Elders Must All Agree

Chapter 24
This chapter makes more sense to me than all the others, yet there are only a few verses in the entire bible that support its basic premise. I want to propose a biblical concept that is entirely foreign to people born and raised on a democratic society. I believe the entire sense of God and His word support this idea, though, as I already indicated, only a few verses speak to the issue directly. I believe it is entirely unbiblical to suggest in God’s church the majority should rule. It is utter foolishness to have a congregational meeting and allow everyone in the congregation vote on whether or not to call someone to pastor the church. Of course that act alone comes from centuries of hiring professional seminary graduates to do what the local church should be doing in the first place. The local church is the biblical training ground for new pastor/teachers, elders, deacons, deaconesses, evangelists, prophets, and apostles. If a pastor leaves for whatever reason, there should be several men in the congregation ready to take on the task of preaching immediately. I suggest the biblical model is different than the one we practice in America in the first place. Few men in the church are capable of standing before a congregation week after week and preach effectively. I suggest the biblical pattern is found in I Corinthians 14:26-40. I urge you to read it over and over. Those verses indicate several men should be speaking each time we meet together to study God’s word and hear a tongue, a teaching, a revelation, a word of wisdom, prophecy, encouragement, psalm. They also tell us that women should keep silent in the church.

God’s word demands that the decisions for the functioning of the local church be made by its leadership. In Acts 6 we see the first application of the practice. In both Timothy and Titus we see why these men must meet such stringent requirements. It makes no sense they would have to meet such requirements if they didn’t have the responsibility to take care of the financial and spiritual welfare of the local church.

Please allow me to present what I believe was the biblical pattern established throughout the Roman Empire by the apostles as they started churches in every region they visited. As soon as churches were started, Elders were chosen from the Jewish converts who were the more biblically adept and morally excellent members of the new churches. The Elders ruled the church in a region. Fellowships of Christians met in homes throughout the region, with at least one elder present in each home when the church met. The Elder’s responsibility was to make sure proper doctrine was being taught, church funds were being properly distributed, and the church functioned in an orderly manner. Elders rotated from church to church. The regions where Elders functioned were always small enough so Elders knew church members in the area personally and intimately. An area ruled by this group of Elders was referred to as the local church. There may have been forty to fifty groups meeting in homes in a region that were under the guidance of one group of Elders. Upon occasion, this local group of believers met together somewhere where they could all join together to worship and hear an itinerant preacher like Paul.

I currently live in Richland County, Montana. I envision approximately 45 home churches in the county developing over the next decade. If each of those home churches has one elder in attendance when they meet each week, it means there would be approximately forty-five elders responsible for the work of the ministry in Richland County. There is absolutely no need for regions to follow political divisions. I only used that example because it helps us understand the concept of regional control and rule of Elders in the local church. In places like Los Angeles, a region might only be five city blocks. Several biblical concepts are adhered to when the church follows this biblical pattern for growth. The most significance of which is both its strong point and the reason most Americans reject the idea, i.e., accountability. In America we promote self-confidence and independence, answering to no one about our actions. We think what goes on in our house is no one else’s concern.

That spirit of independence is what gets Christians in trouble. Watching inappropriate television programs, reading inappropriate literature, drunkenness, and immoral activity can go on for years in homes without church members ever knowing about it until it is so out of control the individual engaging it leaves the church altogether. By the time the Elders are aware of it, it’s often too late to correct a problem that could have been caught in its early stages and dealt with in counseling. When the church meets weekly in small intimate groups in homes, the intimacy that develops from those meetings makes it both difficult and usually undesirable for one to cover ungodly behavior. In the properly run home church setting, the members have the overwhelming sense of family that enables them to share their failures and get the assistance they need to correct ungodly behavior.

The home church is not an extension of the local church, it is the local church. We need to get it through our heads that we don’t go to church. By that I simply mean that, though it might well be called the small group ministry of the local church, it is still a meeting of the body of Christ when it meets. In other words, we don’t go to church, we are the church! If Christians in America did a mass exodus out of the mega-structures they have built to honor themselves, and returned to the way the church worshipped for nearly all of its first four hundred years in existence, it would release billions of dollars on a national scale to help brothers and sisters worldwide, many of whom don’t enjoy one decent meal a day. The thought that huge denominations and mega-churches can better handle the needs of Christians in other countries is ludicrous. For every dollar the mega-church sends abroad it wastes a hundred. For some mega-churches that figure is likely in the thousands of dollars wasted for every one sent overseas.

When problems arise or decisions have to be made about the local region, the Elders meet and make those decisions. And, I believe it is critically important that all decisions of any significance in God’s church must be made by a unanimous vote of the Elders. The simple truth is that God’s Spirit will never disagree with Himself. Therefore, Elders who are filled with God’s Spirit will always agree about any issues dealing with the running of His church. Therefore, it goes without saying that any dissent in the making of a choice for the local church must be interpreted as one of two things: 1. The dissenting voice must belong to one with unconfessed sin in his life; or 2. The dissenting voice is the only one in the group of elders who has no unconfessed sin in his life. In I Corinthians 1:10 Paul said, “I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no divisions among you , but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.” The majority never rules in God’s economy. As a matter of biblical fact, the majority usually went astray, needing the godly man to get it back on course. Paul’s trip to Rome is an excellent example of that truth. The centurion in charge of delivering him to Caesar listened to the majority and nearly died along with the entire 275 other persons aboard the ship (Acts 27). Moses and the Israelites demonstrated over and again when the majority rules chaos and death are often the result.

When it comes to matters about bible doctrine, church organization, function, and discipline Elders must be unanimously in agreement. While all Christians are told to walk in the fullness of the Spirit continually, it is abundantly clear they do not do so. It is ludicrous, if not comical and irresponsible, to suggest that twenty people who do not meet the stringent requirements of the Elder would agree on anything of any significance. Literally thousands of married Christian men and women get divorced each year for their failure to apply this same simple principle in the home. God has appointed men to rule in the home, and He has appointed Elders to rule in the church (Gen. 3:16; I Tim. 5:17).

If the Elders meet the requirements as indicated in Timothy and Titus, they will be men who walk in the fullness of God’s Spirit, listening to His voice as He speaks to their hearts about matters of the kingdom. They will understand when there is disagreement about any of those matters, the one or ones in opposition may be the ones in tune with God’s Spirit, so until there is complete agreement, a decision cannot be made. The idea of one man rule in the church is entirely foreign to the teaching of scripture. There are no King Davids of the church who alone know what is best for its members. If dissension occurs often and in obvious violation of God’s word, it likely means an Elder or Elders have been selected to fill that task who don’t meet its demands.

That’s when I Timothy 5:19, 20 comes into play, “Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses. Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also will be fearful of sinning.” Contrary to what most preachers proclaim, God always holds leadership more accountable for their actions than the general congregation. The offering of a leader for sin in Israel under the Old Testament economy was different than the offering for the common people (see Lev. 4:22ff). James 3:1, a verse I quote often, indicates a teacher of the word will be held especially accountable for the accuracy of his teaching. This concept of orderliness and the hierarchy of authority permeates the word of God from Genesis to the Revelation. Elders who violate the sacred position to which they have been called are to be confronted immediately and at first quietly. If they repent and quickly resolve any short comings in their ability to lead, the matter is over. If they do not, they are to be rebuked in the presence of all and immediately relieved of their leadership responsibilities.

Depending on the severity of his actions, he may or may not ever be entitled to lead God’s flock again. I suggest there are some actions that disqualify one for life from taking this position of leadership in God’s church. I believe acts like adultery, homosexuality, murder, or sexual abuse of anyone, are the kinds of things that are so heinous they disqualify a person to take up a leadership position in His church. I have no biblical authority for such a conclusion. It is a gut feeling I have after decades of studying His word. Certainly, if it has been twenty or thirty years since a person indulged such activity, it is likely he has worked through it biblically and is no longer a prisoner to its trickery. That is why Elders should be persons who are mature both physically and spiritually.

Elders must be spiritually mature, physically aged men who have had a lifetime of dealing with life’s problems and have spent many years in an intense study of God’s word so they know how that word can be effectively applied to those problems. They must be men who can recognize false doctrine or teaching immediately and are willing to quickly expose the one teaching it. They must be unwavering in their intent to keep the bride of Christ pure, without spot or wrinkle. We see this analogy between the church’s relationship with Jesus and the wives relationship to her husband in Ephesians 5:25-27.

In America we have been deluded into thinking the majority should have its way. We have designed a rather magnificent document, our Constitution, that sets out the general guidelines for majority rule while, at the same time, protecting minority rights. It is called the system of checks and balances and separation or powers. It is a better system than the ones in countries run by kings and military presidents, because those countries are ruled by ungodly kings and military juntas. It is likely the best kind of system to assure government doesn’t violate the basic rights of its citizens. It has taken centuries for it to come to the point where it is about to prove such government is futile. The very ideals it holds so dear are about to bring it to its knees. Our tolerance for a diversity of religious thought is the evil that has bred hatred of true godliness in this country. Elders in God’s church know well the danger of false doctrine and religious thinking that is, even in the most trivial way, contrary to the revealed will of God.

When a local church is ruled by a contingency of men who meet the stringent requirements of elders, it adheres to every jot and tittle of God’s word. Its leaders set the example for the rest of the flock to follow. When one becomes ill in this church, calling for these Elders accomplishes much (James 5:13-17). When God’s Elders pray over a man who is infirmed and anoint him with oil, the Lord raises him up (James 5:15). When an unbeliever enters any one of this church’s meeting he is convicted by all, because the Holy Spirit is manifesting Himself powerfully through the teaching of the apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastor/teachers. This is the church where the elders rule well. They gently but firmly lead the flock in a way that causes an entire community to take notice of how its members love and care for one another.

This is the church as it functioned for nearly 400 years. I suggest until we return to that pattern, the Church in America will continue to stumble over itself, fight amongst itself, dishonor God, and just generally bring disrepute to the magnificent name of our Lord Jesus.