What Would We Do If….
“Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment” (John 7:24).
The New Testament clearly teaches that every local congregation of the Lord’s church is to have elders and deacons if men meet the qualifications for those works. On Paul’s first missionary journey, after he preached the gospel in many towns, he traveled back through them and appointed elders (notice the plural) in each congregation (Acts 14:23). He later set forth the qualifications for these leaders (1 Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9). We know that it was God’s plan, then, to have qualified, older men to shepherd the flock and oversee the work of the church.
We also know that this arrangement was attacked by Satan very early in the second century. Eventually, the idea of some men being over several churches arose, which over a period of centuries resulted in the papacy. But within each congregation arose another unscriptural concept—that of a one-man rule (which came to be designated as the “pastor” system). Both of these departures from the New Testament structure remain in use until this day.
True followers of the Lord Jesus Christ continue to use the same arrangement which the apostles taught and used in the New Testament. We have seen the errors that have developed in the past and have determined that we will not make the same mistakes. Holding firm to the truth concerning the government of the local congregation is one area in which brethren will not be moved away from.
But here is a wild thought—suppose someone did tamper with God’s arrangement? What would we do? In a few instances, some have advocated evangelistic oversight, in which the local preacher (although not called a “pastor”) nevertheless functions as one. When (if) elders are ever appointed, he will be the one who does it (citing Titus 1:5), but somehow that day never comes. Even after he has preached two decades for the same congregation, no one has become qualified.
We have responded properly to that error by advocating that this practice is false. Another concept arose in years past which theorized that elders have no authority whatsoever; they can only lead by example. Sound brethren likewise showed the fallacy of that idea as well (Heb. 13:17). So, the Biblical concept of leadership in the churches of Christ remains intact.
Introduction of a New Doctrine
So if someone introduced a new threat to God’s view of the eldership as taught in the Bible, we would all be alarmed and immediately take exception, right? Say, as a wacky example, that a congregation thought some of their elders were no longer qualified. What would be a way of getting rid of them? Say, how about asking the church to re-evaluate those men? Sure, this is so bizarre that it would probably never happen, but what if it were proposed? How ought brethren to respond?
Some brethren would probably observe, “The New Testament does not provide authority for re-evaluation of elders. They are to be evaluated according to the qualifications that Paul gives before they become elders.” Yes, but suppose some are no longer qualified, and it was necessary to find a way to remove them? Well, how might someone approach such a thing? Of course, this is too crazy, almost, to even contemplate, but let’s indulge ourselves in a bit of “speculation.”
First, why not ask a preacher to address the topic in a favorable way? Now it might be a problem to find just the right person to take such an impossible task upon him, but for the sake of argument, let’s say that someone could be found. How could he possibly approach this topic and present it to brethren in such a way that they would even consider it, let alone accept it? This has got to be difficult, and it might require hours to figure out a way to do it.
How to Persuade Brethren to Accept what is Not True
The first thing that must always be done is to convince brethren that “we are people of the Book, and we believe that whatever we do in religion and life must be authorized and guided by the Word of God.” Oh, yeah, that’s good. If the first thing we do is to appeal to the Scriptures as our only authority, then probably everyone will be convinced that whatever follows afterward is also Biblical. But to keep up that façade, most of what follows must actually be Biblical.
Therefore, it would be a good idea to consider what the New Testament says about selecting elders in the first place, even though none of that is relevant to re-evaluation, which is not mentioned at all. So, it would be a good idea to mention that the Bible teaches a plurality of elders and that it lists qualifications. However, Paul does not describe the selection process of elders. We know that he appointed men in the congregations he established and he told Titus to appoint men on the island of Crete, but we do not know what process was used in either of those instances or at any other time.
What to do at this point might stump many preachers, but a really creative one might think to bring up Acts 6. Well, no, it does not refer to the selection of elders; in fact, it does not even refer to the selection of deacons, but it does refer to a selection process, and that’s the part that will be emphasized. Many have assumed that the passage describes the selection of deacons, but it does not. The seven men were chosen to preside over one particular task—the daily distribution of food to the widows—not the various works of the church in general. Naturally, the word servant (the same word used for deacons) is used, and that may cause some to be confused. The church was led by twelve apostles, who were divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit. It would be ludicrous to think of the twelve apostles as elders over several thousand Christians, all of whom were served by seven deacons.
The one pushing re-evaluation, then, would need to highlight the fact that the congregation was told to seek out from among them seven men of good reputation, who were full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom (Acts 6:3), which the apostles would then appoint. When discussing the appointment of elders, the same system could be suggested based on this text, which might be cited as a pattern for selection. One might even observe that the Bible is “largely silent on this matter”—the actual selection of elders—but at the same time it says much more than most church members realize.
An examination of Acts 6 will then be presented even though it is admitted that it does not deal with the selection of elders. Nevertheless, it does provide “insight” and serves as the only “prototype” of a selection process. It will be emphasized that Acts 6 is really the only passage in all the Bible that provides relevant information respecting this subject. One might emphasize that, concerning this passage, the “implications are enormous.”
Now it is time to solidify the point of member involvement in the process. Having looked at the one passage that shows a selection process and admitting that it does not deal with elders, the time has come to make some declarations.
1. It is wrong for preachers to personally select elders.
2. It is wrong for elders to make the selection for additional elders, lest they become a self-perpetuating board.
If the New Testament does not provide a procedure for the selection of elders, then how do we know the above two statements are true? Cannot one who preaches the gospel know who are qualified men for the work? Can elders not determine who within the congregation is capable and ready for serving as an elder? While all might agree that a preacher or existing elders should select men with the input of the congregation, would it be Scripturally wrong to do it the way numbers 1 and 2 suggest? It is just as easy for the appointment of elders to be a popularity contest among the members as it is for preachers and elders to appoint “yes” men. This procedure must be condemned, however, when one stresses the point of congregational input.
Re-Evaluation
Eventually, a sermon on re-evaluation, however, must get around to its main topic. What a dilemma! How can brethren be convinced to practice that on which the Scriptures are silent? An imaginative soul might try this tactic. First, why not bring up the subject of liberalism right at the beginning because some may be thinking it anyway. One might merely say something like, “Some brethren are up in arms over this practice; they say, “That’s what the liberals are doing.’ They may be, but for us, the question is, ‘What does the Bible teach?’” All right, that should disarm most brethren and make them feel that what they are about to hear is a Scriptural answer to the question.
The key point is to remind everyone that elders are selected by members in the first place. (The whole sermon has been designed to bolster this point.) The implication is that the congregation can then remove the men they appointed. Already there is a flaw. If brethren use a selection process and appoint men according to their qualifications, and that constitutes the Holy Spirit making those men overseers, then we need a removal process that is also inspired by the Holy Spirit in order for their termination to be valid.
The second thing that should be pointed out is that it is just as false to say, “once an elder, always an elder,” as it is to say “once saved, always saved.” Now isn’t that clever? It’s a true statement, but in the context it is made, it is misleading. A man may resign for health reasons, because of sin in his life, or because his wife has gone on to her reward. He is not an elder for life. But “re-evaluation” is not one of those causes.
Third, it may be the case that an elder no longer meets the qualifications (which is true, as stated above). Now that he is on a roll, it must seem like the best time to insert a point that is not Scriptural: A man may be Scripturally qualified, technically qualified, but not be perceived by the flock as a shepherd. They may not have the desire to submit to him. “Shepherds cannot lead where people will not follow.” No one should proceed any further without re-reading this last argument at least two more times because the idea is not found in the pages of Holy Writ. One might have agreed with everything thus far (although much of it was theory), but this part definitely cannot stand.
A man is not technically qualified to be an elder? He either is or is not. And if he is, how can members not submit to a spiritually-minded leader made an overseer of the flock by the Holy Spirit? How can anyone say, “He may be qualified but not able to lead effectively”? Could the problem be with some members and not such an elder? Suppose two elders had no objections to adding instrumental music into the worship (why were they, then, allowed to become elders?), and two opposed it. If the majority of members said they could no longer follow the two men holding to the Scriptures, should they be ousted? One of the very works of elders is to protect the flock from wolves, yet if churches could remove elders whenever they so desired, they could never do the job to which they were appointed (Acts 20:28-32).
As the old saying goes, “In for a penny, in for a pound.” To cement this last point, the preacher might add these words: “…one of the qualifications of a shepherd is that the membership perceives him to be such, and is willing to submit and to follow, to respect and to trust.” Really? What verse in 1 Timothy 3 or Titus 1 says that? If that were a qualification, some men would never be appointed, and others would never remain in the presbytery.
1 Timothy 5:17-20
Yes, there is a passage that does deal with the removal of an elder, and this “fictional” sermon finally mentions it. The first two verses speak of an elder receiving remuneration for his labors. Then Paul says that an accusation should not be received against an elder except from two or three witnesses. If they are guilty, they should be rebuked before all. This is not an automatic dismissal, however. But if the man refused to acknowledge his sin or refused to repent, something would have to be done (Matt. 18:15-17). In this instance the entire congregation would be called upon to exercise discipline.
Although this procedure is Biblical, it does not support elder re-evaluation. So the preacher must reinforce what he has already said by insisting on a principle that is not taught in the text:
I would still maintain that a man could theoretically be qualified and yet have lost his standing with enough of the members that he ought to voluntarily remove himself. Now how do you determine that unless you ask the members, how they perceive this man, as an elder of the church?
It all seems so logical. Maybe he has lost his effectiveness as a leader; so ask the church to evaluate him. Although such a practice is highly dangerous to the stability of a congregation and totally lacking Biblical authority, doesn’t it sound reasonable? Imaginative preachers can find smooth words and appealing scenarios to convince brethren of an unscriptural practice. Will no one wonder how elders can be technically and theoretically qualified without actually being qualified?
To close this hypothetical sermon, a few assorted thoughts might be helpful, such as, “No one should fear evaluation,” and, “You can go to heaven without being an elder.” Most will not object to these statements.
What Would We do?
Of course, this has all been an intellectual exercise. No one would actually preach a sermon such as has just been suggested. And if someone had, surely brethren would be outraged that he had done so. We all recognize that no one has the right to tamper with God’s arrangement for the church regarding elders and their effective leadership of the congregation. While elders are not appointed for life (like Supreme Court Justices), neither has God placed “term limits” upon them or subjected them to re-evaluation based on the mood of the congregation at any given moment. Fortunately, no one would be so presumptuous as to change God’s plan.
What?! Someone has? No way! Well, if someone did advocate this practice, we certainly know how brethren will respond! Why, his reputation would be shot! No one would invite him to speak or hold a meeting until he repented, right? Certainly, no one would entrust him with a position of responsibility. Furthermore, efforts would be made to discuss the issue with him, and reasonable brethren would try to persuade him to renounce his fallacious position, wouldn’t they?
Schools of preaching, being incensed, would certainly speak out and warn against this false teaching. He would never be found speaking on a lectureship or invited to any workshop. If he wrote a book or made a DVD, no one would consider buying it; after all he might hold to other errors, such as “marital intent” with respect to divorce. A guy like that might even recommend Mac Deaver (kindred spirits?) to debate a Baptist, even though he too is riddled with errors, such as that all Christians are baptized in the Holy Spirit today.
Yes, the brotherhood would take whatever measures necessary to help such a brother see his errors and repent of them. They would, in all kindness, tell him, “You must re-study this issue and attempt to see the error in what you have taught—and repent of it—not just say some people are out to get you. Yes, brethren would never be silent about such a matter, would they?