Truth Magazine

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

“So when they had appointed elders in every church. . .” – Acts 14:23

One can hardly read about Paul’s first preaching tour in Asia Minor without being thrilled at the introduction and success of the gospel among the Gentiles of that region (Acts 13,14). H. Leo Boles estimates that Paul traveled “twelve hundred eight miles; this was a long journey for that time with the ancient modes of travel.” Boles adds, “Paul and Barnabas had traveled the twelve hundred eight miles and had established more than half a dozen churches within the two or three years that they were gone on this journey” (A Commentary On Acts by Leo Boles).

Not only were these churches established, at least three of them – Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch – had an eldership in place (Acts 14:21-23). All of this within about three years.

I am impressed with a number of things. The efforts and sacrifices of Paul and Barnabas to get the gospel to the lost. Their persecutions for the gospel’s sake. Their successes and failures in converting the lost. The reactions to their preaching – ranging from whole hearted acceptance to outright violence. Their being able to appoint elders in the churches on their return trip.

Now, with the introduction out of the way, let’s get to the real reason of this article. I am disturbed by the number of churches that are operating without an eldership. I am also concerned by the lack of concern among us about this condition. I do not believe that we are overstating the case when we say that there is a serious leadership crisis among the churches. There are churches, good sized churches, who have met for, not two or three, but twenty or thirty years or more without elders to lead them. Instead of getting better in recent years, the trend has worsened. I fear that in many areas elders are becoming an endangered species. If the trend continues, my grandchildren may be members of congregations for a lifetime without the guidance and oversight of an eldership. I have had older Christians to tell me that they have been Christians from their youth but have never served under an eldership. It is down right scary to one who has spent most of his preaching life warning against departures from the faith in church organization.

I do not have all the answers as to the why this situation exists in every case, nor do I know how to solve it in every case. If I did, I think I would write a book and sell it to many other brethren whom I know to be wrestling with the problem. I do not think some of the simplistic answers that I have heard lately will solve the problem. It is sometimes suggested that if men cannot be found who meet all the qualifications for elders (1 Tim. 3; Tit. 1), then the church ought to appoint those the nearest to qualified.

Others seem to want to put an arbitrary time limit on how long a church can go without elders. One preacher suggested in a gospel meeting that there is something badly wrong with a church that exists more than five years without appointing elders. Maybe so, but maybe not. If they have men qualified and will not appoint them, then there is something bad wrong. Congregations, like individuals, develop at different paces. To arbitrarily set a definite period of time for every Christian to become a teacher (cf. Heb. 5:12-14) or be considered badly wrong is foolishness. Some may be teachers, almost immediately, because they already know a lot about the Bible before they obeyed it. Some people just naturally develop knowledge and abilities faster than others. To find a brother who just about comes up out of the water ably preaching the gospel does not mean there is something wrong with another who must have more time before he can become a teacher. Similarly, churches vary in the time needed to develop an eldership. Some almost from the very beginning may have two or more men who are qualified. Others may not have such men for years. So, let’s not be too hard on churches simply because they have not appointed elders in “X” number of years. We need to look at other factors as well.

Antioch (of Pisidia), Lystra, and Iconium had men qualified and appointed in a short time. It can be done. Some have suggested that since these were appointed so soon after their conversion that maybe we are putting too much emphasis upon meeting every qualification of 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. It is assumed these men could not have had time to develop every thing on the list. Wait a minute. This assumes that we know how little these men knew; and that they did not already have many of the abilities and character traits when they were baptized. The Bible is silent on these matters.

However, it can be easily seen that these men would not have had to “start from scratch” in their path to qualification. Some of those converted in each place had been Jews. They would have already had a good knowledge of the Old Testament and possibly even the ability to teach it. If they had been devout Jews they would have already proven themselves to have most if not all of the moral traits necessary. They could have been ruling their houses well for years, as was customary among the Jews. They were of a people, who for generations had lived looking for the Messiah (Christ), having; learned from the prophets much of what he was to be. Now, they and their families learn the truth about Jesus’ being the Christ and obey him. It should not take one with such a background long to become grounded in the faith and be apt at teaching and defending it. No, I do not know that this is how these men became qualified so quickly. The Bible does not say. I do know they were qualified because they were appointed by the one who wrote the qualifications to Timothy and Titus. He did not give them one standard for appointing elders and use another for himself. Surely we can see from the above that it is not even unreasonable to think that these men could meet every qualification in such short time.

There are a number of factors contributing to so many churches being without elders other than they simply have not had time for men to develop the qualifications.

1. There are men who need to be elders who do not want to be. They meet every other qualification except they just do not desire the office (function). It is true that if one does not desire it, he does not qualify. These men need to be impressed with the importance of this work. Having been an elder, I know how hard it is to have and keep the desire, knowing that so much is expected of you. The weight of responsibility that one feels is awesome. Then there are times, as a famous comedian says, you “don’t get no respect.” No matter what decisions elders make or what advice they give they know they will have to face critics over it. However, the work done by elders is so crucial to God’s plan for the church that qualified men must stand up and accept the work in spite of the problems associated with it.

2. There are men who want to be elders who do not need to be. These either want to be appointed to the eldership or want to do the work of elders without being appointed. Some think of “desiring the office” in a political sense, so they virtually announce that they are running for office. These men keep good men from accepting the office, because they know that they will constantly have to deal with these carnally ambitious men who resent the fact that they were “defeated” and are constantly “campaigning” in preparation for another run at the office.

Then there are others who know that they could never be elders “officially,” but who want to be elders nominally. They want to be leaders, doing the same work that belongs only to elders, even though they admit they are not qualified for the eldership. These are found among preachers and other members of congregations. So, they find a way to block the appointment of good men as elders because they would diminish their own leadership role. They have a long list of nit picking reasons why this church is not ready for elders.

3. There is the failure to fully recognize that the Lord’s kingdom is not of the world (cf. John 18:36). The governments of most institutions in the western world are democratic. This seems to work best in nations and other institutions, so why not in the church? So, being influenced by the world, brethren are more comfortable with some system where all have equal say – so they like majority rule business meetings better than submitting to the rule of an eldership. Even where there is an eldership, they look at it as being their representatives who can only reflect the will of “those who (s)elected them.” Elders are warned not to “lord it over” the church or be abusive in their rule (1 Pet. 5:1-5), but they have been made overseers by the Holy Spirit (Acts 20:28) and must rule according to God’s will rather than the will of the church. I am firmly convinced that the reason some churches are without elders is the thinking that some form of democratic rule is the better course.

Granted that, in the absence of elders, things must get done and the Bible is silent as to how the churches reached decisions without elders. We do know they got along somehow before elders were appointed. A general business meeting of the men has, over the years, proven to be expedient without violating any biblical principle. If attitudes are good, it pretty well gets things done that must be done. Until someone comes up with some better expedient, in the absence of elders, brethren do well to use it. Brethren should participate and help each other come to a consensus as to how to best scripturally and peacefully facilitate the Lord’s work. However, it should be considered just an expedient – and a temporary one at that! It is not a substitute for elders!

The longer a church delays qualifying and appointing elders, the greater the danger becomes that what should be the exception (no elders) becomes the norm – the longer a mere expedient becomes regarded as the established and preferred order and divinely authorized elders be considered inexpedient. The danger of other disorders arising and becoming ingrained in a congregation is also great. Decisions are often the result of political manuevering to get things passed in business meetings where a teenage novice may have equal voice with a brother of years experience – rather than the result of the careful investigation and deliberation of men who meet God’s standard for elders. Too, mere “leaders” become a substitute for elders. Younger men of ability and knowledge, but without the experience and wisdom of elders, are looked to more and more to manage the work program of the church. Sometimes it falls upon a preacher, who is not an elder, to run the affairs of the congregation. These often come to relish the leadership role forced upon them by default and take more and more upon themselves to act and speak for the church – and are reluctant to surrender that role even after elders are appointed. “All the saints . . . with the bishops and deacons” (Phil. 1:1), can easily become “all the saints . . . with the leaders and committees. “

We need to encourage more and more men (and their families) to work toward the eldership as a goal. Churches need to do more to train men, not only to preach, teach, lead in public worship, but to do the work of elders. All of us need to desire that the church have elders and be willing to submit ourselves to them with due honor so that they may do their work with joy (Heb. 13:17). This might encourage more qualified men to accept the responsibility. Those who are elders need to give more attention to “ruling well,” in being examples worthy to be followed, watching for souls, and not being lords over God’s heritage (1 Tim. 3:5; 1 Pet. 5:2-5). This might help keep many brethren from thinking that churches get along better without elders.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 16, pp. 484-486
August 20, 1987

By Jamie Sloan

You are on the right road, and whatever you do don’t let anybody persuade you that you can successfully combat error by fellowshipping it and going along with it. I have tried. I believed at the start that was the only way to do it. I’ve never held membership in a congregation that uses instrumental music. I have, however, accepted invitations to preach without distinctions between churches that used it and churches that didn’t. I’ve gone along with their papers and magazines and things of that sort. During all these years I have taught the truth as the New Testament teaches it to every young preacher who has passed through the College of the Bible. Yet, in the last few years I have become increasingly alarmed at a spirit which can be seen growing among us. It manifests itself in a number of ways. It looks upon debates and confrontations with teachers of error as ignorant and low-class. It views an unyielding doctrinal stance as somehow legalistic and unloving. “Standing for the truth” and “defending the faith” are being eased out of the vocabulary. A spirit of compromise and tolerance for error are cleverly pawned off as love and concern for those with whom we disagree. The implied choices are twain: co-existence with false doctrines (thus destroying identity), or else you are a fanatical hobbyist. To help offset such a wrong and foolish notion, I want to share with you a quotation which came across my desk a number of years ago. The words were written by J.W. McGarvey to J.P. Sewell in 1902. When the division came which resulted in the Christian Church, McGarvey compromised his convictions and fellowshipped the digressives while Sewell did not. Here was McGarvey’s estimate of the two courses:

You are on the right road, and whatever you do don’t let anybody persuade you that you can successfully combat error by fellowshipping it and going along with it. I have tried. I believed at the start that was the only way to do it. I’ve never held membership in a congregation that uses instrumental music. I have, however, accepted invitations to preach without distinctions between churches that used it and churches that didn’t. I’ve gone along with their papers and magazines and things of that sort. During all these years I have taught the truth as the New Testament teaches it to every yong preacher who has passed through the College of the Bible. Yet, I do not know of more than six of those men who are preaching the truth today. It won’t work.

I would hasten to point out that McGarvey was quite different from the compromising souls of today. He speaks with remorse and regret – they have not seen the error of their way. He had convictions which he had compromised – they see such doctrinal distinctions as “much ado about nothing.” He would have liked to have gone back and chosen the other road – they work for the day when all staunch defenders of the faith are no more than a historical curiosity. However, that day has not come yet, and there is still a remnant set for the defense of the Gospel of Christ. We must work to teach and exhort our brethren to stand against all innovations and apostasies. New issues must be studied and met with strong hearts dedicated to preserving the purity and identity of the Lord’s church. Those who were previously “soft on error” can be influenced by word and example to greater strength. McGarvey’s words are both sad and repulsive. If he saw the folly in the course he had chosen, why did he not rectify it? Another story regarding McGarvey comes to us telling of his declining days when the instrument was introduced into the Broadway church in Lexington, Kentucky where he worshiped. As a majority vote was taken a teenage girl was seen raising her hand to vote for the organ, cancelling out the vote of McGarvey against the instrument. How tragically sad! It must not happen to us. We must not be intimidated by the peddlers of division into cringing and cowardly silence. We must say with them of old, “They shall not pass.”

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 16, p. 486
August 20, 1987

By Frank Jamerson

The New Testament speaks of the church in both the universal and the local senses. In the universal sense, there is one body and it is composed of all the saved of all the world (Eph. 1:22,23; Acts 2:47). In the local sense, a church is composed of Christians who agree to worship and work together, and in this sense there are many churches (Rom. 16:16).

The two unscriptural concepts that we want to study involve how we become members of the universal and the local church. The “language of Ashdod” that is too prominent today indicates that many brethren do not have a clear understanding of the distinctions between these two uses of the word “church.”

First, some talk about “joining the church” when they are speaking about their baptism into Christ. This indicates a lack of understanding about how we become a part of the body of Christ. We do not “join” the universal church. The Bible says, “And the Lord added to the church day by day those who were being saved” (Acts 2:47). The one who saves us, adds us! When does He add us? The context in Acts 2 shows that those who “repented and were baptized for the remission of their sins” were saved (Acts 2:38,41). Paul told the Corinthians, “For by one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free; and were all made to drink of one Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:13). The penitent believer is baptized “into one body,” or “into Christ” (Gal. 3:27) in the sense that God forgives his sins and saves him because of his obedience to his commands. That does not make one a member of a local church, but of the universal church.

The second unscriptural concept that we want to notice is the idea that baptism automatically makes one a member of a local church. Just as we do not join the universal church, we are not baptized into a local church.

The Ethopian eunuch was baptized by Philip, and “went on his way rejoicing” because he was saved (Acts 8:38,39), but he was not a member of any local church at that time. Saul of Tarsus had been baptized into Christ, and accepted by brethren in Damascus, but when he went to Jerusalem and “assayed to join himself to the disciples” there, he was not automatically accepted (Acts 9:26). After Barnabas “took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus,” they agreed to accept him (Acts 9:27). The next verse says he “was with them” (v. 28). He did not just “join up,” he “joined in”! But there had to be the desire to “belong” on his part, and the willingness to “accept” on their part. When Apollos wanted to go from Ephesus to Achaia, brethren in Ephesus wrote a letter “to the disciples to receive him” (Acts 18:27). What the word of mouth accomplished for Saul, the written word accomplished for Apollos! Before there can be local church membership, there must be a desire to belong and an acceptance on the part of others.

How is this desire and agreement expressed? The Bible does not give the details about this, therefore we must use our judgment in applying these principles. There are three ways that I know that have been used. (1) When a person moves to an area, or is baptized into Christ, and begins worshiping with a congregation, his participation is accepted by the church and understood by him as indicating desire to belong and acceptance, and no word is spoken. (The danger of this method is that one party or the other may misunderstand the intentions of the other. Simply worshiping with a group does not necessarily indicate a desire to belong, nor a willingness to accept.) (2) A person goes forward and states his desire to the preacher, or expresses it to the elders and a public announcement is made of this person’s desire to “identify” or join this group. Unless there is some reason to question the person’s faithfulness, he is accepted by the congregation as a member. (3) When a person expresses a desire to be a part of the church, the elders meet with him, or her, and discuss their mutual responsibilities. After such discussion an announcement is made that this person is a part of the congregation. (Elders have a special responsibility toward members of the flock and such a meeting serves to let the prospective member know what we are doing, as well as what we do not practice, and find out what they have done in other places and are willing to do here. This is the approach that the elders here use.)

Other methods may be just as good in fulfilling the two requirements for local church membership, but we need to keep clearly in our minds that we are baptized “into Christ” (this is not “joining a local church”), and we join a local church (we were not baptized into it).

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 16, p. 495
August 20, 1987

By Ron Halbrook

Sodomy or homosexuality has been in the news often during recent years. There has been a concerted effort to remove all stigma from this practice. Homosexuals seek social acceptance, political power, and even religious approval. Then came the AIDS scare, followed by a publicity campaign aimed at making sodomy safe. Is it really safe and sane, or is it sinful, shameful, and destructive?

In Genesis 19, Lot received two male guests into his home. “The men of Sodom compassed the house round, both old and young,” demanding to take Lot’s visitors for homosexual purposes. In desperation, Lot offered his own daughters to these men who were insane with lust, but they continued to demand instead the men inside. The visitors were actually angels or messengers from God, and they struck the men of Sodom blind; These poor souls were so inflamed with lust that still they tried to take Lot’s visitors. The angels announced to Lot the impending destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

“Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven.” Lot barely escaped with his daughters. In Jude 7 we learn that God destroyed Sodom for homosexuality in order that it might remain an example all through history, “suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” The anger of God against this perversion pursues the sinner not only in this world but even in the next! Sodomy is not safe and sane, and we can never make it so. The story of Sodom stands to remind us that homosexuality is self-destructive and destroys respect for our fellow man.

Romans 1 teaches that men fell into such sins when they rejected the true knowledge of God from their lives.

For this cause God gave them up to vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due (Rom. 1:26-27).

The context of this passage confirms what we see happening all around us. Homosexuality is associated with the grossest sins and perversions, destroying respect for God, for others, and for self. To live and die in such sins is to judge ourselves unworthy of everlasting life and to condemn ourselves to an eternity in hell (Gal. 5:19-21).

The good news in Christ is that God is ready to forgive the sin of sodomy as well as all other sins! He sent His Son into the world to die in order that we might have eternal life (Jn. 3:16). 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 teaches that some of the early Christians had been “effeminate” and “abusers of themselves with mankind,” which refer to the sins of homosexuality.

And such were some of you: but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and by the Spirit of our God (1 Cor. 6:11).

They were washed, sanctified, and justified by believing the gospel of Christ. This true faith caused them to repent of all their past sins, to confess Christ as God’s Son, and to be immersed in water for the remission of their sins through the blood of Christ (Acts 2:38).

We can never make sodomy or any other sin safe and sane! A slogan widely used in the current anti-drug campaign says, “Just say No! ” Rather than trying to make sin safe, we need to “Just say No!” to sin and say yes to God. Through the power of the gospel of Christ, He will save us from all sins.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 16, pp. 483, 503
August 20, 1987