Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 9
October 17, 1957
NUMBER 24, PAGE 2-3b

Interlocking Elderships

Robert C. Welch, Louisville, Kentucky

Proper function of government is essential to every correct phase of national activity. Proper function of the eldership is essential to every righteous action of a congregation. Often while looking at one problem we forget that others are also present. While recognizing that certain truths and principles are involved in one problem we fail to see that they are likewise involved in others. As we strive to eliminate certain features in one phase of church activity we fail to realize that they should be eliminated in others. Brethren are diligently opposing interlocking elderships of congregations in the evil practice of "institutionalism;" but at the same time are establishing such inter-congregational arrangements in other functions. If the "institutional" systems are unscriptural because of such interlocking elderships, such arrangements are equally unscriptural in all other church activity.

The Scriptures teach, "elders in every church." (Acts 14:23). The elders of the church at Ephesus were charged to "take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops." (Acts 20:17,28). Peter's charge to elders is; "Tend the flock of God which is among you, exercising the oversight." (1 Pet. 5:2). When Christians of one community desired to help brethren in other churches they sent it to the proper overseers of those flocks; they sent it to the elders (Acts 11:29,30). When false teachers from Judea tried to gain a following in Antioch the church at Antioch did not try to have a meeting of its elders with those of Jerusalem to reach a united agreement on the problem. The church at Antioch referred the problem of the false teachers to their origin, Jerusalem, to the elders and the apostles there. They dealt with it. (Acts, chapter 15).

There is neither scriptural precept nor example for, and there is precept against, having interlocking elderships of churches. It is identical with the forming of denominations. The only difference is that denominations are not ashamed to call it what it is. They are not ashamed of their councils, conventions, synods, conferences, general assemblies. The practice is not made right just because it is called by another name or because it remains unnamed.

When churches with their elders decide to do their work through separate human institutions they have departed from the New Testament practice of having elders overseeing each flock. This scriptural organization of churches is violated, whether in the matter of preaching to the lost, edifying and educating the Christians, or administering to the needy. The matter of the practice being entered into voluntarily by each group of elders does not alter the case. It would still be an unauthorized and unscriptural organization through which the churches function. This is an interlocking eldership arrangement, to the extent that they have agreed upon a side organization through which their flocks are to function.

The common form of interlocking directorate is now developing in which one group of elders oversees one phase of work to which other churches contribute. This is complicated by each one of those contributing churches having its elders as directors of other phases of work, to which all the others reciprocate with contributions. One group of elders become the directors of some foreign mission work, another group become the directors of charity work, another become directors of a school, another become directors of radio work. And each of these churches exchanges contributions with the others. Whether they will call it that or not, they have their conventions. Now if they will just appoint one man or group of men over the whole affair to direct it they will go beyond the Baptist form of denominationalism and will have the Presbyterian form. Neither is scriptural, so they just as well take the one that suits them best.

Not all church function is involved in institutionalism. There is the matter of discipline; the matter of false or true teaching; the matter of congregational independency in general. Can one congregation with its overseers exercise discipline for another? Is one congregation bound to recognize the discipline of another without investigation? Is one church to have its preachers determined for it by another or by the combined wishes of others? Do elders of several congregations have the right to convene for decisions of procedure in any church matter? Do the elders of one congregation have the right to interfere in an internal problem of a sister congregation? In all of these matters, congregations and elders can be found who are building interlocking elderships and violating the scriptural teaching of congregational independency.

A congregation was having difficulty with ungodly practices of its elders. They were caught in the act of stirring up some members of the church against others. They were falsely accusing some of the brethren of working in a faction trying to undermine them. This was not even done in the open, but in a whispering campaign. When the congregation sought an audience with them to question their practices, they called into the meeting, to their defense, the officers of several other churches of the area. These other officers, in speeches and conversation, attempted to enforce the "authority of the elders." They argued an unlimited authority of elders, and that elders cannot be questioned in their practices. The elders of that congregation together with officers of other churches later tried to promote a boycott in all the churches of the area against those brethren who had discovered the ungodliness and were questioning their elders about it and about their right to the office. It is a clear cut case of an interlocking of elderships for the purpose of handling the problems of one congregation. It is just as much a violation of congregational independency as churches have ever practiced.

A preacher was once heard to commend a certain church for becoming the leading church of the area. The saddest feature of the matter was that the church and her elders decided in their pride that they were the leading force among the churches of the area. They decided that they could influence and control all the others into accepting their own decisions on discipline, general work of the churches, and preachers in the churches. That church ought to be leading in attending to her own affairs; but she ought to stay out of the affairs of others, for that is violation of congregational independency.

A church was reported to have decided that shortly she will be financially, numerically and ministerially able to place her own preachers in all the small congregations of the area to straighten them out. That practice is nothing but meddling in the affairs of other congregations. If those congregations ask these men to preach for them, it is their business. But for one church to seek to dominate the smaller churches of an area by such practice is a violation of congregational independency. It is an interlocking eldership which is contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures.

There is the old saying about "pot calling kettle black." Let us not forget that while we are hunting for bear in the woods he may be tearing up the camp. Let us not condemn one thing because of organizational error while ignoring other things in which the same organizational error is involved. We need to decry interlocking elderships and violation of congregational independency where ever found.