This is part four in a series discussing pulpit committees, local congregations, and a plurality of lay elders. Thus far we have discussed key texts used to defend congregations making the selection of elders in a local church. Each time the context is observed and a careful handling of the passage takes place and it produces completely different products than what a congregational led local baptist church presents. Again, please note the argument is not whether the congregation makes some decisions (church discipline, doctrinal evaluation, etc...) but do they have the responsibility to ordain, select, and actually lay hands on elders.
Now lets shift to explicit commands and explanations where elders/pastor are told to and do ordain elders. Let's assume for sake of argument Acts 13 and 14 had congregational involvement.. Those texts were addressed already. Does this harmonize with today's texts. Is it the elders or congregation responsibility? Is there any mention or reference to congregational input or approval in this process? Our two key texts today are Titus 1:5 and 1 Timothy 4:14. (Don't worry in time we will have to wrestle through the details of Acts in a future article). But for now....
"I left you (Titus) in Crete, that you (Titus) would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you (Titus)," (Titus 1:5)
"Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you (Timothy), which was bestowed on you (Timothy) through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery." (1 Timothy 4:14)
***Underlined and parenthesis emphases are mine and not part of the English Bible text.
Supposedly there will never be enough commands, hortatory voices used ("Let us..."), or NT descriptive or prescriptive texts to convince fundamental Baptists or for that matter any style of baptist persuasion to change their practice to have a plurality of lay elders (assuming they don't have elders already). Those who hold to this historic and exegetical position of a plurality of lay elders, I applaud. However, in the same breath fundamental baptists wonder why seminary graduates are leaving their ranks. Could it have anything to do with how they have to chosen to selectively handle passages that cut cross grain to what they practice? Consider Kevin Bauder on these NT plurality of elder texts writes, "If the New Testament does give churches permission to have more than one elder, this permission does not entail a requirement for multiple elders" (Kevin Bauder. Baptist Distinctives and New Testament Church Order. Regular Baptist Press, 2012). I am left wondering by what standard then do we determine what is "permitted" and what is "required"? I'm curious how he handles Acts 6, simply permission or prescriptive for all future local baptist church congregational leadership selection (well at least for proto-deacon roles)?
So we are left to understand Paul's statements to both Timothy and Titus as nothing but permission to have a plurality of elders? So they really don't have to but Paul is giving them permission? Is this a solid exegetical and historical understanding of the text? On the other hand, to men like this there is more than enough evidence to have a congregational polity. Two pages later Bauder writes, "“A single bishop is adequate to fulfill the requirements of 1 Timothy 3. If the text does not require plural elders, we have no right to require plural elders” (p. 104). Orthopraxy is not limited to what is adequate. The results are clear: the plurality of lay elders is not "required" but there's more than enough evidence to have a Baptist congregational polity. There are simply not enough references in Acts, the Pastoral epistles, James, and Hebrews to build a strong enough case.
So there's our texts for today's discussion. Concerning the first, Paul explicitly gives to Titus instruction in his small town (I should say island) of Crete to ordain church leaders. So let's dig into the details an expose some nuggets of gold for our edification.
First, in a local church, part of Titus' mission was to set things in order. All three main conservative translations have almost identical translations here: "set in order (KJV) "put what remained into order" (ESV) and "set in order" (NASB). Maybe we can get some mileage out of the underlying Greek text? Not really. It occurs a massive one time in the NT, with no references in the LXX or in any extent Greek literature. So what are we left with for a definition? BDAG has "set right, correct in addition" and Louw-Nida has "to set right, to correct, to put into order." Well that doesn't help much, all three English translations have that same basic idea "set right." So what Paul tells Titus is required to set things right in a local church congregation. It's not optional this is the position needed to have a healthy functioning local church.
Second, this verb is found within a simple grammatically identifiable purpose clause (ἵνα), "that..." which is confirmed by multiple grammars (See Black, It's Still Greek to Me: Intermediate Grammar, p. 143; Wallace, Greek Grammar: Beyond Basics, p. 676). The clause is filled out with the two purposes Titus was given. The first as previously noted was to set things in order in the local church. The second is to "ordain" or "appoint" elders (πρεσβύτερος) each each city. The verb occurs roughly 20 times in the NT and over 200 times in the LXX. So we have plenty of verses to help us understand its meaning in context (not just a word study or etymology). Thirteen of the 21 NT references have the idea of appointing someone for a duty. For reference, this is the same terms from Acts 6, "whom we may appoint over this business." I just have to wonder how many purpose clauses found in the NT can be ignored as simple "permission" but not a "requirement." By what standard do we make this decision?
Third, please note the subject of the verb. It is Titus himself. A apostolic leader himself (shall we say pastor/elder/teacher). So you've got a leader himself selecting future leaders. The goal: to have a plurality of lay elders. You have to start somewhere. Not a congregational vote or selection. Neither he nor we are in a theological vacuum here either. Both 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 present a list of qualifications for the elder/pastor/overseers. Knight confirms that Titus is following the exact same pattern as Paul and Barnabas back in Acts 14 (George Knight III. The New International Greek Testament Commentary: The Pastoral Epistles. 1992): An elder choosing elders.
Finally, this purpose for Titus is given with almost military clarity. Paul uses the terminology "as I directed you." The underlying terms occurs 16 times in the NT and roughly 25 times in the LXX. Consider the different senses it has: to charge/instruct, to be charged, to order, to give orders, to direct, to be arranged. The church is to be set in order and it is to be take seriously. This is not optional. This seems to be a necessity to have a healthy functioning local church with elders that can hold other elders accountable.
Let's consider some outside assistance. Mark Dever agrees here "Paul intended each church in Crete to have a plurality of elders" (Mark Dever. The Church. The Gospel Made Visible. 2012, p. 58). Here's an interesting comment from Thomas Lea, "This directive to Titus to appoint elders is one reason 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus have been labeled the "Pastoral Epistles.'" (Thomas Lea. The New American Commentary: 1,2 Timothy, Titus, 1992, p. 276).
Remember even within a study Bible there are multiple authors. Consider Ray Van Neste's comments from the ESV Study Bible, "In every town is the consistent pattern of government in all NT churches: elders govern the churches..." (emphasis mine) (Ray Van Neste. The ESV Study Bible, 2008, p. 2348). Note MacArthur as well, "This ministry of appointing leaders is consistently Pauline (emphasis mine) (John MacArthur. The MacArthur Study Bible. 2006, p. 1855).
This passages seem pretty clear doesn't it? Did I miss pulpit committees or congregational selection of pastor/elders? Please correct me from the verses using right reason, logic, grammar. Did I miss an aspect of grammar? Titus was told to ordain elders in every church. This is both a command to an elder and an example of elders selecting future elders in local churches. And more importantly it matches the biblical theology of the entirety of the book of Acts and other epistles on this issue: Elders ordain Elders. We'll address 1 Timothy 4 next time.
Eventually we need to turn to church history and we can't leave out Acts 6. Are our churches completely outside church history? Have we invented our only timeline? Where did Pulpit committees come from? I hope we are not doing it our own way. Seem's clear if you want a sub-group of the congregation to ordain future elders, then you have one: its called a plurality of lay elders.
Read. Enjoy. Comments as always encouraged.
No comments:
Post a Comment