Why does it matter? Why now write on this topic? Answer: as I continue to listen to my brethren within fundamentalism preach, several themes are repeating as they sound a rally cry: first, how to keep a younger generation of fundamentalist pastors in fundamentalism and two, a buckshot blast on every theological issue that may or may not be attracting the younger generation away from their fundamentalist roots. So what are these vast repeating concerns? You'll have to listen to what they are saying to find out. But for the sake of this current thread: congregationalism and a plurality of lay elders.
I am assuming the following are correct and biblical for the following argument:
One, the New Testament teaches a plurality of lay elders in each local NT church. Just heard a recent excellent review sermon on the plurality of elders from a church in Greenville, SC.
Two, the position of deacon and/or deacon board is not a position(s) of authority in the local NT church. It is a position of service in the local church. There are no passages in the NT giving authority to deacons.
Three, history confirms these two above positions (we are not alone on an island to make up church polity of our own making). The only way to avoid points one and two above is to simply not teach or misconstrue the biblical texts of how they have been historically interpreted.
Four, congregational polity also works in coordination with this plurality of lay elders. This is typically where many baptist church pastors stop. I for one am glad to see the numerous books in print encouraging churches moving to a plurality of lay elders in leadership.
Please see other articles on this website for a defense of the above positions. I have written multiple articles concerning elders and polity within the local church. See here for that earlier series.
To answer the question we need to actually start with the Bible. There is no reference or even a hint of proof texts referring to a committee within a local church which alone has the responsibility to select the next elder/pastor for the local congregation. The only ones I can think of that come even close would have to be twisted to make them a proof text.
Does Acts 6 helps? At best the congregation chose the deacons (not elders) which were then approved by the existing apostles. I get the idea you could use this one as long as you ignore the content, topic, and context.
Really what you have to do is appeal to a pragmatic argument (it works must be okay). Perhaps a plea to we've always done it this way (could have always been wrong too).
Textually what you need is a congregation that has a sub-divided group that with the responsibility of selecting the next elder/pastor within that particular local church.
What about the other options. The elders selecting future elders? Or an entire congregation selecting a candidate approved by the elders?
What does the Bible says? What evidence do we have? Consider the following:
Acts 14:23 "when they had appointed elders for them" Contexts seems to identify the "they" as the apostles who were visiting earlier planted local churches. The second "them" appears to be the local congregation. This seems to fit the context best. Verse 21, "When they had preached." Not the congregation but the elders passing through. Later in that same verse "and had made many disciples." Again this would be mishandling the context to change the subject of the verbs. Third reference, "they returned to Lystra...." The same individuals preached, made disciples and returned. Same subject all three times. Verse 22 includes two more participles "strengthening" and "encouraging" with same same subjects as previous verse. Its the elders/apostles passing through the local churches. Now to verse 23, "when they has appointed elders for them in every church." Why all of a sudden would the subject change?
This fits with Dr. Stewart Custer's commentary as well, "We may conclude that the apostles observed the believers carefully on their return journey and chose men who had already established a good testimony..." (Stewart Custer, Witness to Christ: A Commentary on Acts). So the subjects are not the local church but the apostle/elders themselves.
David Peterson agrees as well that Paul and Barnabas are the ones doing the ordaining/appointing. So its not the local church at all involved in this action (The Pillar New Testament Commentary: Acts of the Apostles, 2009).
So this understanding of the text is not new, twisted, or imaginary. Its simply a straightforward reading of the text in its context without another motive to dodge the results. The result is obvious: it is not the congregation making the decision. So how do those who don't see the elders reference handle this verse? Is "raising your hand" to vote in 2018 really an option? Or is this simply another abuse of an etymological fallacy?
We'll address that answer next time.
Till then keep reading your Bible.
Comments as always encouraged.
No comments:
Post a Comment