The
evidence that elders were intended to be a permanent feature in churches
of Christ seems so clear as to admit of no doubt. It is not my purpose
to argue this point at length. However, I call attention to two
considerations, which, to my mind, settle the matter without further
argument.
1. In
every group of men there must be leaders, some one or more, to take the
oversight, or there can be no order or system. That has always been
true, as all men of experience and discernment must admit. It is as true
of the church as of any other group of men. Certainly they are as much
needed now as in the days of the apostles. Then they were called
"elders" or "overseers." If men of age and experience now direct the
affairs of a church, are they not elders and overseers? The whole
contention on this point seems to me to be a war about words to no
profit.
2. It is
assumed by some that elders, or bishops, were made such by spiritual
gifts, belonging, at least, to the class of inspired men. Is that so?
God selected the men upon whom he bestowed spiritual gifts. "But all
these worketh the one and the same Spirit, dividing to each one
severally even as he will" (1 Cor.
12:11).
For that reason it was not necessary for the Lord to tell the church, or
any member of it, what qualifications men must have in order to the
reception and use of these spiritual gifts. Men did not appoint miracle
workers, prophets, unknown tongue speakers, etc. But men did select and
appoint elders, and for that reason we needed to know what sort of men
to select. And so God gave full directions as to the necessary
qualifications for elders. Develop this argument; it completely refutes
the idea that elders were spiritually gifted men and passed away with
the passing of spiritual gifts.
"Take heed
unto your selves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath
made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with
his own blood. I know that after my departure grievous wolves shall
enter in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own
selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the
disciples after them. Wherefore watch ye" (Acts
20:28-31).
The word from which we have "bishop" is
defined by Liddell and Scott as "an overseer, watcher, guardian." This
definition harmonizes with the duties laid down by Paul in the foregoing
quotation. As a guardian, the elder is to see that the flock is fed and
cared for; as a watcher, he is to see that no enemy comes in and
destroys the flock. The overseer is an inspector. Any one can see
trouble after it develops. An elder, by close and constant inspection,
should be able to detect the seeds of trouble without waiting till the
ripened fruits appear. Not many people apostatize suddenly. A little
watchfulness at the right time might save a soul. Neither does division
in a church come suddenly. Complaints come that a preacher has run
things over the elders and the more conservative members by majority
rule. How did it happen? The elders employed a preacher and allowed him
gradually to assume control. When he reaches a point where they can
stand him no longer, they find that he is the ruler and they are the
ruled. It is too late then to save the congregation from ruin.
The
responsibility of the watchman is set forth in Ezekiel 33:1-6. If
the watchman does not sufficiently inform himself so as to be able to
recognize an enemy, how is he to be of use as a watchman? The watchman
on the walls must know the enemy when he sees him approaching. Any man
who divides churches in an enemy. If we do not inform ourselves
concerning such men, how can we obey Paul's injunction? "Now I beseech
you, brethren, mark them that are causing the divisions and occasions of
stumbling, contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and turn away
from them" (Rom. 16:17, 18). Because we have not informed
ourselves concerning such men so as to avoid them, much harm has come to
many good churches. Sometimes the watchers, instead of giving the alarm
when such enemies appear, go out and invite them in, and practically
turn matters over to them. Then, before the elders realize it, the enemy
has spiked their guns and is in full charge. In a recent letter from a
friend where the church was in trouble, I found a statement like this:
"If we had investigated Brother Blank's record, we never would have had
him here." Because of that failure, trouble has been stirred up that may
never be settled. Instead of giving alarm at the approach of the enemy,
they went out and hired him to come in, thinking he was a friend. The
preacher who runs over the elders and divides a church is doubly a
sinner, but the elders must share their part of the blame. They
frequently wake up too late. But trouble may be expected when the
command to watch is disregarded, and also when God's order both in
nature and the Bible is disregarded, as it is when mere boys are given
practical charge of a church. Also, Absaloms are too much in demand for
the welfare of the kingdom.
The Bible
tells us to submit to those who have the rule over us, but gives no hint
that we are to submit to majority rule. In majority rule Paul would
count no more than Mr. Care Less, who cusses, gets drunk sometimes, and
goes fishing on Sunday. Generally there is no such thing as real
majority rule, even when it is claimed. That is especially true when the
party spirit runs high. A group rallies around a leader, and he dictates
every move. He votes his followers. Instead of going through the farce
of calling for votes, the leader might as well say: "I control the
votes, of my two hundred followers, and I cast their votes so and so."
When the preacher is the bone of contention, he naturally becomes the
party leader. As he has more experience in public speaking and
manipulating a body of people than the elders have, he has a decided
advantage over them, even if they should care to resort to his tricks.
And Paul says of such men that their god is their belly, and they will
work all the harder for their bread and butter. As he votes all his
followers, there is really only one voice raised on that side. All he
needs to do is to tell how he stands and how many followers he has. That
is all there is to such voting as that, and it is folly to call it
"majority rule." And we are told that the ballot is a safeguard against
the unfair rulings of the elders!
It is
readily conceded that God's plan of church government is imperfectly
carried out. The best men make mistakes. Elders have a heavy
responsibility and a hard task. They are not infallible. They may, at
times, deal unjustly with a preacher; but is better that the preacher
suffer wrong than to divide a church. If the preacher thinks it unfair
for them to put him out, how does he figure that it is fair for him to
put them out?
Whereto
shall this voting lead? Where will it stop? It is contended, of course,
that only matters of opinion shall be voted on; but who shall decide
what are matters of opinion? The Methodists and some others have decided
that the form of baptism is a mere matter of opinion. If you believe in
voting, and your congregation decides by popular vote that these things
are matters of opinion, what can you do about it?
But it is contended that every
expression of a preference is a vote. If that is so, some men, when a
political campaign is on, vote several times a day for months before
election day! If that is voting, most of the votes are cast prior to the
election and are never counted. But the claim is too absurd for serious
consideration. - The Gospel Advocate, Jan. 1932
Other Articles
A
Leadership Crisis
How
Doctrine Disrupts Unity
Splendid Discontent