Since the membership is to obey and submit to the rule of these men, they are not conditioned to submit, obey, and follow the leadership of spiritual shepherds who oversee their souls. They are only expected to accept the decisions of administrators as it affects them in the assemblies. Again, we ask three connected questions: 1) Is the work of the elders to make decisions concerning the activities of a local church? 2) If not, and decisions are made together with the elders’ guidance, then why have elders? What distinguishes them from the rest of the saints? Would we not expect them to be appointed by God to lead and guide in the truth and oversee souls? 3) If they are not being spiritual shepherds who lead by example, oversee the work and lives of the flock, and teach the word of God, is not their office practice in an authoritarian rule? Fulfilling the role of decision-makers because they misunderstand their “rule,” they will not consult anyone else or involve the congregation in the decisions. Ironically, while we may hear many sermons against majority rule, we hear the same defend minority rule that is contrary to the teaching of 1 Peter 5:3.
Preachers and the membership are also responsible for supporting this arbitrary rule of elders when they exalt them to a position of authority that is neither healthy nor scriptural. Many elders are not ignorant of their role but are caught up by the expected norms of the majority and accept a position of authority as an overseer in a local church organization. Those who know better feel compelled to remain silent in the interest of pleasing the people.
The responsibility of the membership to “know” their elders (1 Thess. 5:12, OIDA) conveys an attitude of respect and appreciation for them. No one should worry about imposing on an elder because true shepherds want to serve you and they are anxious for you to know them and their work. Once we know of their work and their teaching, we may “esteem them for their work’s sake” (1 Thess. 5:13). Their work gives cause for this high estimation. The respect is rooted in love for them because of the responsibility they accept, the sacrifices made, and the diligent work they do. For this reason, they are esteemed “worthy of double honor,” a reference to monetary support. No honor is expected from those who are lords over God’s heritage. Making decisions in secret, announcing their decisions as law, expecting compliance without question, and treating the thoughts of others with indifference is not cause for respect or honor. Not only will this inhibit personal knowledge and healthy respect, it often creates the opposite effect – criticism, gossip, rebellion, and division.
As leaders, we would expect them to offer sound judgment and reasons that support their thinking instead of giving their conclusions without any persuasion. This does not build confidence. It builds uncertainty and doubt.