Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 13
October 26, 1961
NUMBER 25, PAGE 2,14b

Church Development --- Churches Without Elders

Frank Driver, Fort Collins, Colo.

A few months ago, brother Tant expressed his desire for articles on more positive and constructive themes, to give emphasis to the need for growth and progress among the churches. While much teaching is still needed on current problems, the time has long since passed for the need of teaching and encouragement in the strengthening of the local church for service and activity.

It too is important to oppose the encroachment of human institutions in the field of church activity, it is also important to urge the continuing need for more vigorous and progressive activity programs among local churches. If it is wrong to activate the church universal, it is likewise wrong to fail to activate the church local.

I have spent nearly all my preaching experience among small churches in needy fields, where few preachers will go and where fewer will stay. Naturally I shall write out of the background of my personal experience and humbly believe I am in a position to present thoughts on the subject that those who work in better established areas, under more favorable conditions, do not have occasion to consider.

I know of no better place to begin such a study than in the leadership of the church, and the scriptural placement of responsibility, oversight, and rule. Regardless of the importance of preachers in building churches, many churches must be without preachers and are still in need of leadership. So our present discussion must eliminate the local preacher. This is no problem to the majority of readers who have always been members where there are elders, for even though there are often serious problems even then, yet the authority is well defined, placed, and established by the scriptures. But what about churches without elders? I indeed believe the scriptures place the authority here, but the subject is little studied for lack of occasion. We shall first notice what the brethren have taught, then what the Bible teaches.

Some brethren have taught that such oversight and rule resides in general open business meetings and majority rule. Many cannot conceive of practical church government in any other light than our American way of life. Yet churches functioned efficiently and effectively over 1700 years before the concept of majority vote entered the mind of brethren. Some can never seem to learn that spiritual things cannot be administered in harmony with God's will under the same arrangement as material things can be. The direction of the church cannot be reduced to mere political maneuver and please God.

Other brethren contend that such oversight and rule must be equally distributed among all male members. This is without question the most popular and generally practiced view. But like the majority rule fallacy, it makes no distinction between the babe in Christ and the mature Christian, the learned and the unlearned, the experienced and the inexperienced, or, those who serve and those who don't. This position is carried even to the point of giving to the unfaithful, indifferent, and worldly minded the liberty to pass judgment against the most consecrated, devout, and sacrificing members in the church. It is a violation of Bible teaching.

Still others contend for the appointment of leaders until elders are qualified. While any brother who leads is a leader, there is no scriptural authority for the formal appointment of leaders, and gives them an exclusiveness and distinction without scriptural authority.

The fourth contention is that the preacher has such authority. This is based on Titus 1:5, and to me is the nearest of all to the scriptures, with the reservation of course that the preacher indeed is qualified to fill the place according to the description given of him and his work in the Timothy's and Titus. But here there are problems. What about a church without a preacher. Besides, this was a provisional arrangement during a time when progress was being made toward appointment of elders. We still have the problem of how local churches can be governed without elders and no early prospects of their appointment.

A sad day has come to any church when an issue is raised over who has the authority, and it always comes when those not qualified for it are determined to have it. It has been the cause of many church divisions, and of disorder and confusion where division has not occurred. Such a situation has long been a fertile field for a contentious, domineering preacher to cultivate the unlearned, inexperienced, unfaithful, and worldly minded into a faction to promote his personal interests. In the words of Foy E. Wallace, Jr.:

Almost any preacher who is a "good mixer" can put over his schemes with enough of the women and young people and indifferent members whose interest has been revived to "take sides." (Tract, Evils of Majority Rule)

Of course, for such a class, scriptural teaching will avail nothing anyway, but many would like to have a better understanding of scriptural teaching on the subject.

The disciples of Jesus had this identical problem in their dispute over greatness in the kingdom of heaven. (Matt. 20:26) Jesus settled the matter once for all by reserving greatness for him who distinguished himself through service. There would be more peace among brethren and more harmony with God's will if brethren would be more concerned about rendering service to one another and all men, than about having their "way" and their "say" in church affairs. The Lord here taught a distinction in rank between those who serve and those who are served. This lesson is also taught by Paul in admonishing the brethren to submit themselves to those who labor. (1 Cor. 16:16)

We find an extension of the same principle in Gal. 6:6. Regardless of the meaning of the word "communicate" here, a distinction is made between the teacher and the disciple. The church faces tragic consequences when the disciple shows contempt and disregard for his teacher, rather than the respect, submission and appreciation the Lord requires of him.

In the third place, Peter admonishes the younger to submit themselves to the elder. (1 Peter 5:5) Certainly the passage also teaches to submit to one another, but if this was meant in a sense to contradict what was already said, the verse would have no meaning. Jesus submitted himself to the disciples by washing their feet, but he was still over them. It was the Lord's will for the older, mature, and informed in the word of God to have the oversight and care of those who are younger, without experience, and in need of instruction. When the latter class is determined to rule, they show contempt for the divine order of church government. Paul said a novice could not be an elder, "Lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil." (1 Tim. 3:6) If this could happen to a novice in the eldership, why couldn't it happen to a novice in the leadership, where there are no elders, who performs the same function? the truth is, it can and it does.

I have taken into account throughout this study that these points of distinction are relative and matters of growth and development, but they are still distinctions of contrast that can be recognized and applied, else the word of God would not have so defined them. Also to be considered is the fact that this scriptural arrangement for leadership without elders is to be provisional and temporary while the church is in the process of appointing elders. If this arrangement were entirely satisfactory, there would be no need for elders at all. It is most tragic indeed that so many churches are content to remain indefinitely without elders, but even so, I have set forth here the Lord's decree on the only scriptural alternative.