Four Dangerous Precedents

FOR twenty-five years I have been traveling among the churches. During

these years I have observed many encouraging things relative to the church. I

have also observed some very dangerous tendencies. In this article I want to

call attention to four dangerous precedents relative to the eldership.

No Elders

A few congregations have swung to the extreme of not believing in elders

at all. They say that the eldership passed away when the last inspired man

died. Such a position is so utterly foolish and absurd that it scarcely deserves

mention. Others, when pressed for their position, will say that we cannot have

elders, because we have no brethren who fill the divine requirements. That is

equally absurd and foolish With equal truth and force we could say that we

have no Christians, because we havenone who fill perfectly the divine requirements for a Christian! In New

Testament times it seems that it did not take many years for a congregation to

develop material suitable for elders. I see no reason why it should take longer

today.

Some have gotten the idea that a congregation is set in order by appointing

elders and deacons. No, the congregation should be set in order, and then it

is time for the appointment of elders and deacons. Paul wrote to Titus after

this order: ''For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order

the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed

thee." (Tit. 1:5.) You will note that setting things in order and appointing or

ordaining elders were not one and the same thing. A brother does not become

qualified for the eldership by being appointed, but he becomes qualified and

then is appointed. I expect we would not have too many elders if we would

appoint all who are qualified! I am sure that no congregation known to me

would have.

"The Best We Have"

And then other brethren have swung from the dangerous extreme of "no

elders" to another hurtful extreme that we must have elders even if all know

that there are no brethren in the congregation who even approximate the

divine requirements. I know not which is the more hurtful to the cause of

Christ. Of course we should have the best we have for elders, but they must

have the divine qualifications to a good degree.

God knew what he was about when he gave the qualifications. If these

traits are not to govern us when choosing elders, why did the Lord so

specifically give these qualifications? The cause of Christ will make much

more rapid progress with this kind of men at the head of the congregation. A

bishop must be blameless. He must not be under condemnation. He must be

a married man with believing children. I doubt very seriously whether a

married man with ''a child" fills this divine requirement. A child is not

children. Now. brethren, do not criticize me for saying this, but read it for yourself. He must be vigilant or watchful. He must be

sober and serious. He must be of good behaviour. He must be given to

hospitality. He must be apt to teach. To be apt to teach, he must know the

Scriptures. He must not be given to wine. He must be no striker. He must not

be greedy of filthy lucre. He must be a patient soul. He must not be a brawler.

He must not be covetous. He must be one who rules well his own house. His

children (not his child) must be in subjection with all gravity. You know if a

man cannot rule his own house, where his word is power, he could not rule

the house of God. He must not be a novice. A recent convert would lack

experience and knowledge. The eldership is too serious for a novice to take

hold of. A novice might be lifted up with pride and fall into the condemnation

of the devil. He must have a good report of them that are without. Without this

he would fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. He must not be self-

willed. He must be one who is not soon angry. He must be a lover of good

men. He must be just, holy, and temperate. He must be one who holds fast the

faithful word. It he has this qualification, he will be able by sound doctrine

both to exhort and convince the gainsayers. There are many vain and unruly

talkers whose mouths must be stopped. They subvert whole houses, teaching

things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake. It takes real elders to stop

their mouths.

Now, brethren, you know that I have not listed a qualification here but

what is listed by the Holy Spirit in 1 Tim. 3 and Tit. 1. Why not just go by this

when we are choosing elders? A man may be a good Christian and lack a few

of these qualifications, but he cannot be a qualified elder and lack one of

them. God knew what he was about. God knows what kind of men it takes to

guide a congregation of disciples. It will be a pleasure for all to live and work

under such elderships.

"Leaders"

In some congregations in the absence of elders we have what the brethren

are pleased to designate as "leaders." Now, 

of course, if there are no elders, someone must take the lead; but we are fast

developing a new set of "officers" in the church under the head of "leaders."

The only officers in the church known to the New Testament are elders and

deacons. If we cannot develop these officers within a few years, it is a sad

commentary on our religious status. Some of the best brethren known to me

are leaders in various congregations. What I am raising my voice against is the

tendency to substitute leaders permanently instead of developing elders and

deacons. If a man has the capacity to lead, but may be lacking in some of the

qualifications for an elder, there is no reason under the sun why he should not

use all of the capacities he has under the direction and in cooperation with

scripturally-qualified elders and deacons. And I have seen a few "self-

appointed leaders" who could not scripturally qualify for the eldership, but

were trying to usurp the prerogatives that belong exclusively to the eldership.

By doing this they may be discouraging the congregation in developing elders

and deacons. My brethren, such things ought not so to be.

"Preacher Controlled"

And here is the saddest condition of all. We have not a few preachers who

all but set aside the elders and deacons and run the congregations to suit

themselves. They may talk of "my elders" and "my deacons." And many times

there is more truth than poetry in these expressions! They are the preacher's

"elders" and "deacons' because they are not the Lord's. The preacher is a

servant of the church, and not the church the servant of the preacher.

Sometimes preachers take charge of the church when the church ought to take

charge of the preacher! It is a happy condition when preachers know their

place and keep it. and know their duty and do it. It is a happy condition when

elders are qualified and discharge their duties as they should.

I may call down the wrath of a few brethren on my head for some things

that I hare written: but. brethren. I started out tocall attention to four dangerous precedents which I have observed among the

churches. I have written the truth in the spirit of Christ.