Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 9
December 19, 1957
NUMBER 33, PAGE 10-11b

No One Knows "How" They Did It

C. D. Plum, Columbus, Ohio

"And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. 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. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch, whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them." (Acts 6:1-6)

We have accepted this, and I believe rightly so, as an example of the selection of deacons and their appointment. We have also accepted this, and I believe rightly so, as to the best course to pursue in the selection and appointment of elders.

The "What" Of Acts 6:1-6

1. There was a need. "Grecian widows neglected."

2. There was a called meeting by the apostles to remedy this situation.

3. The "multitude of disciples" who assembled selected ("chose") the seven. In this connection let me say, "That this selection was made by the members of the church there can be no doubt. But let us not make the mistake of saying the "whole church," every member of the church, was there. This statement: "the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them" signifies nothing more than a "crowd," a great number of disciples, were there. And bear in mind that there were literally thousands of disciples in Jerusalem. A good number should, and did, turn out. I do not know, nor do you who read this, nor do others who do not read this, that all the complaining Grecians were there, but enough were present."

4. After the selection was made by the disciples present, the apostles appointed them to serve for the purpose stated. We don't know what the apostles said in the appointment, but we know they "prayed," and "laid hands on them."

What we have said about the "what of Acts 6:1-6" is pre-eminently scriptural, and is "union ground" on which to stand for unity of action. What is here revealed is not cause for dissension in the body of Christ. But now let us change from the "what" to the "how." Let me repeat the heading of this article:

No One Knows "How" They Did It

The "what" the crowd did is plainly revealed, they selected ("chose"); the "how" they made this choice is NOT revealed at all. If any one would say to me, "Brother Plum, just HOW did they select the deacons in Acts 6:1-6?" If I tell them the truth I'd have to say to them,

"I don't know, and nobody else on this earth now does know."

I don't know whether a man got up here and said I suggest brother Stephen, and another man got up and said I suggest brother Philip, and so on through till they had seven names. And no one knows. I don't know whether ten were thus named, and the names were screened until it got down to seven. And no one knows. I don't know whether one man got up and suggested all seven names, and no one knows. I don't know whether one man said he had a list of names of seven, most suggested to him by disciples in the crowd, and I'll suggest them. And no one knows. I don't know if a piece of paper was passed around, and they were told to "vote" their choice of seven, and we will choose the seven high men. And no one knows. Why don't we know? The reason is, the "how" they did it was not revealed. This is what causes division in the church, contending that one of the ways I have suggested is the "only" right way to select elders and deacons now. This disquiets the brethren, makes doubts arise in their minds, and this is "wrong" when there is not one precise "right" way revealed. Brethren, please remember this.

The poorest, perhaps, of all suggested ways which they may have followed (for we do NOT know "HOW" they proceeded), is the silent voting of choices of men from the standpoint of the whole church assembled, which some erroneously claim is essential in the selection of elders and deacons. I do not believe that either "teaching" in the gospel, or "practice" of inspired men, in any sense make it compulsory for the "whole church" to come together before we can choose elders and deacons. There is no scriptural teaching or example for such a position.

If the whole church assembled for this purpose, and each voted silently, on a piece of paper, these principles of truth would be in danger:

1. The young members, teen-agers, are in these matters not sufficiently indoctrinated. The silent vote would pit their "inexperience" against the "experience" and knowledge of maturity. A thing which is condemned in the scriptures. (Heb. 5:12-14; 1 Cor. 14:20). This could prompt politicing on the part of the unscrupulous, electioneering, instructing children how to Vote.

2. This could encourage preachers to get out a favorable vote for men favorable to them. Now get this straight: I am NOT accusing preachers of this sin, I am only pointing out the temptation and danger. Only God knows what is in a preacher's heart, or anybody's heart.

3. To bring the whole church together for this silent, paper voting, for elders and deacons, would bring the sisters together, then, for this purpose. I am a lover of good women, Christian women, pure women. The mother of my Lord was a woman; my mother was a woman: my wife and the mother of my children is a woman. I have no fight as such against the women. But women are not to usurp authority over men. We do not have of a surety in mind any women who actually want to do this. If they do, may their tribe decrease. We can have a "multitude," a "crowd" of disciples without women and the inexperienced voting silently or otherwise. No comparable, of course, to the multitude in Acts 6:1-6, in Jerusalem, but then we have no such membership as was in Jerusalem.

This I Have Known

In forty years preaching one hears a lot, and sees a lot. I'll mention three ways I have observed brethren using in selecting elders and deacons.

1. Announcement was publicly made on Lord's day morning that at the next business meeting an attempt would be made to select men for elders and deacons, so, think about the sermons you have heard along this line, talk about it, and come.

2. Meeting came off as announced. Preacher presented a list of names for elders and deacons which he said had been the most often suggested to him. Other suggestions were in order. A stated number decided upon.

3. The following Lord's day the names were presented to the congregation for their acceptance or rejection. A week or so was allowed for approval or rejection.

Here is another one. Compared to the first example, it stands like this. No. 1. Same as above. No. 2. The only difference here with above was: a brother, not the preacher, presented a list of names. Others were granted the same privilege. No. 3. Same procedure as in three above.

Here is the last one. The only difference here from the above is the No. 2, above. Here paper was passed to the men assembled, and they voted their choice secretly.

I could not scripturally say that any one of these three was better than the other two, and would not. For one to pick out one of these and say, "This is it, and the other two are wrong," is making a law which neither teaching or scriptural example will sustain.