WHEN THERE ARE NO ELDERS (9)

Unscriptural Proposals

Victor M. Eskew

 

          We have been examining the topic:  “When There Are No Elders.”  This happens from time to time in local congregations.  When churches are first formed, there may not be qualified men to serve as elders for a time.  Too, there may be times in churches when the elders move or pass away and there are no qualified men to take their place as overseers of the local congregation.

          When no elders are in place, the church still must be led in some manner.  We have note two proposed solutions thus far.  First, the men of the congregation will have to meet and take care of the business of the church.  This solution is not the best solution, but the Scriptures authorize it.  Second, there are some who affirm that preachers should have authority over the church.  We found in an article last week that such authority does not reside in the preacher.  His authority lies solely in preaching the Word of God.  He does not have the responsibility of overseeing the church by himself.

          This article will conclude this series.  We want to briefly look at three other solutions that have been proposed for church leadership when a congregation has no elders.  First, some have suggested that the entire church should vote on a small group of men to lead the congregation.  The number of men might be limited to three to five individuals.  Names are proposed by the members.  Once the names have been submitted, then the church votes for those they want to see as the “decision-makers.”  There is no Biblical precedence for this solution.  Too, it can be extremely unfair and can lead to problems that could divide the church.  This solution is really a “majority rules” type of leadership.  The majority, however, does not always make the wisest decisions.  The majority could also be stacked against some men in the church who would otherwise make very good leaders. 

          A second solution that some proposed involves asking the elders of another church to oversee the work until elders can be found.  This sounds like a reasonable solution.  At least qualified men would be leading the church.  The problem is that it is not Biblical in nature.  Each congregation of the Lord’s people is autonomous, that is, self-governing.  An eldership has authority over one flock alone.  Peter wrote to elders with these words:  “Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof…” (1 Pet. 5:2).  Notice the words, “which is among you.”  Elders are the overseers of only one congregation.  If they were allowed to be over a second congregation, why couldn’t they be over three or four or five or more congregations that do not have elders?  Another point of concern involves their ability as shepherds to truly care for the flock.  They cannot be present during worship in two congregations.  The absence of their physical presence would make watching for the souls of the members very difficult (See Heb. 13:17).

          A third proposal that some have set forth is for the churches of Christ to develop some type of governing body that could assist churches with no elders.  As we study the New Testament of Jesus Christ, we learn that the church only manifests herself in two ways.  First, we learn about the church “universal.”  This is the body composed of all Christians throughout the entire world.  Jesus spoke of the church in this sense in Matthew 16:18.  “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church…”  The second form of the church is the local church.  Paul wrote to the “church of God which is at Corinth” (1 Cor. 1:2).  In the book of Revelation, Jesus addresses the “seven churches which are in Asia” (Rev. 1:11).  Each one of them was a local congregation found in seven different cities in Asia.  The New Testament does not give any authorization whatsoever for any type of organization that stands between the local congregation and the church universal.  This is the precise problem with denominationalism, a concept that the true church has opposed for years.

          There are two points we will make as we conclude this study.  First, it is imperative that the church continues to operate by the authority of Jesus Christ (Col. 3:17).  If we turn from Bible authority, we accept the authority of men.  This authority is not divine.  Man’s authority is flawed.  Man’s authority often opposes the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ.  Man’s authority divides.  Man’s authority eventually allows almost anything to be taught and practiced.  Man’s authority will not be that which will judge us on the last day.  We will be judged by the Words of Jesus Christ (John 12:48).

          Second, church of Christ needs to develop the skills of vision, urgency, soul-winning, and training within local congregations.  Churches do not continue indefinitely with no planning or effort involved.  Churches must constantly be looking toward the future.  Churhes must be committed to growth.  Churches must be committed to 5, 10, and 20, year planning.  Churches must be committed to programs that constantly train preachers, elders, and teachers.  Churches cannot be deceived into thinking that the church is a perpetual institution.  Members of the church must constantly plant, water, weed, and feed in order for the church to remain vibrant and fruit producing for generations to come.  If these things are at the forefront of each congregation, churches will never have to be concerned about a church having no elders.