elder is as holy and humble as Jesus himself.

Matthew 20 and Jesus

Jesus’ teaching regarding authority in Matthew 20 is, frankly, difficult for all interpreters, regardless of the result you wish to find there. The key to sound interpretation is to consider the larger scriptural context —

(Mat 20:25-28 ESV)  ²⁵ But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them.  ²⁶ It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant,  ²⁷ and whoever would be first among you must be your slave,  ²⁸ even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Part of the  challenge is Jesus’ love for hyperbole. This is the same Jesus who tells us to “hate” our parents and to “let the dead bury the dead.” This sort of speech was typical of rabbis of his time — and typical of his culture — but it leads some to assume that elders must have no authority at all. But Jesus is actually speaking most directly to the apostles, not to elders. Hence, to argue from this passage that elders have no authority, you have to  argue that the apostles had no authority.

But consider such passages as —

(2Co 10:8-9 ESV)  ⁸ For even if I boast a little too much of our authority, which the Lord gave for building you up and not for destroying you, I will not be ashamed.  ⁹ I do not want to appear to be frightening you with my letters.

(2Co 13:10 ESV)  ¹⁰ For this reason I write these things while I am away from you, that when I come I may not have to be severe in my use of the authority that the Lord has given me for building up and not for tearing down.

(Tit 2:15 ESV)  ¹⁵ Declare these things; exhort and rebuke with all authority. Let no one disregard you. [Paul speaking to Titus, to whom he’d delegated authority.]

(3Jo 1:9 ESV) ⁹ I have written something to the church, but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority.

Quite obviously, Paul, John, and Titus had authority — positional authority — despite Jesus’ words. How can that be? Well, for the same reason that Jesus could, in Matthew 20, urge his apostles to follow his example of authority in servanthood. After all, Jesus also has authority —

(Mat 11:27 ESV)  ²⁷ “All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.”

(Mat 28:18 ESV)  ¹⁸ And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.”

(John 3:35 ESV) ³⁵ The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand.

There is no contradiction between having positional authority and strict obedience to Matthew 20. The key is to follow the example of Jesus.

And yet sermons and Bible class lessons on the nature and person of Jesus are nearly unheard of in the Churches of Christ. We study his commands and parables, but we don’t study him. And the key to Matthew 20 is to exegete in light of who Jesus is.

Consider, for example, the times Jesus led his apostles through Samaria — at very real risk for their lives. Samaritans were known to assassinate Jews who traveled through their land. Did Jesus have authority to command them to make the trip? Well, they could have said no, but they surely could not have said no and remained apostles — or even disciples. Disciples follow their rabbi. They are required to submit to and obey their rabbi to be disciples.

How much authority did Jesus have? Well, enough to command the apostles to follow him. Enough to require them to travel as missionaries with no food or money. Enough to ask them to risk their lives over and over.

Did Jesus ever issue a command for his own benefit? No. He only did what his Father asked him to do (John 8:28). But did he ever issue a command expecting it to be obeyed due to his authority? Well, of course. But he also expected us to be drawn to him by his love, his submission, and his sacrifice.

His authority — even his position as King or Messiah — is tied to his character as sacrificial lamb. These are not only not inconsistent, they depend on each other. He could only truly sacrifice himself if he had the authority not to give himself up (John 10:18). He could only be the ultimate servant if he had enough authority not to serve.

Nonetheless, as king of the Kingdom — even the universe — Jesus plainly has and had positional authority. And yet in Matthew 20, he tells his apostles to follow him in being a servant.

We see this paradox worked out in the lives of Paul and John, who fearlessly asserted their authority as apostles and yet gave up everything for the Kingdom.

You see, authority is a gift that the church desperately needs. Rebellion happens. Not everyone is willing to follow a good example. Sometimes even very good people fail to see the need to obey, in their weaker moments, and so they have to be reminded of the command to submit to those empowered by God to lead his church.

It’s like parents and children. Parents have real, legitimate, God-given authority over their children — and good parents are servants of their children. But children aren’t allowed to rebel just because they disagree or consider their parents less than optimal. They aren’t allowed to say, “If you were a good parent, I’d want to obey, and since I don’t want to obey, you’re a bad parent and I don’t have to obey.” And this is true even though there are parents so bad that they shouldn’t be obeyed. We don’t destroy the authority of good parents because there are many bad parents. (And, yes, I’ll be addressing what to do with bad elders.)

No human organization can operate without leadership. Therefore, God gave us a King, and therefore his King has sent his Spirit to equip certain men to lead and have the authority that leadership requires in an organization of imperfect, broken beings.

However, he also gave enough discernment to his children that they should be able to recognize and choose who is full of the Spirit and wisdom.

(Act 6:3 ESV)  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.”

Thus, the responsibility is given to the members (as a rule — more detail to come in future posts) to discern who among them has been gifted for leadership and to submit to them as leaders.

(Heb 13:17 ESV)  ¹⁷ Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.

You see, while sovereignty is in God, not the members, God has empowered the members to discern who is qualified to this task. The fact that our members often do this very poorly tells us that there’s a tremendous need for education about who is qualified to be an elder and how the church should discern those qualifications.

But we should not give up hope of finding Spirit-gifted men capable of doing the task. God is alive, well, and providing for the needs of the church.