Serious Repercussions
By Timothy Glover
In February’s issue, we ended with some thoughts on decision-making not being a work given exclusively to elders. We would like to continue the emphasis on the work of the church being the work of the church with its elders rather than the work of the church through its elders. Not only are elders not given the exclusive work of decision-making, they are not the only ones to encourage the fainthearted, admonish the unruly, or restore a brother or sister. Again, they certainly would lead us in that activity and knowing the flock (strength and weaknesses), they certainly would advance the membership to be fully activated and involved in the work commensurate with their ability. The body acts and works as one (1 Cor. 12), each performing according to its ability and gathering together (1 Cor. 11) for the purpose of building up each member, elders and members alike.
Every member is subject to disciplinary action when sin has entered the camp (the church). For the member, the sinner is to be “delivered over to Satan “when you are gathered together” (1 Cor. 5:4). For the elder, Paul told Timothy, “Them that sin, rebuke before all, that others may also fear” (1 Tim. 5:20). All men are subject to sin, error, poor judgment, etc. Thus, a working membership with each member of the body contributing to each other member supplies the needs of the body. A church that depends upon just a few members of a body would be as dysfunctional as a human body depending upon just a few members of its body.
In this series, we have concluded that it is not scriptural to force elders or allow them to be the decision making body for the church. We hope that people will begin to understand that the biblical concept of an elder’s “rule” does not give them the power to act unilaterally but that they lead through their influence and leadership. This misunderstanding of the “rule” of elders has produced some serious repercussions that will be the focus of this issue.
1. It has immobilized the body. By the time the elders are in position with the kind of authority that we have given them and a “hireling” preacher added to the work, the majority of members are merely spectators. If the work is not going well, or a problem has developed, it’s the elder’s fault or the preacher’s fault. Members speak of “they” and “them” when speaking of the work of the local church rather than “us” and “we.” This is foreign to the New Testament and stunts personal growth and development that the local church is designed to produce (Ephesians 4).
Some have shrugged their shoulders as if to say they have no say whatsoever in what is being done or not done in a local church. Are we obligated to accept the decisions of elders when we do not believe they are walking in harmony with the Bible? If so, what is the difference between that arrangement and the Roman Catholic hierarchy? Such an arrangement provides no safeguard against error. We cannot excuse ourselves from responsibility. All of us have a responsibility to correct error regardless of who is making the error.
However, our inaction is due to our perception of the elder’s rule. We think the elders have the power to run all the affairs of the church without any admonition, suggestions, or opinions from the membership. Consequently, members blame the eldership for what they would never do (so they say) but do not have the right to tell them. Our plea in this study is that you not hide behind the “lordship” of elders that Peter condemns in 1 Peter 5, excuse yourself from any obligation, and resort to a defeatist attitude that accepts a whatever the elders decide to do.
Does the word of God give the elders that kind of “rule?” If they do have an authoritarian rule, do the members have neither right nor obligation to entreat them with truth when they have promoted a work concerning which they disagree? Finally, would not the character and qualities that are fitting for an elder welcome a concerned brother or sister to share what the Word of God reveals? Would he not open his heart to God’s truth? Because elders are only men, they do not believe they can speak ex-cathedra like the Pope. They recognize that they can be wrong. Therefore, they will fulfill their leadership role as God intended by listening to godly men and women who may be a servant sent by God to help them see their error or provide updated and complete facts that would enable them to initiate the wisest plan.
On the other hand, if an eldership does not recognize these things, and we, through our silence, support them in some error, are we not also guilty? Do we not realize that the body must function as a body and that the work of the church is just that – the work of the church instead of merely the work of a few? All need to be actively involved, not waiting to be told what to do or waiting for the approval of the elders before they act. For example, members should not have to ask the eldership if they can have a Bible study or singing in their homes. If the elders have concerns such as a withdrawn member or others concerns that affect our private lives, they should be quick to admonish brethren and brethren should expect the elders to lead us in such concerns and submit to them as they who watch over our souls.
2. It gives elders authority in censorship. No man has the right to tell another member what to read or with whom they may talk. That was performed many years ago in the name of Roman Catholicism because they sought to maintain control and uniformity. Is this the leadership we desire? God says to “be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason for the hope that is in you with meekness and fear” (1 Peter 3:15). I have talked to many in this area who have been told to avoid the “antis” who are not growing, who are against everything and are for nothing.” This is not only a lie, it prevents open communication, potential for unity, and a greater opportunity for understanding. This is reminiscent of the Sanhedrin who commanded the apostles to quit teaching in the name of Jesus (Acts 4:18; 5:28). They, too, had extended beyond the bounds of their authority and the proper response is not to say, “Yes, sir. Whatever you say, sir.” Rather, we should offer the same biblical response that was given by Peter, “We cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:20) and “we ought to obey God, rather than men” (Acts 5:29).
Brethren, who believe that elders rule in the context of lawful expediencies and methods of maintaining order and decency in an assembly, believe that when elders “give their ruling” and someone does not conform to it, that person has defied the eldership. In the first place, we question that such rule should exist. The church could just as easy arrange for other members who are especially qualified in administrative duties to arrange schedules, and organize the services without infringing on the work of elders. Second, we need not to forget the human element of forgetfulness, mental and physical weaknesses, and external circumstances beyond one’s control. A brother may fail to sit on the front row when waiting on the table or mow the lawn before Sunday morning. Should he be reprimanded because he has defied the eldership? Not only did God not give them the kind of authority they could defy, but these cases do not necessarily describe a defiant attitude.
3. Encourages ignorance. Some elders have the policy that the less people know, the less the possibility of departing from the truth. In this case, the old adage that “ignorance is bliss” becomes the rule. Some biblical subjects have been ignored because it may cause disagreements. Shall we be content to keep people ignorant of the truth when seen beside variant views for fear of having to spend time grounding, correcting, and building up.
Ironically, this is the very reason why God placed them in the church (Eph. 4:11-14). Such men avoid controversy when they should be most qualified to deal with conflicts and interpersonal problems. For this reason, such men tell the preacher what not to preach because they don’t want any problems. They tell members what not to read or who to avoid in order to stifle open discussion of the truth. We are taught to contend for the faith (Jude 3). Clearly, the work of an elder involves him in much “contending.” It is much work!
Any man who thinks the eldership is a position of authority rather than much work in teaching, warning, etc. is a careless steward. He has not discharged the most solemn responsibility given by the chief Shepherd. The Israel of God today are destroyed by the same thing and for the same reason that destroyed ancient Israel --- lack of knowledge and indigent leadership. An eldership would not have to work so hard if they had an authoritarian rule. Some do not choose to preach to the lower classes in town because if there was a response, they would drain the treasury dry. We would spend all of our efforts working with irresponsible people who did not know how to work for a living. Ironically, elders stand self–condemned for they, too, are unwilling to put forth the effort to succeed. WOE TO THE SHEPHERDS OF ISRAEL who seize all decision making for the benefit of their own peace of mind so they do not have to work with babes in Christ with repulsive or sinful habits and unpaid debts.
4. Encourages an employee/employer relationship with a preacher. We know what the Bible teaches about the work and role of an evangelist. But typically, a preacher, looking for a place to preach, goes to a congregation, preaches one or two sermons, and sits behind closed doors with an eldership who decides whether or not they will hire him. If the preacher agrees to the move, he is expected to follow a contract, whether written or unwritten that is prepared by the elders. Since they were given the power to “hire” him, they must also have the power to “fire” him if he does not fulfill the requirements of the contract in a satisfactory way. This is all wrong!
As a result of this departure from the leadership rule of elders taught in the Bible (see last issue), some elders have told preachers not to preach on some sensitive subject like marriage and divorce or church discipline. When told not to preach that which the Word of God teaches, preachers are immediately inquisitive. I am at once concerned with any man’s right to tell me what I can preach and cannot preach. Of course, the cause of this outrageous demand is fueled by the false view of an elder’s rule. Preachers should not work for any group of men nor should they be hired. When a preacher agrees to move to a congregation, it is with the understanding that we have another worker among all the rest of the workers, elders included. I am a worker with the elders not a worker of the elders. The agreement should be made by the church with the elders leading and guiding in that decision-making process.
However, preachers should comply with an elder who has cause to believe that something would be untimely, or inappropriate and gives the reason for the sound judgment. The preacher understands that the issue will be addressed in a more productive way. He is not made to believe that there are subjects that are just never discussed because of their sensitive nature. A preacher was once told by an elder not to address a problem in the pulpit. When the elder was assured that it would be handled privately, the elder said that he would take care of it.
The problem was never addressed. Preachers should preach the “whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27) and elders need to be reminded that they too are workers for the Lord and must give an answer to the chief shepherd some day (1 Peter 5:2).
5. It has no built-in safety precautions against a group of men forcing an unscriptural decision. This misunderstanding of “rule” led to the papacy and the many errors that were advanced by them. When elders are given the power to make all decisions instead of lead the church in those decisions, the church under such a system is obligated to follow them regardless of any error that is promoted. College presidents, editors of papers and silver-tongued promoters can sway an eldership. When elders invite the promoters for meetings, financially supporting the institutions of men and glorifying the pseudo-intellectuals, they have enhanced their own status among the “brotherhood of churches” and are praised as giants for the cause of Christ, publishing their work in the papers, or praising their decision in college lectureships, etc. Once an eldership accommodates the request for money by putting a work in the church budget, they will get a lot of attention. Of course, at this point there is no turning back. Elders feel bound by brotherhood pressures, popular preachers, and powerful institutions.
Of course, the unfortunate overwhelming problem is that the majority of men are appointed to fill some hierarchy of rule known as the eldership and are not as much qualified to lead as they are to make demands, hand down their decisions, and keep things running as smoothly as one would expect operating a business. When this occurs, many of them know their limitations. For example, they know they can’t lead a discussion, lead in making a decision among many, teach, convict gainsayers, restore the wayward, stop the mouths of false teachers and be true spiritual shepherds of a local flock. Consequently, they will hire it done. “The preacher will do what we can’t do or do not want to do and we will run the business,” they reason. In other words, the elders will get the professionals hired like a sub-contractor would do, decide how and when the money will be spent and make sure that they are building more members to fund the business. To do that, they have to keep the peace. To keep the peace, it is required that they have a greater control over the decisions of the membership and public relations. Meanwhile, the preacher is now doing what the elders should have been doing all along but were not qualified to do.
6. It Hinders the Members from “Knowing” and “Esteeming” the Elders. The responsibility is given to the membership to “know” their elders. Most lexicographers agree that in 1 Thess. 5:12 OIDA conveys an attitude of respect and appreciation for the elders. Of course, this may be accomplished by spending time talking to them and seeing their example and work. No one should worry about imposing on an elder because true shepherds want to serve you and they are anxious for you to know them and their work. They are to be “esteemed highly for their work’s sake” (1 Thess. 5:13). We already commented on 1 Thess. 5:17 that speaks of elders who “labor in the word and in teaching.” Such are worthy of double honor which has reference to monetary support. Once we know of their work and their teaching, we may “esteem them for their works sake.” Their work gives cause for this high estimation. The respect is rooted in love for them because of the responsibility they have accepted, the sacrifices made and the diligent work they do.
Proper submission to pastors is not of constraint but of free will. Notice that the high estimation is based on their “work’s sake” (1 Thess. 5:13). As one considers the tremendous responsibility and the eternal consequences for good or evil that is inherent in this work of shepherding, one is led to respect those who are willing to make the sacrifices. When our leaders “lord it over” others, make decisions in secret and announce their decisions and expect compliance without question, and treat the thoughts of others with indifference, how will the members know and respect them? This kind of “rule” most often has the opposite effect – criticism, gossip, rebellion and division. For, when elders get the idea that they are the bosses and just tell the church what to do and then force such upon them, it is not long till they are separated from the confidence of the church and their work as elders is greatly crippled if not almost useless. When the members get to the point when they do not want to be led by such men then it is hard to lead, and much harder to drive as is their practice.
An efficient and wise elder will involve the church in the work as much as possible by encouraging men and women to use their gifts, involving them in discussions, and asking for their input. As leaders, they are offer sound judgment or reasons that support their thinking instead of giving their conclusions without any persuasion. This does not build confidence but uncertainty. This practice may not be necessary or even wise in every situation. Nor is the practice of involving others done because he is weak and lacks the confidence to lead. Instead, he seeks to create a team atmosphere, where all are involved and appreciated, where the lines of communication are open so that the plans and visions are known and understood.
However, we should not leave the impression that the eldership can’t make any decisions before seeking everyone’s approval or that they should follow every opinion they hear. Some of their work may even require privacy and some decisions they will make on their own and without any need to announce them. The emphasis of this study is focused on the elders’ interaction with and communication to the local church of which they are apart. Their attitude is one of humble service. They are open to reason (Jam.3:17, RSV) and invite the members to talk to them about their concerns.
Conclusions: This study has defined the meaning of the elder’s rule and identified the problems associated with an autocratic, authoritarian rule that views the elder’s role as decision maker and administrator. We have not advocated majority rule nor have we advocated minority rule. The biblical principle of “submission” applies to both the eldership and the membership. Elders are primarily concerned with the spiritual needs of souls, and the personal development and equipping of a local congregation. It is in this area that an eldership rules.
In matters of judgment, elders will seek to have consensus and may defer to the wishes of the majority not because the majority rule but out of consideration for the church as a whole. The leadership of an elder is not self-serving. From the viewpoint of the members, they should be willing to contribute and share their thoughts and concerns to their elders but always submit to their lead when in harmony with the truth. Our submission is made easier when elders have a reputation for thoughtfulness, fairness, and honor. Of course, there are other times when the elders may initiate an action that is not approved by the majority. This does not support minority rule anymore than an eldership deferring to the majority of a congregation argue in favor of majority rule. Wise and efficient leadership will not merely confer a “ruling” on a matter without offering support for the decision. The nature of leadership demands that leaders win the confidence of those who wish to be led by them. As the members see the elders’ reasons for the decision, they may not always agree but they will have greater respect than if elders offered no explanation and thus appeared “self-willed.” More frequent than not, the eldership should be able to convince and persuade others to see the wisdom of their choices.
If elders would communicate more readily with the membership, we could see wisdom at work and when times necessitate information to be kept in strict confidence, the members will have greater confidence in them. Their rule describes their leadership and influence among men and women that enable them to teach, convict, and do all that is involved in being a shepherd to a flock. Such leadership is the rule described by the phrase, “rule well.” We are to esteem and submit to those who “rule well.” If the consensus they bring about should conflict with my personal preference, let me yield, retire my preference, and likewise act for the good of the flock (Eph. 5:21). It takes special leadership to bring about consensus and that kind of respect due a man who is a true Shepherd. It takes arrogance to hand down decrees. The former is scriptural. The latter is not. To the former, let me defer and submit. To the later, let me speak out against it so that we may have the kind of leadership that God intended and that churches need so desperately. Thank you for your consideration and time spent in reading this material.
| Elders | Rule of:
| Eldership
| Nature of:
| |