Orthopraxy: Pulpit Committees, Congregationalism, Elders and the Raising of Hands: How should we make decisions? (Part Two)

Orthopraxy: Pulpit Committees, Congregationalism, Elders and the Raising of Hands: How should we make decisions in the local church? (Part Two)




As we continue this series we will readdress one of the common proof texts used by adherents of a congregational form of government (and by way of inference--pulpit committees).  Or in other words we will discuss the institution which is vigorously defended in fundamentalism to the almost exclusion of a plurality of lay elders. To be fair there are some churches within fundamentalism which have both a plurality of lay elders and congregational polity (and they're not Presbyterian). But there is a growing impetus that I see and hear to disregard elder passages or to relegate them to an ad hominem attack (as if being a Presbyterian were a crime).

This question before us is even more important when a local church is trying to discern the Lord's will in the selection of a new pastor or teaching elder.  And in relation to the current series under discussion: how would this relate to the local church have a plurality of lay elders? Could they or should they alone be the pulpit committee? Are they the ones given the task to ordain other elders? Let's remind ourselves again why this matters.  What if any responsibility does the NT text actually prescribe for the congregation? Correct doctrine is important (orthodoxy) but so is right practice (orthopraxy).  The scriptures are clear. We are not free to make up area liberty and disagreement.

As we continue this series, let's review quickly.  Several exegetical truths are assumed and defended elsewhere on this blog, commentaries, books, and throughout church history.  First, local churches have a plurality of lay elders as leadership. Second, deacons were not a rotating board of leaders but servants in a local church.  Third, congregations made some decisions in the local church (to what extent must be inferred--available textual data is potentially limited to church discipline passages). We'll need to revisit those passages again later.

From here we looked for proof texts to show what is commonly called pulpit committees.  There is in reality no proof in the NT for this organization (that is of course unless they are existing local church elders already).  How it came to exist historically in American Christianity is the topic for a later thread.  Acts 6 provides no help in the selection of local church servants.

From there we turned to Acts 14 and the selection of elders in local churches.  One key term used by advocates for congregational polity is the term translated as "appointed."  Here is a point of clarification, congregational polity is not under question, but the creation of pulpit committees. Nor is the question whether churches can have elders and congregational decision making.  Anyway back to the term "appointed."  The KJV uses the term "ordained" while the NASB and ESV use the term "appointed."  One term sort of puts the picture in your head of a committee, questions, and laying on of hands, and preaching certificates, etc....There are two distinct changes applied to this verse by strict adherents to a congregation form of polity.

First, the subject of the verb appointed/ordained.  Contextually (to the congregationalists), the subject of the verb is not the elder/apostles traveling through like the context would suggest.  The new subject of the verb is the local congregation.  It is the local congregation who are doing the ordaining/appointing. Hence, it is the congregation themselves (not the elders/apostles) who are making the decision.

Two, the etymology of the verb appointed/ordained.  The argument goes like this.  The underlying greek term (all two NT occurrences) is comprised by a combination of two terms: "hand" and "stretch out, extend."  So you see here the idea in the first century that the local church voted by democratic congregational polity by the raising of their hands (I'll assume as a good baptist these hands raised were at least 18 years old and members in good standing).  That seems to be the way people in America write their church covenants. Let's not forget adherents of a strong congregational authority have only two raising your hands verses by which they are trying to make a prescriptive case for all local churches. I don't want to throw out clear texts to church discipline where the congregation actually has a role.

Sounds convincing doesn't it?  I've heard fundamentalists preach this position repeatedly. Especially if you are preaching and teaching this to people who already agree with you it sounds pretty good.  So let's evaluate this interpretation in light of scripture. First, how is the term used elsewhere. Second, does an etymological understanding commit a fallacy of interpretation.  Third, if a NT writer wanted to say physically raise your arm in the air do they say that elsewhere? Lastly, does the context change the way the word should be understood?

This post is getting long so I'll be brief. First, the term appears twice in the NT (here and 2 Cor 8:19).  No reference in LXX but roughly 234 times in classical Greek.  One form of the verb with an attached preposition appears in Acts 10:41 but there God (the source of authority) is the subject who does the choosing (interestingly no one want's to impose congregational authority there). Not much to work with here.  In the other reference, Titus is chosen to travel with Paul by the local church.  Here's an odd point.  Titus was chosen by the churches (plural) to go with Paul.  How's that work?  So we have multiple churches collecting the raised hand majority democratic votes to select Paul's traveling partner? That complicates the subject. Its not just the one local church but many local churches (plural). The same term appears again in the plural form in the previous verse "churches" (v. 18).  So how does that fit in the local autonomous independent baptist church?  Even the KJV  still uses terms such as "ordain" and "chosen."  So I'm not sure this helps the voting interpretation any. Should we understand this prescriptively as well?  Local churches in plural format should vote together to send out missionaries? How's this work?

I poured through over twenty commentaries to get a feel for this one.  They are divided both in methodology and results (conclusion). Some seem to focus exclusively on the underlying etymology of the Greek term even drawing upon classical Greek usage.  Some believe the context determines the terms usage not it base dictionary etymology. While yet others acknowledge the apostles made the selection it could only happen with congregational approval. Lastly, the apostles chose themselves without the congregational approval. I seem to notice two trends here: one, those who focus their interpretive efforts on the terms etymology alone tend toward strong congregational decision making; and two, those who focus their efforts on the context and subjects tend toward a strong elder decision making. Is it possible to take away the argumentative weight of one of these two options? Here's an encouraging thought, even many that thought the term means a raising of hands state it doesn't mean that here and it is Paul and Barnabas making the decision (appoint/ordaining). On the other hand, many that came to the same contextual conclusion (Paul and Barnabas the acting subjects) have a hard time reconciling this with their own view of congregational polity. Oddly enough the NIV has the right contextual idea "Paul and Barnabas appointed elders..." (Acts 14:23).

Second, and by way of answer to the above question, the etymology of the term: hand and stretch out/extend.  As pragmatic and useful as it may sound to vote this way in 2018 I'm not sure this is what the NT writes (Luke/Paul) intended in the first century. This is the same line of reasoning that produces a definition of the church as "called out ones."  This is based on the two terms in Greek for word "church."  First, being a preposition "out of/from" and the second a verb "to call."  Hence our definition.  In response, it is more accurate to define our terms by usage and context not by etymological usage.  Not only this but this is simply an etymological fallacy, which is only one of sixteen possible fallacies from deriving meaning from the terms root.  Actually this one's quite common (See DA Carson's book Exegetical Fallacies, Chapter One "Root Fallacy").  Several other sources confirm this abuse of words etymology and faulty conclusions (See Cottrell, "Linguistics," in The New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis edited by Willem VanGemeren). Another text used in years past at BJU for teaching this hermeneutical problem of a words root is Grant Osborne's The Hermeneutical Spiral. So it appears here the etymological argument for a raised hand congregation vote could have some merit if you divorce the term from its context and subjects in Acts 14:23. Or another point of view, the raised hands are the elders/apostles and not the congregation after all.

Third, could the Holy Spirit really say raise your hands if that's what he meant? Let's look at some NT examples.   Paul wrote with his "own hand" (Gal 6:11). How about 1 Tim 2:8 "lifting up holy hands."  Just a picture, euphemism, literally? Kinda of makes you wonder of all the references in the OT or even the Psalter (the Psalms) which speak of "raised hands" or even "bowing down." If raised hands is what was meant why find a cryptic way through word etymology to say it? A cryptic etymology which is not translated that way by any English translation I can find.

So do we have a pulpit committee in this verse?  Well actually this blog post didn't address that question but only a verse misused in a side-bar issue.  Now with this misapplied proof text potentially removed we can move on to other texts. To use texts like these to prove congregational voting seems not only a stretch but driven by an agenda to avoid references to a plurality of elders in local churches and to defend congregational authority and decision making. By extension, a pulpit committee as distinct from a functioning plurality of lay elders in the local church has no biblical warrant.

We still have other verses and church history to address.  They will come in forthcoming posts, this includes other means of making decisions by NT apostles (to include casting lots). Potential precedent for ballots?  We'll see.

Read. Comment. Enjoy.