Truth Magazine

By Lewis Willis

Let me share a thought with you which someone here shared with me. (I wish I could remember who, so I could give him the credit.) Stop and think of all the things you have in this life: salvation, the church, family, health, house, food, clothing, etc. Now, imagine that tomorrow you lost every single one of those things. What an unspeakable loss that would be! But, to your surprise, the next day you suddenly got back all that you had lost. Would you be exceedingly thankful that you had all of those things again? Surely you would. But, is it necessary to lose and regain them, before we are thankful for them? Should we not be thankful already just because we are so richly blessed?

Next Thursday is the day set aside in our great country as a national day of Thanksgiving. For Christians, it should be very easy to find reasons for being thankful. We have so much of this world’s goods to enjoy, and we have such a for-tune of spiritual blessings (Eph. 1:3). How could we be anything but thankful? We certainly cannot limit our thanksgiving to one day a year! It is impossible to adequately express to God our thanks for the immeasurable blessings he hasgiven to us. We often say to our families and friends who give us gifts, “Saying `thank You’ is just not enough!” Such is certainly true regarding God’s gifts to us.

I often wonder if our prayers to God do not consist too much in asking him to give us the things we want. Now, being able to ask things of God is one of the blessings he grants to his children (Matt. 7:7; 1 Jn. 3:22). It is absolutely right and proper that Christians request his blessings for their lives. But, a “Give me this; give me that” prayer practice can become very selfish. We must balance our prayers with praise, supplications, intercessions and giving of thanks (Matt. 6:9; 1 Tim. 2:1).

Also, it is not unusual to hear people, even Christians, who blame God for all of their troubles.Their attitude seems to be, “I prayed and look what he did to me, or, look what he let happen to me.” We must be careful that we not charge God foolishly. The Patriarch Job, who suffered through so many problems, “sinned not, nor charged God foolishly” (Job 1:22). What does God do for us  what kind of gifts does he give? James said, “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, withwhom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning” (1:17). “Good” and “perfect” gifts come from God. Let us never charge that he has given to us that which brings us pain and heartache. Blame the Devil for that! Until he was al-lowed into the lives of Adam and Eve, none of these bad things happened. Since then, the world is filled with his wickedness, and its attendant grief.

Fortunately, today our nation is at peace, though we do have troops stationed in dangerous places around the world. Economic hard times have beset us for several years and many wonder what the future holds. American industry continues to decline and many are losing their jobs and security. An entire nation feels their hurt, and is helping. At the same time, more Americans are working than at any time in history. Our standard of living is better than most of the people in the world. In fact, it is almost equal to that found any-where. It is certainly appropriate that we be thankful for our prosperity.

During the past year, many families have been touched with serious health problems. Some still struggle with these illnesses. Some families have had to deal with death, while others have known the joy of babies arriving. Given the disasters which have afflicted parts of our nation, and other countries, we can be thankful that things have gone as well for us as they have.

Remember, our prayers should not be used only “In the event of an emergency.” Do you find yourself negligent in praying, except when you have some problem, which you are unable to solve? Are you too busy, or too preoccupied with other things, to find a quiet time for prayer? The Lord taught us that we should always pray (Lk. 18:1). Paul taught us to “pray without ceasing” (1 Thess. 5:17). Let us never hesitate to pray in times of trouble, but let us not forget to also pray in times of peace and plenty!

The Bible teaches us the importance of prayers of thanksgiving to God for the bounty he has bestowed upon us:

Psa. 50:14: “Offer unto God thanksgiving; and pay thy vows unto the most High.”

Psa. 105:1: “0 give thanks unto the Lord; call upon his name: make known his deeds among the people.”

Psa. 106:1: “Praise ye the Lord. 0 give thanks unto the Lord; for he is good: for his mercy endureth forever.”

Col. 3:15: “And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful.”

1 Thess. 5:18: “In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you.”

Heb. 13:15: “By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.”

Eph. 5:20: “Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Col. 3:17: “And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.”

1 Cor. 15:57: “But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

2 Cor. 9:15: “Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.”

When we look at the Word of God, our duty is rather evident, isn’t it? In this case, we know we have received many blessings for which we should be thankful. It is hoped that God’s people will be thankful, not only on Thanksgiving Day, but every day!

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII, No. 22, p. 1
November 17, 1994

By Vance E. Trefethen

The Problem Grows: When elders privately decide all matters of collective and individual judgment for others (2A, 6 19), the plane has landed in Boston. We’re told elders may decide whether a member needs circumcision (1st Debate, 2N, 67). If the saint disagrees, they cite Hebrews 13:17 and decide for him (2 A, 6 19). Folks where does it stop? Compared to involuntary genital surgery, deciding what house you may buy is trivial. But there is no Scripture to stop such things once you accept the Affirmative position.

An interesting Debate: Ordinarily, it takes two parties to have a debate. But not always: ” . . . Hebrews 13:17… elders … `rule’ [Gk. hegeomai, VET] over the church and elders are specifically charged with this duty. They are the only scripturally qualified men so charged” (TR, IA, 68). BUT: “I have never taught hegeomai to be elders-only” (TR, 2A, 6 19).

“This debate is not about… excluding the congregation from the decision-making process” (TR, IA, 63).

BUT: “elders . . . make private decisions on behalf of the congregation . .. before and without calling together the whole congregation” (TR, 2A, 6 1).

“Bishop, overseer (episkopos) . . . head or overseer of any Christian church” (TR, IA, 66).

BUT: “I did not suggest that elders are heads of the church” (TR, 2A, 6 16).

. . overseers … make decisions (after discussions)” (TR, 2A, 6 16, emp. added).

BUT: “Before and without calling together the whole congregation” (proposition).

The Debate is About: “`Head’ and `lord’ . . . are granted to fathers and forbidden to elders” (VT, 1 N, 6 14). “Vance `forbids to elders’ what God authorizes” (TR, 2A, 6 16). I deny headship and lordship, but Tom says I’m wrong. He uses “head” and “overseer” interchangeably (1 A, 66), and I say that’s wrong. This debate is about headship and lordship for elders.

Authority: The keys to understanding authority are context and scope.

Context: Fathers have headship and lordship authority in the family, yet this was applied out of context to elders (2A, 6 16). Governments have authority to make laws and bear the sword, but this was applied out of context to elders (2A, 6 16). Slave-owners and military officers also have decision-making authority (1 Pet. 2:18; Lk. 7:8). I wait in fear for these to be used as models for elders. Whatever you believe about elders’ authority, you must get it from a passage about elders! Otherwise, elders will be enforcing capital punishment, spanking all the kids, treating people like slaves, and ordering military exercises. Please, let’s observe context.

Scope: Except for Jesus, all authority is limited. Evangelists have “authority” (Tit. 2:15), but don’t decide things for the church. Governments have authority, but exceed it if they persecute Christians. Fathers have headship and lordship authority in the family, but exceed it if they order the wife not to go to church. Are we denying the authority of evangelists, governments, or fathers when we say their authority is limited? Tom removed all limits for elders by affirming that they privately decide collective and individual judgments for everyone (2A, 6 19). I’m tired of being accused of saying elders have “no authority” when I simply argue their authority is limited.

Word Study: (1) Presbuteros. No affirmative response to my analysis of Vine’s definition.

(2) Episkopos (overseer). No affirmative response to Vine’s definition of oversight. No response to the fact that it refers to non-elders in some passages (and therefore gives non-elders private decision-making power, if that’s what it infers). No response to the circular reasoning problem. No response to the problem of all saints privately deciding things in Hebrews 12:14-15 if episkopeo necessarily infers decision-making. And, if episkopeo doesn’t necessarily infer private decision-making, the proposition is lost.

(3) Pastor. No response to Ephesians 4 defining pastors’ work as “faith,” not judgment.

(4) Feed. “Spiritual” and “judgmental” work are two different things (TR, 2A,19). Since “feed” involves “spiritual functions” (TR, 2A, 111), not collective judgment, “feed” is out of the debate.

(5) Appoint (kathistemi). No affirmative response. We agree this applies to elders. It also applies to some non-elders (Acts 6:3; 2 Pet. 1:8). This proves nothing about private decision-making.

(6) Rule (proistemi). (1) No affirmative explanation of the words Vine used to define proistemi: “care and diligence,” “attend to,” “lead,” and “maintain.” He won’t quote them, but his scholar said them. (2) No lexicon was given to show proistemi necessarily infers private decision-making. (3) No response to explain Titus 3:14 if proistemi infers private decision-making.

“Silent as the tomb” on 1 Timothy 2:11-12. The perception of silence is explained by Acts 7:57. The word for vote (cheirotoneo) isn’t in this passage, but we agree it means “general approbation” (2 Cor. 8:19), which is what I advocate, and which isn’t private decision-making. No affirmative response on 1 Timothy 2 saying nothing about decisions without an assembly.

Hegeomai (leaders, chief men) in Hebrews 13:7,17. No affirmative reply to the “word of God,” “imitate their faith” and “strange teachings” referring to faith, not judgment. No response to “obey” requiring persuasion and the presence of the multitude. No explanation of Judas and Silas, two non-elder, non-apostle “chief men.” We now agree that “those who speak the word” are hegeomai (2A, 6 15), so any “decision-making” goes to non-elders as well as elders. Are you ready for any teacher to decide things privately for the church?

Acts 4:34-37. “And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one (of them) claimed that anything belonging to him was his own; but all things were common property to them . . . for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales, and lay them at the apostles’ feet; and they would be distributed to each, as any had need” (Acts 4:32-35). In the NT, the congregation came to one heart and soul about the action before it happened. Affirmative wants it “before and without” the congregation. There are no elders or men’s business meetings in this text. Acts 4 denies the proposition.

Acts 6:1-6. “In Acts 6, before and without calling the congregation together, the apostles . . . decided to stop serving tables . . . decided on seven men” (TR, 2A, 63, emp. added). “And the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them” (Acts 6:2). Choose this day .. .

Acts 9:26-28. (1) “Them” of v. 28 refers to its antecedent, the apostles, just as “they” of Acts 2:1 refers to the apostles of 1:26. Verse 29 shows the fellowship was in preaching with the apostles. (2) Can 12 non-elders in a church of over 5,000 privately decide matters of fellow-ship for a church today? I challenge Tom to affirm they can, if that’s what this passage teaches.

Acts 11:27-30. (1) Adding “expediently” and “inexpediently” into Thayer is not acceptable. If a lexicon won’t support a position, don’t quote it. (2) “Jesus is overseer, elders are overseers and it means the same in both cases” (TR, 1st debate, 3N, 64). Please tell what matters of expediency Jesus is “overseeing” (deciding?) in the Kingdom today and we’ll use that as our guide for elders. (3) Give a Scripture in Acts 11 showing a collective judgment made without the congregation, who made it, what the specific decision was, and who was invited or excluded.

Acts 13:1-3. (1) Commands from the Holy Spirit are matters of faith, not judgment. Acts 13 has no bearing on the proposition. (2) It’s interesting that there were no elders or men’s business meetings here. I challenge Tom to affirm that five non-elders in a church of 5,000 members can decide things without consulting the elders or calling a men’s business meeting.

Acts 15:6; 16:4; 21:25. (1) This is about the plan of salvation for Gentiles, not matters of judgment. (2) The multitude was present (15:12). (3) I challenge Tom to state whether elders today may “decide” what people must do to be saved, write a letter with their plan, send it to other churches, and tell those churches to obey their decision.

Galatians 2:2. What “decisions” were made in this passage? Paul “privately” discussed “the gospel,” which is not a “congregational judgment.” Galatians 2:2 has nothing to do with this debate.

Acts 21:15-26. (1) “Without calling together the congregation” (TR). “The assembly must needs come together” (Acts 21:22). Choose this day . . . (2) I don’t object to private meetings to “discuss how the church might be affected” (2A, 68). That’s not what we’re debating. (3) Nothing was decided about congregational action. The whole church didn’t shave or take vows. These elders met with a saint about individual action, which has no bearing on the proposition.

“Private (not secret).” “Secret” is one of the definitions of “private,” and “private” is a synonym for “secret” (Webster Collegiate Dictionary 5th ed., 780, 898).

“Vance says they sinned.” Be careful about ascribing statements to others that they didn’t make. Before attributing something, be sure you can cite the reference where it was said.

Answers to Clarified 1A Questions. (1) Yes, as do slave-owners and military officers. (2) Not collective judgments without the multitude. Yes, for specific acts of leadership in matters of faith (e.g.; deciding to rebuke a sinner; rejecting unscriptural Bible class material).

Answers to 2A Questions. (1) No, they didn’t choose 7 men “without” an assembly (Acts 6:2), and no, they didn’t sin. (2) Jesus decides that ultimately in the universal church. Local churches determine specific cases by following 1 Timothy 5:19-20. (3) and (4) Fellowship isn’t in the proposition, isn’t on p. 109 of my book, and I will not debate it. (5) Yes, provided the congregation has agreed on this method of handling emergencies. Then, the action follows a decision assembly and isn’t “before and with-out.” Be careful with emergencies, or I’ll ask about a flood leaving 100 orphans homeless in the rain near a warm dry church building.

Questions for Tom. (1) May a 13-year-old boy who was baptized yesterday attend a men’s business meeting? May he participate? (2) Can any non-elders (in a church with elders) decide any collective judgments without the elders? (3) In a large church with 14 elders, could 3 elders (without the other 11) privately decide matters of congregational judgment? (4) Did any NT church have a men’s business meeting? Give the church and the Scripture. (5) Are elders or men’s business meetings authorized to “vote” among themselves in making decisions for the church? Is a business meetings authorized to “vote” among them-selves in making decisions for the church? In a business meeting with 100 men, 51 favor something, 49 oppose. Was it scriptural to take a survey to find out those numbers? Is the matter settled after this survey (vote)?

Summary: Please join me in rejecting the proposition because:

1. It confuses congregational action with individual action.

2. It gives headship and lordship to elders and uses the word “authority” out of context.

3. It confuses the direct operation of the Holy Spirit, the plan of salvation for the Gentiles, and “the gospel” for matters of congregational judgment.

4. It alters or ignores the lexical definitions of words used to describe the work of elders.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII, No. 22, p. 16-19
November 17, 1994

By Tom Roberts

My first affirmative showed that the definitions of scriptural terms (bishops, elders, etc.) permitted elders to “exercise the oversight” (1 Pet. 5:3), thereby empowering them to make private decisions on behalf of the congregation. Now we will prove in a Scripture study that elders actually did make decisions “before and without” calling together the whole congregation.

Arguments

1. Acts 4:34-37. From the beginning, decisions were made privately (not secretly, as Vance charges): this is not “new” doctrine. Disciples brought gifts to the apostles “and they distributed to each as anyone had need.” This “apostolic example” showed male leadership making private decisions about who the needy were, how much each received and how long they were to receive it, without congregational meetings. Vance says they sinned!

2. Acts 6:1-6. Vance labels all private decisions by males as “lording it over” (Ibid. 15-16; Matt. 20:25-27). The disciples had been arguing about who was “greatest” in the kingdom. “Overlording,” not decision-making, was

c.sinful and Jesus rebuked them. The apostles made decisions later and were not guilty of abusing authority (1 Cor. 7:6,25,40; 2 Cor. 1:23-2:1) like Diotrephes (3 John 9). In Acts 6, before and without calling the congregation together, the apostles privately (not secretly) decided to stop serving tables, and privately (not secretly) decided on seven men (both judgment matters). This is the “tradition of the apostles” (2 Thess. 2:15) which authorizes private decision-making. Vance says they sinned!

3. Acts 9:26-28. The apostles sat in private judgment on behalf of the church at Jerusalem concerning Paul’s membership, making a private decision to receive a brother without the whole church, including the women, being present. Vance says they sinned!

4. Acts 11:27-30. The elders acted on behalf of the needy churches as they received the benevolent funds to relieve the needy. Inherent in “oversight” is the ability to “see over” a work (Bishop: “An overseer, a man charged with the duty of seeing that things to be done by others are done rightly,” Thayer, 243). (Note: Judgments may be done “rightly” [expediently] or “wrongly” [inexpediently] without sin being charged.) Oversight is not innately overbearing but can be benevolent. Authorized private meetings are not meetings of individuals when they act as an agency for the local church. Elders acted as authorized agents for the church, being duly appointed by the Holy Spirit and the local church for this very purpose. Vance says they sinned!

5. Acts 13:1-3. Prophets and teachers were “in the church” but were not “the church.” Yet these men privately, before and without calling the entire congregation together, and without the women, fasted, prayed and laid hands on Barnabas and Saul and sent them away. Their private functions as males were directly ordered by the Holy Spirit and clearly shows that males may act on behalf of the congregation, as do elders. Vance says they sinned!

6. Acts 15:1-31; Gal. 2:1-10. Paul, Barnabas, Titus and the apostles and elders at Jerusalem made private (not secret) decisions on behalf of the church concerning the Gentiles (Gal. 2:2; Acts 15:6). Vance admits it to be judgmental since he wants to make it congregational, but prohibits all private meetings where decisions are made. The whole church enjoyed the benefits of the private meetings and were included in sending the letter to Antioch. It is poor exegesis to deny private meetings on behalf of, before and without calling the congregation together. It is specifically stated that, even when the congregation was included (as in ch. 15), the “decrees” (letters) “were determined by the apostles and elders at Jerusalem” (16:4). James also confirmed this (Acts 21:25) by stating “. . . we have written and decided . . .” Private (not secret) decision-making by authorized men was a New Testament practice. Vance says they sinned!

7. Acts 21:15-26. Even after Acts 15, concerning Gen-tiles in the church, Paul’s presence in Jerusalem threatened to disturb the church. He therefore “went in” (v. 18), a private (not secret) meeting with “James and all the elders” to discuss how the church would be affected, for “the assembly must certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come” (v. 20, 22). The elders “took heed” and “watched” (Acts 20:28, 31) on behalf of “the assembly,” being concerned for the unity and peace of the church. In this eldership capacity, they “assembled privately to make decisions in matters of judgment for the local church before and without calling together the whole congregation” and advised Paul what to do so that “all may know” (v. 24). This was not “individual action” (Ibid., 97). The elders’ advice was binding on Paul as a judgment (v. 23) as they represented and shepherded the flock through a perilous time. Vance says they sinned! Remember Miriam who was not afraid to speak against ordained authority (Num. 12:1-8).

Response to Negative: The Problem: Strong spiritual work by elders does not conflict with judgment decisions by the same men. It is not either/or, but both. An abuse (the Boston Movement) does not nullify either the spiritual or judgmental work of elders.

Definitions: Vance challenged my definition of “to assemble” as an eldership. But Acts 15:2; 20:17; and 21:17 show elders meeting as an eldership and not as individuals. Such men represent the church as authorized by appointment and function and this sustains the definition.

Feed: Ezekiel 34:2-3 describes a shepherd’s work but even spiritual functions require judgments (who, what, when, where and how). Can elders frame a letter to a weak member, decide the need for discipline or its form, or plan a class without calling a congregational meeting? It is absurd to appoint shepherds and restrict them from shepherding!

What the debate is not about: He needs to learn the difference between the “decision-making process” (receiving input, advice, info), which includes the whole church, and “decision making” which is a part of eldership oversight. Definitions and Scripture study confirm it.

What the debate is about: Vance’s book is at the heart of this debate. (1) He affirms a pattern that accuses his brethren of sin, (2) states that he will no longer participate in the practice and, (3) will encourage others to give it up (Ibid., 109), thus causing discord.

Word Study: Vance accused me of dishonesty by willfully omitting part of Vine’s definition on “rule.” He knows that complete citations of Vine, Thayer, etc. are impossible. No deliberate omission occurred and he ought to repent of the suggestion. He has not dealt with the citations given, much less with the entire works. Vine, etc. are available for our readers and I rely on them to check our use. Vance confuses etymology with definitions and ignores contextual usage.

His use of word studies is peculiar, making much over episkopeo (oversight) but applying it to hegeomai (chief men). Influence of “those who speak the word” is considerable, but they are nowhere told to “oversee” as elders do (1 Pet. 5:3). Can we agree that Hebrews 13:7, 17 includes elders, to whom we are to “submit” and “obey”? Qualified, appointed men (Tit. 1; 1 Tim. 3; Acts 14:23) are bishops over the church and not (unappointed) “chief men.” “Unappointed men” are often self-appointed men who want to rule. Vance’s use of “chief men” smacks of evangelistic oversight. Whose reasoning is circular?

Fathers/Elders: I did not suggest that elders are heads of the church. But Vance ignored the obvious: fathers/ husbands, even as head of a house, are not dictatorial when making decisions (after discussion); God demands it by scriptural definition (Eph. 5:22-23; 6:1). Neither are over-seers dictatorial when they make decisions (after discussions); God demands it by scriptural definition (l Pet. 5:3; et al). Vance “forbids to elders” what God authorizes. If Christians are to “be subject to the higher powers” which are “ordained of God” (Rom. 13:1-2), would this include ordained elders (Acts 14:23) who oversee rightly? Remember Miriam!

Woman’s subjection, 1 Tim. 2:11-12: Participation in classes, etc. is not the same as voting. Vance is silent as the tomb on this issue for it is deadly. Giving women the vote to decide matters of judgment effectively destroys woman’s “subjection.” A vote is total equality and Vance advocates women voting in church assemblies. It is impossible for women to be in subjection while having a vote equal to that of men. Vance demands it; the Bible forbids it.

His Answers: (1) He didn’t answer, so I’ll rephrase. “Do parents, husbands and magistrates have the right to make decisions relating to their province (Eph. 6:4:1-4; 5:22-23; Rom. 13:1-2)?” (2) He didn’t answer, again. He has a dislike for people in authority making decisions. Fathers/parents make decisions relating to their headship; civil authorities make decisions relating to their province; bishops make decisions relating to their oversight. Other-wise, words have no meaning. (3) If elders sin in decisions for the church involving judgment, then the Jerusalem elders sinned (Acts 15; Gal. 2; Acts 21, etc.). (4) Yes, the women in Vance’s proposition sin when they vote because they do exercise “authority over a man.” A majority of women overrule minority men in voting and there is no “general approbation” in the ballot box. (5) By your answer, you agree that your elders are wrong and should do differently. But if an eldership refuses to change to your position after studying, can you continue being in subjection to them? Either you must charge them with sin and ask them to step down or be inconsistent and accept their decisions even when you think they sin. My friend, you are on the horns of a dilemma.

Answers to his questions: (1) I have shown that “to oversee” and “rule” al-low private decision-making by elders and apostles. (2) No, what you describe is dictatorial. Wise elders ask for ad-vice, etc., so that the final decision, which is the elders’, reflects counsel (Prov. 11:14). (3) I have never taught hegeomai to be elders-only. It may include apostles. Can it include elders at all? (4) Obeying the hegeomai of Hebrews 13 could apply both to individuals and collectives; include matters of faith and judgment. Why is it so intolerable to you to apply it to elders and matters of judgment? (5) The kings of the Gentiles (Matt. 20:25; Lk. 22:26) lorded it over, not because of place (private decisions), but through an abuse of function (legitimate authority, Rom. 13:1 f). Jesus condemned overlording, but authorized privacy (Lk. 9:10).

Questions: (1) When the apostles (males, without the entire congregation) chose “seven” (a judgment decision) men to serve tables, did they sin in this private decision? (2) Do elders sin today when they make judgment decisions on behalf of the congregation before and without calling the church together? (3) Do you believe your elders sin when they make judgmental decisions for the congregation where you worship? (4) How do you reconcile your fellowship in a congregation where this is done when you stated you would no longer do so (Ibid., 109)? (5) In an emergency situation Sunday at midnight, can elders or deacons decide to give financial aid to a needy saint without calling the church together and do they sin when they do so?

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII, No. 22, p. 14-17
November 17, 1994

By Tom M. Roberts

Proposition: “Resolved: The Scriptures teach that the elders of a local church are authorized to assemble privately to make decisions in matters of judgment for the local church before and without calling together the whole congregation.”

Definitions: “The Scriptures,” the 66 books of the Bible. “Teach,” instruct by commands, approved examples or divine implications. “Elders,” men who are scripturally authorized and appointed (1 Tim. 3; Tit. 1) over each local church (Acts 14:23; 1 Pet. 5:2). “Local church,” the congregation in a given locality in its corporate entity (Phil. 1:1). “Authorized,” empowered, permitted. “To assemble,” meet in their eldership capacity (Acts 20:17). “Privately” (Gk: idios) “pertaining to one’s own; ‘.o do one’s own business (1 Thess. 4:11), apart (Matt. 24:3)” (Thayer, p. 296-7). “To make decisions,” come to a conclusion. “In matters of judgment,” distinct from matters of faith. “For the local church,” represent, act on behalf of, in the interest of the local congregation. “Before,” in advance of. “And without,” lacking, in the absence of. “Calling together,” summoning, requesting. “The whole congregation,” the ekklesia.

This debate is not about: (1) An abuse of that which is scriptural. Abuse of civil government does not mitigate against authorized government (Rom. 13:1-7); abuse by husbands does not mitigate against headship (Eph. 5:23); “lording it over God’s heritage” does not mitigate against oversight (Matt. 20:25-27; 1 Pet. 5:2-3). (2) Excluding the congregation from the decision-making process. While elders make final decisions as overseers, they seek advice and counsel from the congregation. (3) Excluding women since “congregation” includes women.

This debate is about: The error propagated by Vance in his book, Confusion or Consensus, which includes: (1) Charging elders with sin when they make a private decision for the church (p. 47, 51); (2) A demand that women be included in congregational decision-making (p. 3); (3) A claim for a pattern that demands congregational decision-making in every instance even when there are elders (p. 44); (4) Substitution of consensus for oversight of elders (p. 24); (5) Voting instead of elder oversight (his aff. #2). These errors violate the clear NT teaching of eldership oversight which permits them to make decisions on behalf of the congregation.The proposition which I affirm will be supported by three major arguments. The first will be a word study of the biblical language fromwhich we perceive the authority of elders.

Arguments: Words are vehicles of thoughts and inspiration has chosen the exact words to explain the scope of the elders’ authority, the congregation’s relationship to elders, and woman’s subjection. “Which things also we speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth; combining spiritual things with spiritual words” (1 Cor. 2:13). When one is a “bishop” and exercises “oversight,” he is and does expressly what the Holy Spirit teaches. Divine concepts (“spiritual things”) are expressed through divine precepts (“spiritual words”). Human concepts (congregational decision-making) are expressed through human precepts (consensus, voting) and constitute “human wisdom.”

Word Study: (1) Elder, presbyter (presbuteros), Acts 14:23; 20:17, 28; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 5:17; Tit. 1:5: “(3) in the Christian churches, those who, being raised up and qualified by the work of the Holy Spirit, were appointed to have the spiritual care of, and to exercise oversight over, the churches” (Vine, Vol. II:21). (2) Bishop, overseer (episkopos), 1 Tim. 3:2; Tit. 1:7: “An overseer, a man charged with the duty of seeing that things to be done by others are done rightly, any curator, guardian, or superintendent . . . spec. the superintendent, head or overseer of any Christian church” (Thayer, p. 243). “Lit, an overseer … (2) . . . is rendered . . . `office of a bishop,’ lit. `overseership,’ there is no word representing office. Note: The corresponding verb is episkopeo, which, in reference to the work of an overseer, is found in 1 Pet. 5:2 .. . ‘exercising the oversight … taking the oversight”‘ (Vine 129). (3) Pastors, shepherds (poimenas): “a shepherd, one who tends herds or flocks (not merely one who feeds them), is used metaphorically of Christian `pastors,’ Eph. 4:11. Pastors guide as well as feed the flock; cp. Acts 20:28, which, with v. 17, indicates that this was the service committed to elders (overseers, bishops); so in 1 Pet. 5:1-2, `tend the flock, exercising the oversight;’ this involves tender care and vigilant superintendence” (Vine 167). Also (4) Feed (verb, poimaino), Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2: “to act as a shepherd,” (quoting Trench) “The tending (which includes this) consists of other acts, of discipline, authority, restoration, material assistance of individuals, but they are incidental in comparison with the feeding” (Vine 87, 88). (5) Appoint (kathistemi): “prop. to set down, put down … (a) to set one over a thing (in charge of it), Acts 6:3 . . . (b) to appoint one to administer an office, Tit. 1:5” (Thayer 314). Compare its usage: Matt. 24:45, 47; Acts 6:3; Tit. 1:5. (6) Rule (proistemi), 1 Thess. 5:12; 1 Tim.3:4; 5:17: “to set or place before; to set over. a. To be over, to superintend, preside over, rule” (Thayer 539); (hegeomai), Heb. 13:7, 17: “to lead, is translated to rule” (Vine 307).

These words clearly define that elders have the authority of God to oversee, exercise the oversight, see that things are done rightly by others, to be set over, to be a leader, to rule. There is no ambiguity here. It is inconceivable that elder oversight excludes the ability to make even one decision, much less that they sin by doing so. The Holy Spirit “makes” bishops (Acts 20:28) by the qualifications in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 and defines their authority by these words that describe them. It is ludicrous to use the terminology without applying the definitions. To admit oversight and superintendency is not to stretch a single word from its meaning or context. This is what elders are and what they do, not in name only. To strip elders of decision-making ability is to deny elders what they do by definition: “exercise the oversight.” It is notable that the same word “appoint” used in Acts 6:3 authorizing “deacons” to decide about tables is also used in Titus 1:5 regarding elders. Are deacons permitted to do that which is forbidden to elders: make decisions about their work? Elders are not to “lord it over the flock,” nor act as Gentile masters, but there is legitimate oversight (else words have no meaning), not to be confused with abuse (1 Pet. 5:3; Lk. 22:25-26). As a father rules his house, so an elder rules the “house of God” (1 Tim. 3:4-5). Must a father rule by consensus or by majority vote without the ability to make a single decision without the whole family, including the children, being in agreement? In any collective (whether a family or a congregation), information may be sought from every member by the overseer, but someone must make a final decision. In the family, this is the father (Eph. 5:23). In the church, these are elders. Vance denies this to elders. Would he also deny it to fathers?

Word Study: Congregation’s role toward elders: Submit (hupeiko): “To resist no longer, to give way, yield, metaph. to yield to authority and admonition, to submit, Heb. 13:17” (Thayer 638). Obey (peitho): “1. To persuade, i.e. to induce one by words to believe; . . . 2. a. to be persuaded, to suffer one’s self to be persuaded . . . b. to listen to, obey, yield to, comply with, Acts 5:36-39; 23:21; 27:11; Rom. 2:8; Gal. 3:1; 5:1; Heb. 13:17; Jas. 3:3″(Thayer 497). Study the cited Scriptures carefully. Elders cannot be excluded from this work since it applies to those who are to “rule” over the church and elders are specifically charged with this duty. They are the only scripturally qualified men so charged.

Word study: Woman’s subjection (hupotage), 1 Tim. 2:11: “1. the act of subjecting, 2. obedience, subjection, to arrange under, to subordinate, to subject, put in subjection” (Thayer 645). Vance must make up his mind whether women have decision-making authority or not. In those congregations with a majority of women, the men must either submit to the authority of the women or over-ride their decision-making authority. If elders are present, they must defer to the women if the women decide to go against the judgment of the elders. If this is not true, women have no decision-making authority. The Bible requires women to be in subjection; Vance requires them to have decision-making authority. If “being in subjection” allows decision-making authority, why would not “being in subjection” also allow women to serve the Lord’s table, preach, or teach mixed adult classes so long as they did so “under male leadership”?

Summary: The words of the Holy Spirit define an elder and his authority. There is no need to stretch these words beyond their legitimate definitions to determine that elders can make a private decision that is binding on the church. The church is not a democracy that empowers itself to make corporate decisions (consensus) but a theocracy that has a mandate from Christ as head to submit in judgment matters to the qualified elders who are “over” them “in the Lord.”

Questions: (1) Do parents, husbands and magistrates have the right to make decisions relating to the oversight of their province (Eph. 6:4:1-4; 5:22-23; Rom. 13:1-2)? (2) Do bishops have the right to make decisions relating to the oversight of the church (1 Pet. 5:1-3)? (3) Do elders “lord it over God’s heritage” every time they make a decision for the congregation (1 Pet. 5:3; Matt. 20:25)? (4) If so, why is a woman not having “authority over a man” (1 Tim. 2:12) when she exercises decision-making authority in the church? (5) Do you believe an eldership should be removed from a congregation when it makes private decisions for the church?

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII, No. 22, p. 10-11
November 17, 1994