(5) Problem with Elders in Local Churches
All churches have a leading body. It may be a body of deacons or some other leading board who make business decisions for their church. Once again, these decision-making boards are necessary in a church organization. The fact that no such ruling boards are found in the Scriptures supports that no such organization existed, either. Any creation of man runs the risk of hindering the purposes and plans of God or being counter-productive. When such innovations of man’s wisdom become an addition to the revelation of God, it naturally creates problems for which we have no antidote.
Many of the practices follow the pattern of church organizations from the particular tradition of our fathers. In teaching from my tradition, the concept of church organization was thought to be biblically based and distinctive from the organizational structure of competing denominations. It includes local autonomous churches led by an eldership, who was a decision-making body of men. They controlled the money collected by their members, the teachers who were allowed in the pulpits, benevolence, the support of preachers, and the discipline of the unruly and unrepentant. They buffered inner turmoil and personal problems among the membership and controlled all decisions of administrative duties. The work of the church (church organization, not individual saints) was measured by the activities of a regularly scheduled “service”.
First-century leaders were involved in the work of overseeing souls, not churches. This involved them in warning, teaching, and equipping God’s people (“overseeing the called-out”) in the home throughout the week. If we define today’s oversight to church oversight, such rigorous work is foreign to the so-called “leaders” of today. Being institutional, they are fixed on the teaching in formal worship services and public classes. But, they feel they must rule something. So, they concern themselves with the activities of the public assembly, the check book, condition of the meeting house, while keeping an eye on the preacher’s performance. It has been said that the evangelist does the work of elders, the elders do the work of deacons and the deacons do the work of servants, while the membership contributes into the treasury “for the work to continue.” Such division of labor, authority and control is not found in the Bible.
Conclusion
We have defined the “rule” and problems associating it with an authoritarian rule in administrative decisions for the local church organizations. We have not advocated majority rule nor have we advocated minority rule. However, in the absence of a local church organization, we believe there is nothing over which to lord. The biblical principles of preference, submission, and servanthood rule the hearts of all disciples (Eph. 5:21). The service of spiritual shepherds was primarily concerned with the spiritual needs of souls, and the personal development and equipping of saints. This leadership defines their rule. This study has defined the meaning of the elder’s rule and identified the problems associated with an autocratic, authoritarian rule that views the elder’s role as decision-makers and business administrator.
Even among Spirit-guided men of the first century, good leaders brought out consensus. Poor leaders only project an arrogance akin to Diotrephes that has the effect on others as passing down decrees.