We have answered the unjustified use of the word “rule” and explained the meaning and use of the word “peitho.” Shepherds lead, give guidance and oversee souls. We are still searching for the scriptures that teach the elders are a ruling body of men who make decisions for a local church. Undoubtedly, decisions must be made by them concerning their work but the same decisions must be made concerning anyone else’s work, too. The characteristics of elders in this institutional church include the following:
(1) Elders make decisions for the organization. Without the existence of an organization, any decision that affects all the Christians in a city would be discussed and determined by all. This is exactly what we see in the Scriptures (cf. Acts 15:?). The shepherds are not a body of rulers who make decisions apart from the church. In selecting men to help the widows, Acts 6:5 states, “And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen a man full of the Holy Spirit…” The decision in Acts 11:26-30 was made by “every man”. In Acts 13:1-3 and 14:26-28 we observe the whole church gathered together for work or endeavor. According to Acts 15, the “whole church” was allowed to have a part in the making of a decision as is seen in verses 4,22, 23, and 25. The whole church was invited to that meeting and “it seemed good to the whole church” to send the letters by chosen men to the called out in other cities. When those chosen men went to Antioch to deliver the letter, the “multitude gathered together” (Acts 15:31). The apostle Peter placed the burden for finding a replacement for Judas upon the entire group as a whole. In Acts 6:1-6, the apostles turned to “all the disciples” (6:2) and asked them to choose men to administer care for the Grecian widows.
(2) Only elders of an organization make the final call in church discipline. Mathew 18:17 reads, “tell it to the church (ekklesia)” not just the elders from among the saints. These are not the same things. Elders would only represent the church if they were ruling administrators of an organization. Any matter that may impact the welfare of others, all saints would be involved to discuss it among themselves and pray to the Father.
Again, in the absence of an organization, it is clear that every individual Christian must decide to withdraw from the impenitent brother. The decision doesn’t go before a board or an eldership that judges the case before it reaches the attention of others (cf. 1 Cor. 5:1-5). In this way, there is no “church action” as in a corporate church decision made by the leading decision-makers.
(3) Only elders of a corporate institution would collect from individual financial supporters to do what seems right to them on behalf of the people. The examples of giving to provide for the physical needs of the poor or of those who had committed themselves to the work of spreading the gospel has been swallowed up by the organization to which individuals are required to become members. Invariably, this work “of the church” is considered the work of the local church organization through which the individual must work. Phrases like, “the church at …. with its elders and deacons” (Phil. 1:1) or “ no church had fellowship but ye only” (Phil. 4:15) are proof texts to support the view that Philippi was such an organization. It proves no such thing as the church is referred to by the second person plural pronoun in verse 15 and 16. The church at Philippi were individuals in Christ who lived at Phillippi. Galatians 6 illustrates the identity of the called out, also. While verse 1 addresses “brethren,” Paul applies the instruction to individual Christians who are accountable to one another. When he writes, “ye which are spiritual, restore such a one in the spirit of meekness,” no one would think that this describes a local church organization or the clergy of such an organization. Why is Philippians 4:15-16 different? These individuals sent once and again to Paul’s necessities just as Paul instructs the Christians of Galatia, “Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things (Gal. 6:6). Other examples describing the church at Philippi are as follows:
1) Philippians 1:7 ye all are partakers of my grace
2) Philippians 2:12 – Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
3) Philippians 2:15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;
4) Philippians 4:9 Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you.
These are addressed to saints in the plural but are all applied individually. The one body into which individuals at Ephesus were called (Eph. 4:4, cf. Col. 1:18, 3:15) was not a local church organization. These individuals trusted, heard, believed (Eph. 1:13, cf. 4:21, Col. 1:23, and Colossians 2:6, “received Christ”), and walked (2:2, cf. Col. 2:6). They were saved through faith (2:8), buried and risen with him (Col. 2:12), sealed (1:13, 4:30), made near by the blood of Christ (2:13), fellow-citizens and of the household of God (2:19), called in one hope of their calling (4:4), rooted and grounded in love (3:17), followers of God (5:1), and light in the Lord (5:8). They could read (3:2) understand (3:2, cf. 5:17), walk worthily (4:1, cf. 17, Col.1:10), put off the old man (4:22, cf. Col. 3:8), put on the new man (4:24), walk circumspectly as wise (5:15), stand against the wiles of the Devil (Ephesians 6:11,13), and quench fiery darts of the wicked (6:16). The same people were taught to be angry (4:26), kind, tenderhearted, forgiving (4:32), and thankful (3:15). Some of them were fathers (6:4). Others were slave owners (6:9). They lived to be sincere and without offense till the day of Christ (cf. Phil. 1:10). Every living member of that one body of Christ had men who watch over them, care for them, and teach them the Word (Phil. 1:1). These elders are so committed to their care that they “reap carnal things” from the saints that they teach (1 Tim. 5:17-18, cf. 1 Cor. 9:11). They gave to the necessities of Paul and the poor saints. Paul wrote in Ephesians 4:28-29,
Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labor, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth. Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.
(4) Only elders of a corporate institution would make their rulings in private meetings apart from the church. This is not to say that there is never a time when fellow shepherds met in private (Acts 15:6). It is only to say that they didn’t meet behind closed doors and announce their decisions as a “ruling” body. The leaders of Acts 15:6 discussed or “considered” the matter but the decision was one in which there was consensus and in which all were involved. Everyone, who makes up this organic body, will be involved in matters of this kind that involve judgments, even with spiritual implications. It is not so much that they have membership rights from having joined the local church organization. Such a concept was foreign to their thinking. Rather, it is the natural workings of the body. This pattern is altogether different from the workings of an institutional corporate body whose leaders seldom meet with its members to discuss anything. If they do, it is to pacify a few who believe in greater communication. Usually, the elders who agree to such a meeting to satisfy everyone, make it quite clear that this is not a meeting to decide anything (as that is their perceived role) but to hear the congregation’s concerns. Unfortunately, the elders remain quiet and just listen. The church is able to speak but they do not hear any plans, goals, concerns, and hopes from the elders. It is often a one-sided conversation so as to clearly distinguish themselves from the members. In at least some cases, their silence is designed to clarify that elders have nothing to discuss because no one but they have the authority to make decisions. The popular view is that elders should discuss the business of the church only in private settings with other elders. It is in these settings that they make choices for the church and when the decisions are made, they inform the brethren who are duty-bound to support the decision.