I used to hold the same view on church discipline, but it has changed over the past few years due to a closer look at the text and context of the passage. I think Mr. Hilgartner has a good point when he says, “It is of particular note that Jesus does not say ‘tell it to the Elders’”. I see it as an imperative that is addressed to the same individual as the first two imperatives in the first two steps of “church” discipline, namely, “[you] go to him” and “[you] take one or two more with you,” the individual being the one who sees his brother sin. If Jesus wanted the elders involved in any of these steps, He certainly could have commanded it.

“SOMEONE HAS TO DECIDE ABOUT WHETHER THE TELLING SHOULD GO PUBLIC AND THEN WHAT AND HOW THE CONGREGATION SHOULD PROCEED. TO INDICRIMINATELY TELL IT TO THE CHURCH WITHOUT ELDERSSHIP LEADERSHIP AND SUPERVISION AND INSTRUCTION WOULD
MERELY FEED THE GOSSIP MILL. THIS WOULD SERVE NOT CONSTRUCTIVE PURPOSE AND WOULD CLEARLY VIOLATE SCRIPTURE.” Your statement is interesting in that you view the decision to tell the congregation as a necessity of human discretion, vested in the elders. But I would make the case that the decision on whether to tell it to the congregation has already been made… by Jesus Himself in Matt 18. HE is the one who says, to the individual, “tell it to the church.” Jesus delegates authority to the one who sees his brother sin. And telling it to the church without elder leadership wouldn’t in the least be “indiscriminate.” It would in fact be very discriminate because the errant saint would have already rejected the private, caring input of his brother, then two or three witnesses. The first two steps are being administered, also without the necessity of elder input, with the goal of winning a brother, so that public knowledge WON’T occur. This is love covering a multitude of sins. It’s interesting that elders are nowhere mentioned in any of this, but merely assumed to be so, I believe, by men.

As for “merely feed[ing] the gossip mill,” I am persuaded that over the long haul for a church it would have the opposite effect. The one who is about to tell the whole church about somebody else’s sin would be more likely to be careful because his testimony is now in view. That person, if blatantly wrong, would now be subject to the same discipline he is willing to put another to, except that many more than one person are immediately observing his sin. And if there are blatant episodes of gossip in this church discipline step, all would learn quite a bit through stumbling, and would actually serve a very constructive purpose. I fail to see how obeying our Lord’s words for what they actually say will cause gossip. Through repeated practice of church discipline over many generations, people would learn how to be mature in this for the glory of Christ’s church.

Anyhow, just my $.02 US, adjusted for inflation. I am glad for the opportunity to converse on this subject and look forward to reading your blog in the future. I just discovered it last week. Peace to you.

Steve Scott

BRIEFLY:

1. How do the principles of Elder Rule interact with the Doctrine of the Priesthood of the Believer? What are the full functions of the New Testament priest? Believers have both a wonderful privilege and a great responsibility. I DON’T SEE HOW ELDER SUPERVISION OR OVERSIGHT AFFECTS THE CLEARLY TAUGHT DOCTRINE OF THE PRIESTHOOD OF ALL BELIEVERS AT ALL. HOW WOULD IT AND WHY WOULD IT?
2. When Jesus says ‘… tell it to the church” in Mtt 18:17, is he asserting that the Church is the “court of final appeal” on this Earth? It is of particular note that Jesus does not say “tell it to the Elders,” or some church committee. Particularly in light of passages like 1 Cor. 6; if the church has been vested with the responsibility to judge angels, the world and each other – surely, a congregation who is properly informed and truly spiritual, should participate in the selection of their leaders in a determinative sense. IT DOESN’T SAY TELL IT TO THE CHURCH FOR A VOTE – THE DECISION HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE THAT THE BROTHER IS IN SIN AND THE CHURCH IS ENLISTED TO PRAY AND PLEAD AND EXHORT (in keeping with 2 Thessalonians 3:14, 15). IT DOESN’T SAY TELL IT TO THE CHURCH AND IF HE REFUSES THEN TAKE A VOTE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT HJE SHOULD BE PUT OUT OF THE CHURCH. THE ISSUE IS WHO IS TAKING THE LEAD – WHO SHOULD KNOW MORE ABOUT SCRIPTURE – WHO SHOULD BE MOST MATURE IN SPIRITUAL MATTERS – WHO IS LEADING THE CHURCH TO MAKE ALL THIS KNOWN TO THE CHURCH – AFTER MATTHEW 18:15 AND 16 ARE FOLLOWED WHAT HAS OCCURRED IS COMMUNICATED TO THE ELDERS AS REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CHURCH AND THEY THEN PASS IT ON TO THE CONGREGATION WITH THE EXHORTATION TO THE CONGREGATION TO ADMONISH, PRAY FOR, EXHORT THE ERRING, UNREPENTANT, UNRECONCILED BROTHER. THIS TELLING KIT TO THE CHURCH IS OBVIOUSLY A FORMAL KIND OF TELLING. IT CERTAINLY ISN’T REFERRING TO INDIVIDUALS GOING AROUND AND INDISCRMINATELY TELLING IT TO VARIOPUS MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH. TO DO THIS WOULD BE GOSSIP WHICH THE BIBLE STRONGLY CONDEMNS. ITS OBVIOUS IN REFERENCE TO THIS TELLING IT TO THE CHURCHY THAT SOMEONE HAS TO MAKE THE DECISION WHETHER WHAT THE ERRING PERSON HAS DONE WARRANTS A PUBLIC DISCLOSURE TO THE CONGREGATION AND A PUBLIC APPEAL TO THE CHURCH TO PRAY, PERSUADE, ADMONISH, EXHORT, REBUKE, ETC. THE ERRING PERSON. SOMEONE HAS TO DECIDE ABOUT WHETHER THE TELLOING SHOULD GO PUBLIC AND THEN WHAT AND HOW THE CONGREGATION SHOULD PROCEED. TO INDICRIMINATELY TELL IT TO THE CHURCH WITHOUT ELDERSSHIP LEADERSHIP AND SUPERVISION AND INSTRUCTION WOULD
MERELY FEED THE GOSSIP MILL. THIS WOULD SERVE NOT CONSTRUCTIVE PURPOSE AND WOULD CLEARLY VIOLATE SCRIPTURE.
3. When Jesus says in Matthew 18:18 “I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you release on earth will have been released in heaven;” what is He saying and what is He not saying?
I’M NOT SURE WHAT THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE ISSUE UNDER DISCUSSION IN THAT IT CERTAINLY DOESN’T MEAN (CAN’T MEAN) THAT EVERY PERSON IN THE CHURCH MUST BE IN TOTAL AGREEMENT BEFORE ANY ACTION MUST BE TAKEN. THE QUESTION IS, DOES THE YOU IN THIS TEXT MEAN EVERY SINGLE PERSON OR DOES THE YOU MEAN THAT THE MATTHEW 18:15 – 17 PROCEDURE HAS BEEN FOLLOWED AND THERE STILL HAS BEEN NO REPENTANCE ON THE PART OF THE ERRING PERSON. IF THAT HAS BEEN DONE, THEN THE ERRING BROTHER WHO IS FUNCTIONING AS AN UNBELIEVER (I.E., HE IS UNWILLING TO LISTEN TO CHRIST AS HE SPEAKS IN HIS WORD – HE IS UNWILLING TO DO WHAT CHRIST SAYS HE SHOULD DO, NAMELY REPENT AND BE RECONCILED – JOHN 10:28; MATTHEW 18:15 – 17) IS TO BE DISFELLOWSHIPPED FROM THE CHURCH WHICH ACCORDING TO PAUL IS THE SAME AS BEING TURNED OVER TO THE DEVIL (I TIMOTHY 1;20). TO BE PUT OUT OF THE CHURCH IS TO BE TURNED OVER TO SATAN. THE CHURCH IS WHERE CHRIST REIGNS. THE WORLD IS SATAN’S TERRITORY. ALL THIS TEXT MEANS IS THAT IF THE CHURCH FOLLOWS CHRIST’S ORDERS IN MATTHEW 18:15 – 17 IN REFERENCE TO AN ERRING, DISOBEDIENT PERSON ANDS DISFELLOWSHIPS THAT PERSON, THEY DO SO UNDER THE AUTHORITY AND WITH THE APPROVAL OF CHRIST. THE TEXT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE NECESSITY OF VOTING. NO VOTE IS NECESSARY IF THE PROCEDURE DESCRIBED IN MATTHEW 18:15 -17 HAS BEEN FOLLOWED. IT’S A DONE DEAL BECAUSE HE WON’T OBEY CHRIST. WHY WOULD ANYONE THINK YOU’D HAVE TO TAKE A VOTE WHEN CHRIST HAS ALREADY LAID OUT THE PRODCEDURE AND THE PERSON WAS UNWILLING TO OBEY.

3 AND 4. What are the limits of Apostolic Authority with respect to the normative role of Elders today? “The church as a whole perpetuates the apostolic ministry though no individual has apostolic authority”. (Rodney Decker; Polity and the Elder Issue, Grace Theo. Journal, fall 1988) Elders are to train men for the work of the ministry… they are not the ministry.
What is the Role of the Holy Spirit in the Congregation as a corporate body? 1 John 4:1 says, “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to determine if they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” How is a congregation to test the spirit and make their collective mind known? How do elders prevent people from ‘voting’ with their tithe or with their feet? What long term effect does that have on the maturity of a church?
AGAIN I DON’T UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM. OBVIOUSLY THESE STATMENTS ABOUT EQUIPPING THE CHURCH FOR MINISTRY ARE TRUE – I HAVE IN ALL MY YEARS OF MINISTRY EMPHASIZED THIS AND BELIEVE IT WHOLEHEARTEDLY – EVERY BELIEVER IS RESPONSIBLE TO DO THIS AND TO DO IT OUT OF LOVE FOR CHRIST NOT BECAUSE HE IS ABLE TO VOTE ON WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN. CONCERNING THE LAST TWO QUESTIONS, UNLESS PEOPLE ARE MOTIVATED BY SELFISHNESS AND A DESIRE TO RUN THE SHOW RATHER THAN A REGARD FOR GOD’S GLORY AND A DESIRE TO SERVE AND GIVE OUT OF LOVE FOR CHRIST WHAT DOES VOTING HAVE TO DO WITH GIVING OR SERVING? I DON’T THINK ELDER RULE CAN AND DOES HAVE A NEGATIVE EFFECT ON THE CHURCH OR THE INDIVIDUAL BELIEVER WHEN IT IS UNDERSTOOD AND UTILIZED PROPERLY. THE ONLY EFFECT IT WILL HAVE WILL BE A GOOD EFFECT BECAUSE PEOPLE WILL BE SERVING AND GIVING FOR THE RIGHT REASON – BECAUSE THEY LOVE CHRIST. RIGHT NOW, FOR EXAMPLE, I AM NOT AN ELDER IN ANY CHURCH AND I CAN PROMISE YOU THAT IT HAS NOT AFFECTED MY GIVING OR MY SERVICE OF MY MATURITY. IN FACT IT PROBABLY HAS HELPED MY MATURITY – NO ONE CAN SAY OR THINK THAT I’M DEVOTED, ZEALOUS, PRAYERFUL, ALWAYS ABOUNDING IN THE WORK OF THE LORD, SACRIFICIAL BECAUSE I AM AN ELDER. AND, BY THE WAY, SOME OF THE MOST MATURE AND ZEALOUS AND SACRIFICIAL AND EFFECTIVE CHRISTIANS I KNOW ARE MEMBERS OF CHURCHES WHERE ELDER RULE IS PROPERLY PRACTICED. PRESENTLY WE ARE IN LITTLE ROCK, AR AND ARE ATTENDING AND TEACHING IN A CHURCH THAT PRACTICES ELDER RULE. THIS IS A CHURCH FILLED WITH MORE THAN A THOUSAND PEOPLE WHO ARE SOME OF THE MOST KNOWLEDGABLE, LOVING, DEVOTED AND EAGER CHRISTIANS I HAVE EVER MET. THE SAME WAS TRUE OF GRACE COMMUNITY CHURCH IN CALIFORNIA – THE CHURCH WE WERE A PART OF WHILE WE LIVED IN CA.
IN REFERENCE TO THE IDEA THAT SERVANT ELDERSHIP RULE KILLS MOTIVATION, I SAY AS I’VE HEARD OTHERS SAY ABOUT OTHER STATEMENTS THAT HAVE NO SUBSTANCE OR VALIDITY TO THEM, “THAT DOG WON’T HUNT”. IN PRACTICE, IT DOESN’T WORK OUT THAT WAY UNLESS THE ELDERS ARE MISUSING THEIR AUTHORITY OR THE PEOPLE ARE SPIRITUALLY IMMATURE AND MOTIVATED TO SERVE FOR THE WRONG REASONS. THERE ARE MANY CHURCHES AROUND THAT PRACTICE SERVANT ELDERSHIP RULE AND YET THE PEOPLE ARE FUNCTIONING WELL IN TERMS OF THE PRIESTHOOD OF ALL BELIEVERS. SERVANT ELDERSHIP RULE HAS NOT BEEN AND WILL NOT BE AN INHIBITING FACTOR WHEN RIGHTLY PREACTICED. THE SAME TIME, I KNOW OF MANY CHURCHES WHERE CONGREGATIONAL RULE IS PRACTICED AND YET THE GIVING IS LAGGING AND THE PEOPLE ARE WOEFULLY LAX IN KNOWLEDGE AND ALSO IN SERVICE. THE IDEA THAT PRACTICING CONGREGATIONAL RULE WILL INSPIRE AND MOTIVATE PEOPLE TO GIVE IS OFTEN CONTRADICTED BY WHAT IS HAPPENING IN MANY CHURCHES WHERE THAT IS THE MODUS OPERANDI.

MANY PEOPLE REACT AGAINST THIS TEACHING I’VE BEEN EXPLAINING BECAUSE THEY HAVE A WRONG UNDERSTANDING OF HOW IT PLAYS OUT IN THE REAL LIFE OF THE CHURCH. ELDERSHIP RULE DOESN’T MEAN THE PEOPLE DON’T HAVE A VOICE – IT DOESN’T MEAN THAT THE ELDERS DON’T SEEK COUNSEL OF THE CONGREGATION – IT DOESN’T MEAN THAT THE ELDERS DON’T RESPECT AND VALUE THE PEOPLE – IT SIMPLY MEANS THAT THEY ARE LOVING SERVANTS WHO CARE FOR THE SHEEP AND ENCOURAGE THE SHEEP AND WANT TO BE OBEDIENT TO CHRIST WHO SAYS THEY ARE TO MANAGE, BE OVERSEERS, HAVE CHARGE AND LEAD. THEY LEAD AS SERVANTS WITH A HUMBLE ATTITUDE AND WILLINGNESS TO SACRIFICE. THEY AVOID BEING PUSHY OR DOMINEERING OR AUTHORITARIAN. SERVANT LEADERSHI[P (ELDERSHIP) HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ELDER BEING MORE IMPORTANT OR SUPERIOR; IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH FUNCTION AND THE WAY ELDERS SHOULD FUNCTION.
AS A HUSBAND I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT HAPPENS IN MY HOME, BUT I DON’T MAKE DECISIONS UNILATERALLY; I WORK, BUT I DON’T DO ALL THE WORK. MY WIFE IS MORE GIFTED THAN I IN MANY AREAS AND SO WISDOM AND LOVE MEANS I DELEGATE AND ENCOURAGE AND LISTEN AND ON MANY OCCASIONS UNLESS IT WOULD VIOLATE GOD’S REVEALED WILL I DO WHAT SHE WANTS RATHER THAN WHAT I WANT. THAT’S BIBLICCAL LEADERSHIP WHETHER IT BE IN THE HOME OR IN THE CHURCH. AN ELDER WILL DO THE SAME IN REFERENCE TO THE CHURCH.

AND NOW FOR A COUPLE OF OTHER THINGS: AGAIN PLEASE CHECK THE THINGS I HAVE WRITTEN ON LEADERSHIP ON OUR BLOG SITE. I APPRECIATE YOUR CONCERN AND IN PART AGREE WITH YOU, BUT AFTER 45 YEARS OF READING AND RESEARCH AND EXPERIENCE IN PLANTING CHURCHES, PASTORING CHURCHES, WRITING BOOKS AND ARTICLES ABOUT THE CHURCH AND TEACHING HUNDREDS OF PASTORS ABOUT CHURCH RELATED ISSUES, I BELIEVE THE MEN YOU QUOTE ARE MAKING SOME ASSUMPTIONS AND MAKING SOME STATEMENTS THAT ARE NOT BIBLICALLY WARRANTED. I HAVE PROBABLY READ AND HEARD EVERY ARGUMENT ABOUT THE WAY CHURCHES SHOULD BE RUN THAT IS OUT THERE. FOR YEARS, I PASTORED CHURCHES THAT WERE CONGREGATIONAL IN THE WAY THEY WERE RUN. FRANKLY, FOR BIBLICAL REASONS AND FOR PRACTICAL REASONS I NEVER WANT TO GO BACK TO THAT. I HAVE SEEN AND EXPERIENCED THE DAMAGE THAT THAT KIND OF SET UP PRODUCES. OUR CHURCHES IN AMERICA ARE OFTEN IN A MESS; THEY ARE IN DISARRAY WITH A VERSION OF THE SITUATION IN JUDGES BEING PRODUCED ALL OVER AGAIN – EVERY MAN (AND WOMAN) DOING WHAT IS RIGHT IN HIS OWN EYES IN THE CHURCH. THERE IS A CRISIS OF LEADERSHIP IN THE HOME AND IN THE CHURCH.

I THINK SOME OF THE STATEMENTS THAT ARE MADE IN YOUR QUOTES SUCH AS THAT PAUL AND OTHERS LIKE TIMOTHY WERE NOT ELDERS ARE UNWARRANTED. IN FACT, PETER WHO WAS AN APOSTLE SAYS HE WAS AN ELDER IN I PETER 5:1 AND PAUL HOLDS HIMSELF UP AS AN EXAMPLE TO ELDERS FROM EPHESUS IN ACTS 20.

ACTS 1 IS SOMETHINES QUOTED AS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW DECISIONS WERE MADE CONGREGATIONALLY. IT’S IMPORTANT IN THIS PASSAGE TO NOTICE WHO WAS DOING THE LEADING IN VERSES 2, 3 AND 13. IT’S TRUE IN THE PASSAGE THAT LATER THERE WERE OTHERS WHO ,JOINED THEM ACCORDING TO VERSE 15. BUT THEY CERTAINLY DIDN’T VOTE . THE PASSAGES SAYS THAT THEY ALL PRAYED WHICH IS A GOOD THING AND SHOULD BE DONE BY THE WHOLE CHURCH WHEN OFFICERS ARE BEING SELECTED, BUT VERSE 26 INDICATES THAT THE MAN THAT WAS CHOSEN WAS NOT CHOSEN BY A VOTE, BUT BY CASTING LOTS.
SIMILARLY, ACTS 13 CANNOT BE USED AS AN EXAMPLE OF CONGREGATIONAL RULE BECAUSE AGAIN IN THIS INSTANCE IT WAS NOT THE CONGREGATION THAT DECIDED WHO WOULD BE SET APART – THAT WAS DONE BY DIRECT REVELATION. AND MY FRIEND THAT ISN’T HAPPENING ANYMORE. WE HAVE A COMPLETED SCRIPTURE. GOD HAS SAID ALOL HE IS GOING TO SAY AND ALL THAT NEEDS TO BE SAID. AT THAT POINT IN CHURCH HISTORY, ALL THEY HAD WAS THE OLD TESTAMENT. SO GOD REVEALED HIMSELF AND HIS WILL IN WAYS OTHER THAN WRITTEN SCRIPTURE. NOT OS ANY MORE. NOT NEEDED ANY MORE SINCE WE HAVE THE COMPLETED CANON. IN ACTS 13 THESE MEN WERE NOT SELECTED BY CONGREGATIONAL VOTE.

AND FURTHER – PEOPLE CAN DO ALL THE GYMNASTICS THEY WANT TO DO WITH WORDS IN TERMS OF TITUS 1:5 AND ACTS 14:23. BUT IT IS CLEAR FROM I TIMOTHY 5:17 THAT RULING WITH A SERVANT SPIRIT IS MORE THAN LABORING IN WORD AND DOCTRINE. YES ELDERS RULE IN PART BY MEANS OF PREACHING AND TEACHING GOD’S WORD. CERTAINLY THAT’S AN IMPORTANT PART OF RULING, BUT NOT ALL OF WHAT PAUL MEANT. THE WORD “ESPECIALLY” MAKES A DISTINCTION INDICATING THAT THE RULING AND LABORING IN WORD AND DOCTRINE ARE NOT IDENTICAL IN EVERY RESPECT.

ALSO, IN REFERENCE TO THIS DISCUSSION, I DON’T HEAR ANYONE ADDRESSING THE “HAVE CHARGE OVER YOU” ISSUE OF I THESSALONIANS 5:12, 13. ALSO I HAVE NOT HEARD THE SPECIFICS OF THE “OBEY” AND “SUBMIT” COMMANDS OF HEBREWS 13:17 EXPLAINED. WHAT DO THESE WORDS MEAN? DO THEY MEAN SOMETHING OR NOTHING? PEOPLE CAN FOOL AROUND WITH SOME OF THE OTHER WORDS IF THEY WANT IGNORING THE IMMEIDATE AND LARGER CONTEXT OF SCRIPTURE. THEY MAY SAY THAT THESE WORDS MEAN SOMETHING OTHER THAN WHAT THE WORDS APPOINT, ORDAIN AND SET IN ORDER UDSUALLY MEAN. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE WORDS “OBEY” AND “SUBMIT” AND “RULE” AND “HAVE CHARGE” AND APPRECIATE AND ESTEEM AND THAT THEY MAY DO THEIR WORK WITH JOY AND NOT WITH GRIEF WHICH ARE FOUND IN I THESSALONIANS 5:12,13; HEBREWS 13:17; ACTS 14:23 AND I TIMOTHY 5:17?

ANY WAY, THERE YOU HAVE SOME OF MY THOUGHTS – MY UNDERSTANDING OF SCRIPTURE ON CHURCH LEADERSHIP. OTHERS MAY DISAGREE – SOME BECAUSE THEY THINK OF ELDER RULE AS DICTATORSHIP; THEY MISUNDERSTAND THE WAY ELDER RULE SHOULD FUNCTION EVEN AS MANY MISUNDERSTAND THE WAY THE LEADERSHIP OF THE HUSBAND SHOULD FUNCTION IN THE HOME. IN ANY CHURCH THAT PRACTICED SERVANT ELDERSHIP RULE WHERE I SERVED WE ALWAYS INVOLVED PEOPLE. WE NEVER ACTED UNILATERALLY. SOME PEOPLE ARE SCARED OF WHAT MAY HAPPEN; THEY ARE IMAGINING THINGS THAT NEVER HAVE OR HOPEFULLY NEVER WILL HAPPEN WHEN GODLY ELDERS WHO ARE MORE CONCERNED ABOUT GOD’S GLORY AND THE GOOD OF GOD’S PEOPLE THAN THEY ARE ABOUT HAVING THEIR OWN WAY AND THROWING THEIR WEIGHT AROUND. WHERE SERVANT ELDER RULE IS PRACTICED BIBLICALLY, PEOPLE WILL BE CONSULTED; PEOPLE WILL BE LISTENED TO; IDEAS AND PERSPECTIVES OF PEOPLE WILL BE SOUGHT AFTER AND FACTORED IN. IT WOULD BE UNBIBLICAL NOT TO DO THIS AS WELL AS FOOLISH AND DISASTROUS. THE AFFIRMATION OF THE PEOPLE IS ESSENTIAL AND IT OUGHT TO BE SOUGHT.

WILL EVERY DECISION OR CONCLUSIONS THE EDLERS COME TO BE ACCEPTED AND APPROVED BY EVERYONE? PROBABLY NOT, BUT IF THE CONSENSUS OF PRAYING, HUMBLE, SERIOUS PEOPLE IS ONE WAY THEN THE LEADERSHIP OF THE CHURCH WHERE SERVANT ELDERSHIP LEADERSHIP IS APPROPRIATELY PRACTICED ELDERS WILL MAKE THE PERSPECTIVES OF THE CONGREGATION A LARGE FACTOR IN WHAT THE CHURCH DOES AND HOW IT FUNCTIONS. IN FACT, APART FROM BIBLICAL QUALIFICATIONS AND PRINCIPLE, THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF MAKING A DECISION FOR GODLY, BIBLICAL ELDERS WILL BE THE CONSENSUS OF THE PRAYING, GODLY, HUMBLE, DEVOTED, CONGREGATION. THE CONGREGATION WILL HAVE A VOTE EVEN IF THEY DON’T HAVE A FORMAL, RAISE YOUR HAND, CAST A BALLOT, SAY “AYE” KIND OF PROCEDURE. PEOPLE NEED NEVER FEAR – WITH GODLY ELDERS, THE PERSPECTIVES OF THE CONGREGATION ARE IMPORTANT AND WILL BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.

Thanks for weighing in on this important and relevant issue, both for us at Grace Fellowship, Coopersburg and for the church in every place. There has been a proliferation of books and papers regarding church polity lately. They are helpful and instructive.

I raised the issue of church governance, in part because the church will have a vacancy to fill soon. The dialogue has been illustrative to me. Thank you for the opportunity to develop my thinking further. So here goes…

It is my thesis that Elder Rule with limited Congregational Responsibility is Biblically normative and is the highest expression of Biblical Polity. The areas were the congregation has actual responsibility before God and Men is in the discipline of stubborn offenders (Matt. 18 & 1 Cor. 5), in the reception (and restoration) of people into membership (Matt 18:15–21, 2 Cor. 2:5-11); and in the recognition of officers. Elders and Deacons are gifted by God and these gifts and graces are recognized by the congregation; they should be duly examined by both the current Elders and the Congregation, and set apart by fasting and prayer. Additionally, in this age of financial accountability, decisions to buy or sell a Church Building, biblically managing the pastoral compensation (and the like) ought to be conducted in a decent and orderly manner with full Congregational involvement.

Anyway, it’s fascinating how a study will lead you to unexpected places. On Sharper Iron [http://www.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=991&goto=nextoldest#f15]
The author of the article, Jeff Brown, states,
“Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5 are, in themselves, not directives for all time about the process of choosing elders. Much of the disagreement about how to apply these passages is based on a faulty interpretation of the roles of Paul, Barnabas, and Titus in the Book of Acts and the Pastoral Epistles. They were not elders, but missionaries. In any new church planting work, it is crucial that one or more experienced missionaries assist or even guide in the selection of new pastors. To do otherwise is to invite disaster. The newly formed congregation, in fact, normally looks to a missionary for such a guiding hand.7
To understand how mature congregations are to choose pastors/elders, one must look to the analogy of other church government decisions in the New Testament. Kistenmacher notes,
By following the analogical rule of comparing Scripture with Scripture, we learn that in Acts Luke presents “three typical pictures of election and ordination in the cases of Matthias (1:23-26), the Seven (6:1-6), and Paul and Barnabas (13:1-3).” These analogies demonstrate that the assemblies chose the candidates, then prayed and fasted, and afterward ordained them. Likewise, in the case of the elders in Lyconia and Pisidia, the apostles approved the selections made by the churches and, after prayer and fasting, appointed them.8
I recognized that during this time, the fledgling church was being established and that normative principles were still being developed, by the guidance of the Spirit.
Brown also cites from Ridderbos’ comments (p476) on this matter…:
At first sight it may appear that all sorts of ideas run through each other here and that on this ground one could now defend apostolic succession, then again direct calling by the Spirit, in a third instance designation to office by means of prophetic voices, finally also investiture with office as the act of the church only.
When one surveys the whole, however, it is evident that in each investiture with and acceptance of official power to act and authority two different elements are present: first, Christ himself, who will not only have the office established and maintained in the way of the transference of power once given, but works in the church through his Spirit, so that the work of the Lord on earth may be done, his church be built up, and his power to act invested in persons qualified to that end. Second, the church itself, which designates and chooses these persons and in the name of the Lord enables them to enter upon the work charged to them.9
In addition, I have surveyed 22 of 23 confessions of faith on http://www.reformedreader.org were Anabaptists and Baptists (and Baptistic) confessions are collected. There is overwhelming historical weight in them. By 1689, the phrase “common suffrage of the people” became the normative phrase in many subsequent confessions. (The lone exception, the 1833 New Hampshire Confession just omitted any reference to any process)
The recent book, Perspectives on Church Government (Broadman & Holmes Publishers) plainly illustrates the differences. It is interesting to note however, that three of the five perspectives reflect concurrence on some aspect of congregationalism, while the other two models see the need for a biblical hierarchy. But I recognize that different men from different traditions have reached different conclusions. Their conclusions lead them to a polity which affects the autonomy of the local church.
Your comments and questions in your Blog are instructive in many ways. There certainly are many abuses to be aware of and steer clear of. But I start with these fundamental premises – 1. That God is not confused about any of this stuff, and 2. That he does not want us to be confused about it either. Therefore, could you comment on the following?
1. How do the principles of Elder Rule interact with the Doctrine of the Priesthood of the Believer? What are the full functions of the New Testament priest? Believers have both a wonderful privilege and a great responsibility.
2. When Jesus says ‘… tell it to the church” in Mtt 18:17, is he asserting that the Church is the “court of final appeal” on this Earth? It is of particular note that Jesus does not say “tell it to the Elders,” or some church committee. Particularly in light of passages like 1 Cor. 6; if the church has been vested with the responsibility to judge angels, the world and each other – surely, a congregation who is properly informed and truly spiritual, should participate in the selection of their leaders in a determinative sense.
3. When Jesus says in Matthew 18:18 “I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you release on earth will have been released in heaven;” what is He saying and what is He not saying?
3. What are the limits of Apostolic Authority with respect to the normative role of Elders today? “The church as a whole perpetuates the apostolic ministry though no individual has apostolic authority”. (Rodney Decker; Polity and the Elder Issue, Grace Theo. Journal, fall 1988) Elders are to train men for the work of the ministry… they are not the ministry.
4. What is the Role of the Holy Spirit in the Congregation as a corporate body? 1 John 4:1 says, “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to determine if they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” How is a congregation to test the spirit and make their collective mind known? How do elders prevent people from ‘voting’ with their tithe or with their feet? What long term effect does that have on the maturity of a church?

Well, there are some other points to add, but I’ll take a breather for now…

Sola Deo Gloria,

Henry Hilgartner
Grace Fellowship Church
Coopersburg, Pennsylvania

Acts: 6:1-6; 11:28-30; 14:23; 15:1-7; 15:20-23; 15:28; 16:4; 20:17-21; 20:28-31; 20:35; 21:17-25. Romans: 12:8. 1 Corinthians: 3:1-11; 4:1-2. 1 Thessalonians: 5:12-13, 1 Timothy: 1:18-19; 3:1-7; 4:7; 4:12-5:22; 6:10-14; 6:20. 2 Timothy: 2:15; 4:1-2, Titus: 1:5-9; 2:1; 2:7; 2:15-3:2; 3:10. Hebrews: 13:7; 13:17; 13:24. James 5:14, 1 Peter 5:1-5.

Responsibilities of Elders Stated Positively

Elders are to;

1) have the authority to delegate important tasks, Acts 6:1-6
2) direct the congregation in important tasks, Acts 6:1-6
3) initiate ministries within the church, Acts 6:1-6
4) devote themselves to prayer, Acts 6:1-6
5) devote themselves to the ministry of the Word, Acts 6:1-6
6) lay their hands on individuals to commission them to ministry, Acts 6:1-6; 1 Tim. 4:14, 5:21-22
7) be involved with and responsible for finances, Acts 11:28-30
8) serve for the people in the church, Acts 14:23
9) hear-out and judge doctrinal issues in the church, Acts 15:1-7
10) check on the status and progress of other ministers, Acts 15:1-7, 21:17-19
11) examine doctrinal issues, Acts 15:1-7
12) discuss/debate doctrinal issues between themselves, Acts 15:1-7
13) inform the church of their decisions concerning doctrinal issues, Acts 15:20-23 & 28
14) involve the congregation in making some decisions, Acts 6:1-6, 15:20-23 & 28
15) make decisions that are binding upon the church, Acts 15:20-23 & 28, 16:4
16) be with the people, Acts 20:17-21, 28-31 & 35
17) serve the Lord by serving the church with humility, Acts 20:17-21, 28-31 & 35
18) declare to the church anything that is profitable for them, Acts 20:17-21, 28-31 & 35
19) teach the people in public, Acts 20:17-21, 28-31 & 35; 1 Thess. 5:12; 1 Tim. 4:12-5:2
20) teach the people in private, Acts 20:17-21, 28-31 & 35; 1 Thess. 5:12; 1 Tim. 4:12-5:2
21) declare doctrines of the gospel, Acts 20:17-21, 28-31 & 35
22) stand guard over their own life and doctrine, Acts 20:17-21, 28-31 & 35
23) stand guard over the life and doctrine of the church, Acts 20:17-21, 28-31 & 35
24) shepherd the church, Acts 20:17-21, 28-31 & 35; 1 Peter 5:1-5
25) be alert and watchful, Acts 20:17-21, 28-31 & 35
26) remember the faithfulness of past elders and imitate them, Acts 20:17-21, 28-31 & 35
27) be an example to the church, Acts 20:17-21, 28-31 & 35; 1 Tim. 4:12-5:2; Titus 2:7; 1 Peter 5:1-5
28) work hard, Acts 20:17-21, 28-31 & 35; 1 Thess. 5:12; 1 Tim. 5: 17 & 21-22
29) help the weak, Acts 20:17-21, 28-31 & 35
30) remember the words of Jesus, Acts 20:17-21, 28-31 & 35
31) give rather than receive, Acts 20:17-21, 28-31 & 35
32) resolve important issues on their own authority, Acts 21:17-25
33) lead the congregation, Rom. 12:8; Heb. 13:7 & 17
34) be careful and precise in how they go about their duties, 1 Cor. 3:1-11
35) be seen as servants of God, 1 Cor. 4:1-2
36) administrate the mysteries of God, 1 Cor. 4:1-2
37) be trustworthy, 1 Cor. 4:1-2
38) be in charge of and rule over the congregation, 1 Thess. 5:12; 1 Tim. 5:17
39) fight for the faith, 1 Tim. 1:18-19, 6:10-14
40) maintain faith and not be shaken, 1 Tim. 1:18-19
41) have a clear conscience, 1 Tim. 1:18-19
42) men who desire to serve in the office of elder, 1 Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9
43) be blameless, above reproach, 1 Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9be the husband of one wife, 1 Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9
45) rule their own house well and with dignity, 1 Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9
46) be self-controlled, temperate, sober, 1 Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9
47) be sensible, sane, of sound mind, 1 Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9be well behaved, orderly descent, 1 Tim. 3:1-7
49) be given to hospitality, 1 Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9
50) be forbearing, considerate, moderate, gentle, 1 Tim. 3:1-7
51) be peaceable, 1 Tim. 3:1-7
52) be able to teach, 1 Tim. 3:1-7
53) able to keep his children under control with dignity, 1 Tim. 3:1-7
54) take care of the church, 1 Tim. 3:1-7
55) have a good reputation with those outside the church, 1 Tim. 3:1-7
56) discipline themselves with, in and for godliness, 1 Tim. 4:7
57) be an example of proper speech to all believers, 1 Tim. 4:12-5:2
58) be an example of proper conduct to all believers, 1 Tim. 4:12-5:2
59) be an example of proper love to all believers, 1 Tim. 4:12-5:2
60) be an example of proper faith to all believers, 1 Tim. 4:12-5:2
61) be an example of proper purity to all believers, 1 Tim. 4:12-5:2
62) read Scripture in public, 1 Tim. 4:12-5:2
63) exhort believers, 1 Tim. 4:12-5:2
64) take pains to be precise in living godly, 1 Tim. 4:12-5:2
65) be absorbed in living godly and their duties, 1 Tim. 4:12-5:2
66) be noticeably maturing in the faith, 1 Tim. 4:12-5:2
67) examine their own teaching carefully, 1 Tim. 4:12-5:2
68) examine their own lives carefully, 1 Tim. 4:12-5:2
69) persevere in godly living, 1 Tim. 4:12-5:2
70) treat all people properly according to their station, 1 Tim. 4:12-5:2
71) must not discriminate at all, 1 Tim. 5:21-22
72) be careful about laying on hands so they do not release an unqualified person on the church, 1 Tim. 5:21-22
73) keep themselves free from sin, 1 Tim. 5:21-22
74) flee from greed, 1 Tim. 6:10-14
75) pursue righteousness, 1 Tim. 6:10-14
76) pursue godliness, 1 Tim. 6:10-14
77) pursue faith, 1 Tim. 6:10-14
78) pursue love, 1 Tim. 6:10-14
79) pursue perseverance, 1 Tim. 6:10-14
80) pursue gentleness, 1 Tim. 6:10-14
81) keep the commandment without fault, 1 Tim. 6:10-14
82) guard the responsibilities entrusted to them, 1 Tim. 6:20
83) avoid worldly chatter, 1 Tim. 6:20
84) avoid empty chatter, 1 Tim. 6:20
85) avoid false and apparently knowledgeable arguments, 1 Tim. 6:20
86) diligently work to be approved by God, 2 Tim. 2:15
87) accurately handle the Word of Truth, 2 Tim. 2:15
88) preach the Word, 2 Tim. 4:1-2; Heb. 13:7
89) be ready at all times to fulfill your responsibilities, 2 Tim. 4:1-2
90) reprove with patience and instruction, 2 Tim. 4:1-2
91) rebuke with patience and instruction, 2 Tim. 4:1-2
92) exhort with patience and instruction, 2 Tim. 4:1-2
93) maintain order in the church, Titus 1:5-9
94) have children who believe, Titus 1:5-9
95) be God’s stewards, Titus 1:5-9
96) love goodness and what is good, Titus 1:5-9
97) be just, fair, righteous, Titus 1:5-9
98) be holy, devout, pious, Titus 1:5-9
99) hold firmly to the faithful word and teach it, Titus 1:5-9
100) exhort the church in sound doctrine, Titus 1:5-9
101) refute those who contradict sound doctrine, Titus 1:5-9
102) speak in accordance with sound doctrine, Titus 2:1
103) maintain purity in doctrine, Titus 2:7
104) be dignified, Titus 2:7
105) exercise authority when speaking, exhorting and reproving, Titus 2:15-3:2
106) remind the congregation to be subject to their rulers, Titus 2:15-3:2
107) remind the congregation to be subject to those in authority over them, Titus 2:15-3:2
108) remind the congregation to be obedient, Titus 2:15-3:2
109) remind the congregation to be ready to do good deeds, Titus 2:15-3:2
110) remind the congregation to not speak evil of or malign anyone, Titus 2:15-3:2
111) remind the congregation to be peaceable, Titus 2:15-3:2
112) remind the congregation to be gentle, Titus 2:15-3:2
113) remind the congregation to be considerate of all people, Titus 2:15-3:2
114) cast out factious people in the church, Titus 3:10
115) keep watch over the souls of believers, Heb. 13:17
116) give an account of their ministry to God, Heb. 13:17
117) pray for those in the church, James 5:14
118) minister to those who are sick, James 5:14
119) shepherd the flock of God, 1 Peter 5:1-5
120) exercise oversight of the church, 1 Peter 5:1-5
121) serve the church voluntarily, 1 Peter 5:1-5
122) be elders according to the will of God, 1 Peter 5:1-5
123) serve with eagerness, 1 Peter 5:1-5
124) be humble, 1 Peter 5:1-5

Responsibilities of Elders Stated Negatively

Elders must not;

1) neglect the Word of God, Acts 6:1-6
2) be an innovator in the basics of the faith, 1 Cor. 3:1-11
3) be a drunkard or given to drink, 1 Tim. 3:1-7, Titus 1:5-9
4) be greedy, covetous, a lover of money, or fond of sordid gain, 1 Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9; 1 Peter 5:1-5
5) be quick-tempered, inclined to anger, pugnacious, nor violent, 1 Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9
6) be a new convert, a novice, 1 Tim. 3:1-7
7) fall into reproach, 1 Tim. 3:1-7
8) fall into the snares of the devil, 1 Tim. 3:1-7
9) be involved in worthless worldly rumors and fables, 1 Tim. 4:7
10) neglect their spiritual gifts, 1 Tim. 4:12-5:2
11) be ashamed, 2 Tim. 2:15
12) be accused of dissipation, Titus 1:5-9
13) be accused of rebellion, Titus 1:5-9
14) be arrogant or self-willed, 1 Titus 1:5-9
15) let anyone disregard them, Titus 2:15-3:2
16) serve under compulsion, 1 Peter 5:1-5
17) serve for financial reasons, 1 Peter 5:1-5
18) think they are lords of the congregation, 1 Peter 5:1-5

I think were are really on the same page.

BTW: I certainly did not mean by quoting the bylaws of GCC to give the impression I know how that is actually played out in the church there – seeing I have never been a memeber there and you have been an elder there. I was simply responding to your comment regarding GCC. Secondly, if I were starting a church, it is one I would look at for helpful application of these principles.

I would certainly agree with a loud AMEN to the manner of leadership being that of a sevant, but that a leader must lead.

I would also say that the vast majority of spiritual and organizational decisions of the church would be and should be made by the plurality of elders without the need for public affirmation by the congregation.

However, when it comes to the specific task of the appointment of a man into the position of Elder or Pastor-Teacher I think we see some hint in the NT, clear practice in the early church and ongoing practice by modern churches of respect who do have a formal affirmation process by the congregation.

I would agree this is not the same as full congregational rule where the congregation makes the decisions and the pastors just do what they are told. That is not leadership and is not biblical.

However, I think we would agree, affirmation is something. I would exect in a church that is being guided by godly men in the position of eldership that the congregation will always affirm the men/man the elders present.

I guess my questions is, “Is there a clear command to do this in the NT?” NO “Is there a principle within the NT which could be applied this way?” I think YES. “Is there historical practice within the church where these principles were practiced this way?” No question YES.

It seems that the principle of the NT and the pattern of church history affirm some kind of formal congregational involvment in the appointing of an elder or pastor-teacher.

It seems to be that public affirmation of the recommendation of the plurality of elders is a faithful attempt to practice this.

Thank you again for your time, I pay this is of real benefit and not just mixing of words.

Please know my heart (assuming I can even know my heart even for this moment) – I do not mean to offend or challenge, I love and respect you a great deal – I hope you know that. This is a subject that has been on my mind for quite sometime, but I have not had the time to really think things through – your post came at a time when I could give it some more thought.

God bless,

Joe

Some raise the issue of Mark 10:42 – 45 where Jesus talks about the greatest being the one who serves. Jesus is talking about the manner of leadership, not the matter of leadership. There have been many husbands who have lead in an authoritarian way and there have been many church leaders who have done the same in terms of the church. And that is wrong – it is unbiblical. Conversely, there have beeen many husbands and church leaders who have abdicated their servant leader responsibilities. But whether the biblical concept of leadership has been abused in either way in its manner or matter isn’t the issue. Biblically speaking, leaders must lead as servants, but they must still lead. Their leadership must be offered and done as a truly servant ministry, but it mus still be offered.

Thank you for taking the time to give your feedback to my previous comment…

I guess I just don’t see it as clear that there is no indication of formal involvement by a congregation in the appointment of leadership within the church in the NT.

1. Although I agree that in Acts 14:23 the word cheirontoneo is used to refer to an act done by Paul and his team – the “they” in verse 23 clearly indicating this as you have mentioned. I am not so sure about the one other occurrence of this same work – 2 Corinthians 8:19. It seems that the possibility is open that this appointment (granted not to eldership, but not an unimportant position nonetheless) was affirmed by a broader group than just the elders.
2. In addition this same word is by:
a. Ignatius in his letter to the Philadelphians (10:1) when giving direction for the church to “elect” deacons.
b. Ignatius in his letter to the Smyrneans (11:2) when giving direction for the “church to elect” a representative to Syria.
c. The Didache (15:1) in giving direction to congregations; “Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons.”
3. Next, I see kathistemi as found in Titus 1:5 again open to some further thought. It is very difficult to say from that one verse what exactly Titus was supposed to do. Furthermore this word is not used anywhere else in the NT when church polity is clearly in view.
4. However this same word was understood by Clement to mean the appointment of elders “with the consent of the whole church” (1 Clement 44:1-3 & 54:2).

I make these appeals to the church fathers not because I am going to base my exegesis or theology on anything I find in the church fathers – I would be in big trouble if that were the case.

However, I am not exegeting these texts in an historical vacuum. Many men have gone before me and men who were much closer in time to the writing of the NT saw a reason for using the same vocabulary to instruct churches to use congregational participation as one of the tools for the appointment of elders.

Another reason to appeal to the church fathers on this is to shoot down the argument (not yours but one I have heard toooooo many times) that voting is “an American invention.” Well, all one has to do is a quick Google search on the history of voting to find that is not true, but the church fathers’ use of these terms helps too.

In my previous post, I made mention of 1 Cor. 14 and the “judging of prophecy.” I really do see a connection and see it as rather significant.

In the church of Corinth they would not have had a closed Cannon. They would have been greatly blessed by the ministry of Paul and others, but apostolic/prototype elders where not always in town. So there would have been occasion for various men (and women) to prophesy (proclaim a word). Paul gives instruction in 1 Cor. 14 that their prophecy was to be judged in order to determine whether it was truly from God, is what they heard truly “thus saith the Lord.” That is a HUGE question for a church, especially for a young church which did not have a closed Cannon. The answer to that question would have significant ramifications on the life of the body and Paul allows other men in the congregation other than the elders to aid – publicly – in this important process.

I would certainly not base my exegesis or practice entirely on the practice of another modern church either, however you mentioned GCC in your response. Here is Section 3 of Article 5 of GCC’s bylaws found @ http://www.gracechurch.org/home/doclib.asp?ministry_id=1&dlcat=Bylaws.

Section 3. Nomination, Selection, and Tenure of Office
Recommendations to fill the office of Elder shall be requested once a year from all church members. A nominating committee consisting of not less than five members of the pastoral staff shall be appointed by the Board of Elders, who will also designate a chairman of the committee. This committee shall review all nominations and determine each nominee’s qualifications. A proposed slate of nominees prepared by the nominating committee shall then be submitted to the Board of Elders, along with any relevant comments.

The Board shall then approve, disapprove, or add to the list of nominees. The secretary shall publicly post the nominees approved by the Eldres in alphabetical order at least three weeks prior to the annual meeting of the church members. At this meeting, the slate of nominees shall be presented to the members to affirm the decision of the Elders. If the slate of nominees is affirmed, the newly elected Elders shall assume office immediately.

In addition see Section 1 of Article 10:

Section 1. Election
The Pastor-Teacher shall be selected by the Board and confirmed by the members of the church at its annual meeting or at a special business meeting, and such confirmation shall be a three-fourths ( 3/4 ) majority of all the votes cast.

Each Elder shall serve until the next annual meeting.

Again – not authoritative, but certainly a church whose commitment to the practice of Scripture and therefore help to evaluate…

Just more thinking out loud…

I’m convinced that many churches, and especially “elder rule” churches, miss some biblical points when considering “biblical” forms of church government. Many leaders are concerned only with direct scriptural references to their own extents/limitations and do not consider that much authority has been given directly to individual saints, thus limiting leaders’ authority over saints. Jesus makes it clear in Matthew 20 that ruling over others is a Gentile concept not intended for us. As examples, Paul says in Eph 4:11-12 that leaders are for the equipping of the saints, and the saints do the ministry. In 1 Peter 4:10, Peter gives direct, unmediated authority to individual saints to use their gifts. Leaders then would have no say in whether or not the saints could use their gifts, or in what context, and to whom they could minister, nor the content of their ministries, but only to correct them when they sin.

And since it is not family, church or civil government, but rather self-government that is the fruit of the spirit (Gal 5), I’ve been persuaded that leaders shouldn’t be governing members of the church, but should rather be teaching, preaching, admonishing, encouraging them in how to govern themselves. This I believe is the essence of not quenching the Spirit.

As to areas such as meeting times and liturgy, sure elders can make these decisions. But as you mentioned, godly elders will avoid authoritarianism. I pray that we all learn God’s will in these matters.

Steve Scott

I’m not sure