TOWARD SPIRIT-FILLED ELDERS

Therefore, brethren, choose seven men of good reputation among you, men full of the Spirit and of wisdom; and we will put them in charge of this duty.—Acts 6:3

Some of the practices that obtain among Churches of Christ in reference to the leadership should be subjected to much closer scrutiny than has been the case. This is especially true in regard to the way men are chosen for this office and the treatment given to the qualifications laid down in scripture.

In many congregations, if not in most, the eldership has become a self-perpetuating body. The elders themselves select those who are to fill the vacancies in their ranks! It would be an interesting study to see how such a practice could ever have evolved among a people so steeped in democratic processes. The same people would be horrified if their local school board or city council attempted something like that.

It is very common among us for the elders to select the men to be added to the presbytery. The names are then placed before the congregation with some such announcement as: “If there are no objections made, these men will become elders two weeks from now.” In other instances, which is some improvement, the elders decide that the presbytery should be enlarged, and ask the congregation to submit names. From the names submitted, the elders will in one way or another select those who are to serve. I know of almost no cases where the elders stay out of it and allow the congregation to select their own officers. It is also common for the elders to select the deacons—and if a deacon (or an elder) resigns he does so before the elders rather than the congregation. All this suggests that the incumbent elders assume the office to be theirs rather than the congregation’s. To say the least, we are no more democratic than we are scriptural in these respects.

It is the congregation, not the eldership, that should determine the number it wishes to have as officers. The incumbent elders could of course make suggestions. But the office belongs to the congregation, not to the elders. That is why if one resigns he should do so before the community, not to his fellow elders, And that is why if there is a vacancy, or cause to increase the number, the church itself should take such action, preferably in a way completely apart from any role played by the elders.

While the scriptures lay down this principle, each church is free to follow any method it finds workable in carrying it out. In a community of substantial size I would suggest some such procedure as this:

1. The congregation should have a standing committee to serve as a liaison with the eldership for just such purposes. In a case where additional elders are to be selected this committee would serve as agents for the church in conducting the election since the elders should stay out of it.

2. The committee, in consultation with the congregation, would set a date for the election and lay down guidelines on just how it would be carried out.

3. It should be by secret ballot. In cases where someone’s nomination is questioned, this should be taken up with the committee, not with the elders (Leave them completely out of it!) The committee, in consultation with other responsible leaders, would decide, in the light of the scriptural qualifications, whether a challenge of some brother is valid or not.

4. Finally those names submitted or nominated would be placed on the ballot, and then secretly each member, in an assembly called for such a purpose, would vote.

5. Once the men are elected or selected in some such fashion, the committee would then request an evangelist to ordain them to the office, preferably in some kind of ceremony, which could or could not include the laying on of hands. But it should be in some such manner that the evangelist would say, “In behalf of this congregation, I ordain (or appoint) you to this office.” After all, the Bible does teach that elders are to be ordained as well as selected, and that it is the evangelist who does the ordaining, according to Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5.

Our elders in the Church of Christ have the unique status of being selected, even if by other elders, but not ordained. On a given day they become, ipso facto, elders without anyone appointing them to anything. The Bible does talk about ordaining officers as well as selecting them. In our opening passage, Acts 6:3, it is to be noted that the community of believers was to do the selecting, not the apostles; and it was the apostles who did the ordaining, not the congregation. Other passages referred to show that it was still the congregations that did the selecting, while evangelists ordained.

In the above suggestions I trust that I did not turn anyone off by recommending a committee for such purposes. This I did simply because a congregation, if it acts at all. must do so through somebody. If only elders are being selected, deacons might do this; but this could be a problem since deacons are often considered for the eldership. I am only saying that in conducting an election a congregation has to function through some agency, either assumed by someone or selected by the people. A good thing for some sisters to do!

This would make us both more democratic and scriptural. An elder is sometimes introduced to a congregation with a “You selected him as your elder.” In most places that is hardly the case. Elders are serving congregations that did not select them. And the elders are serving unordained. It is as if we ignored the Bible. There is no need for this to be. To follow the scriptures always makes us freer.

Another hangup about elders is their qualifications. Judging by our practice, we place as much emphasis upon professional or business success as we do spiritual wisdom and exemplary character, if not more. It is as if the scriptures stressed business talent as a qualification rather than shepherd-like tendencies. We almost never talk about the need for Spirit-filled men in the presbytery. But that is the way the apostles talked in Acts 6: choose men who are wise and Spirit-filled. They are talking about officials or functionaries for the congregation, and not deacons per se. This is the rule for all who would lead God’s people, wise and Spirit-filled. The elder should surely have these qualities to a marked degree. He may be a plumber or a salesman or a mechanic or a teacher or a garbage-collector. Is he wise and is he Spirit-filled? That is what really matters. The qualifications laid down in 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1 are expansions of these basic qualities.

We are also hung up on biology. I once made a suggestion of a man to be an elder, one I considered both wise and Spirit-filled, but was told, “Oh, his children aren’t old enough.” One must pass the biological qualifications, and if he has children, and if they are old enough, and if they are members of the Church of Christ, then he has only to pass the “successful in business” qualification—assuming of course that he is anything like a “good member” with a passing knowledge of the Bible, though no big deal is made out of that last point.

I have to agree with old uncle David Lipscomb that the apostle had little interest in biology in writing out the qualifications for an elder. Paul does not say the elder has to be married and have a plurality of children, some or all of whom have to be church members. Those are our deductions. He does not explicitly say any of those things. And so brother Lipscomb contended that a bachelor or a widower might well qualify as an elder. I would agree, but would suggest that at least some of the elders have the experience of marriage and fatherhood. If Paul as unmarried could watch out for churches, an occasional unmarried man among us might well do so.

What the apostle does say is this: He must be one wife’s husband. Now just what does that mean? I will not here argue the point, but I share the interpretation of most biblical scholars that he is asking for men who love only one woman, who have but one wife at a time. This would not rule out the widower who remarries. But this is not to say that he has to be married that first time. But if he is married he is to be a one-woman man, with an exemplary family, and so Paul asks for faithful and believing children, not riotous or unruly. We become legalists when we make such passages mean that the children must be church members.

A good case can be made for Paul laying down only one qualification in 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1. He starts out in 1 Tim. 3 saying, “A bishop must be a man of faultless character” (or above reproach), and in Titus, “A bishop must be under no charges.” All the rest is an expansion of that basic demand for an unimpeachable reputation. The business world is not always the best place to find such!

But Acts 6:3 remains the basic test for all who would lead us. Perhaps all of us should be wise in the Lord and Spirit-filled, but those who represent the church, certainly the elders, should be wise and Spirit-filled in unusual dimensions. I would urge that we talk more of a Spirit-filled eldership, and elect men to that office who are known for being “led by the Spirit.”

This means that our elders will be men who bear the fruit of the Spirit in their lives markedly: love, peace, joy, patience, kindness, goodness, honesty, gentleness, self-mastery.

They should be unusually good men, happy men who rejoice in the Lord, and men who are kind and gentle. These are the kind of believers we hold up as examples before both the world and the church. Honest men, honest with the Bible and with themselves as well as others. All this is what it means to be Spirit-filled.

Once we get Spirit-filled men in our elderships we will not have such a problem with the very worst hangup of all, the notion we have of the authority of elders. Their authority is the authority of an exemplary life, not anything akin to the control that an executive has over a corporation. When I am in the presence of a wise, Spirit-filled man, I am going to yield to his leadership because of what he is, his character, his changed life, and these are the traits that make him a shepherd over God’s flock. Never does such a man have to impose his authority (except perhaps to those who would come in as wolves) for his exemplary life demands our respect and cooperation.

One brother suggested to me that if we want to know who our “real shepherds” are in any congregation, ask the members to jot down on a card the names of those they would wish to go to if they were in trouble.

That may not be the whole story, but that is a lot of it. Yes, wise and Spirit-filled men are the kind we’d want to go to for counsel. I’m guessing that if in most congregations a request like that were made, the names on the cards might be an entirely different list from that of the eldership.

To the extent that we ourselves are wise and Spirit-filled we will solve this problem of filling the presbytery with men who are less than exemplary in these respects.—the Editor

McGarvey on Romans 14:3

In modern times controversy over meat sacrificed to idols is unknown, but the principle still applies to instrumental music, missionary societies, etc. Such matters of indifference are not to be injected into the terms of salvation, or set up as tests of fellowship.—Commentary on Romans, p. 526