ARE
ELDERS TO SELECT ELDERS?
It
is common practice among Churches of Christ for the elders to select
their own successors, or, if the eldership (a term we might in
time examine) is to be increased in number, the incumbent elders in
one way or another determine who the additional elders will be. This
makes the eldership a self-perpetuating body with lifetime
prerogatives over a congregation, which itself is both a moral and
political hazard for all concerned, including the elders themselves,
who are often men who have no intention of arrogating powers unto
themselves but who are nonetheless victimized by the System.
We might
get at this problem by my telling how we select elders at our
congregation here in Denton. It is on my mind since we have just been
through an election, selecting an overseer to join the four we have
already, of which I am one. I can state at the outset that the
present presbyters had no more to do with the election process than
any other member of the congregation. Ouida and I were seated in our
regular place in the assembly on Lord’s day morning when one of
the election committee handed each of us a ballot. We marked it
according to our convictions and turned it back to the committee.
They soon announced to us that a brother had been selected by
receiving at least 75 % of the votes cast, and that one of the
present elders had been reelected on the same basis.
An
elder is rotated out after a three-year term unless he is again
elected by secret ballot. I can state unequivocally that the present
pastors never discussed who should or should not be elected. It is
our task to function as shepherds, not to sit as judges as to
who should be a shepherd. That is the congregation’s business.
It is but a caricature of the free process for elders to impose their
will upon the church under the guise of “If no objections are
made this week, the following will become elders” or some such
rubric. Such superficiality is an insult to both the intelligence and
the nature of a congregation of believers. As the Body of Christ the
members are to function together as a unit, “by that which
every joint supplieth,” which surely includes the
decision-making process.
Our
election committee set up studies and prayer sessions leading up to
the election. It solicited nominations from the membership. Since
this results in a proliferation of names, we will probably in the
future require that one must be recommended by at least five people
to be nominated. The committee contacts the nominees to see if they
wish to be considered, which greatly reduces the list since so few
desire the work or consider themselves qualified. Some nominated
women, including Ouida Garrett. The brother who nominated her
believes women should be among the bishops and was sincere in his
suggestion that Ouida be considered. There is nothing that would keep
a sister’s name off the ballot, but she would stand no chance
of getting 75 % of the votes --- not in this generation at least. A
member of the committee called Ouida dutifully to ask if she wanted
to be considered. She quietly declined. Anything she does is done
quietly. Her first reaction was that it was a joke, and I think she
was pleased to learn that it was done most sincerely. The brother is
right. Ouida would make a good elder! But getting her elected
. . . It would be like running Margaret Chase Smith for President.
Once we
select an elder in this democratic way, we proceed to ordain him. It
is an oddity, especially since the scriptures say so much about
ordination, that our churches hardly ever ordain anybody. Our elders
are selected, usually by other elders, but not ordained. At our
ordination service, on a Lord’s day morning, a brother (usually
the chairman of election committee) represents the congregation in
publicly accepting the man as a pastor of the congregation and
assuring him of the church’s love, loyalty, and cooperation.
One of the elders accepts him as a fellow overseer, assuring him that
all the elders are ready to work with him in shepherding the flock of
God. And then, according to Scripture, he is ordained by an
evangelist, a minister of the gospel, with some such words as: “In
behalf of this congregation I now ordain you as an elder and
shepherd, etc.” This is followed by prayers in behalf of both
the new elder and the congregation, that the new relationship will be
to the glory of God and pleasing to the Chief Shepherd.
The
ordination service should recognize that while elders are actually
made by the Holy Spirit, if they are truly elders, the selection is
made by the church itself. That is, the members know who their true
pastors are, men made so by the Spirit, and they select them
accordingly. The office, office here meaning only a recognized
function within the Body, belongs to the congregation, not to the
elders. The church bestows the office on the man. It is not his
by some kind of divine right. And the church can take the office back
if need be. That is why the evangelist in ordaining should say, “In
behalf of the congregation. . .” He is serving as an agent of
the church, where all offices or functions have their home. “God
hath set some in the church. . .” (1 Cor. 12:29) shows that the
offices are in the church to be bestowed according to need. Elders
often behave among us as if the office was theirs, and this is
certainly the implication when they presume to fill vacancies by
their own choices. This is also evident when they presume that they
are elders for life and responsible to no one but themselves, as if
the office is theirs by some kind of divine fiat.
Elders
often overlook the scriptural fact that God has given such offices to
the church. The church should therefore select those who fill
such functions, and if the office is abused through incompetence or
oppressive tactics, they can take it back the same way they gave it.
A built-in safeguard is to limit the term of office.
Much of
this process is a matter of wisdom and expediency since the
Scriptures do not specify just how elders are to be selected and
ordained. That a church is to have elders is clear from such passages
as Philip. 1:1. That they are to be selected is implied from Acts
6:5, where functionaries are chosen by the whole church. That they
are to be ordained is stated in Acts 14:23, while Tit. 1:5 reveals
that this was done by evangelists. Acts 6 is especially relevant, for
here even the apostles themselves would not select those that were to
serve the church, but rather said:”Wherefore, brethren, look ye
out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and
wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.” It also
distinguishes between choosing and ordaining. The church selected
them and the apostles ordained them.
It
is high time that our elders everywhere return to the churches their
just prerogatives. To do otherwise is to strip the church of its
dignity as the Body of Christ and to make the members mere spectators
instead of participants. The most grievous sin of all is to deny
people their just rights and to assume to do their thinking for them.
But it is almost as bad a sin for the people to allow it to be so. If
our people do not choose to be free, there are always those who are
willing to take freedom from them. --- the Editor