Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

In recent years, several major publications among our liberal brethren have issued a call for a new hermeneutic. The old hermeneutic is rejected. The restoration plea is castigated as backward looking and divisive. In calling for unity-in-diversity, the restoration plea is thrown aside.

Several historians assert that there are two sides to the restoration movement of the 1800s: (a) a unity plea and (b) a restoration plea. The unity plea was followed by the Christian Church/Disciples of Christ which led them into the mainstream of Protestant denominationalism and the ecumenical movement. The restoration plea was followed by the churches of Christ and led them into dozens of divisions (or so the claim is made). Significantly, some historians ignore the division between the independent Christian Churches and the Disciples of Christ which the “unity plea” brought and exaggerate the number of divisions among churches of Christ.(Though there are brethren who hold many different positions on a number of different subjects, the divisions which have come in the churches of Christ can largely be reduced to two or three: the institutional division, premillennialism, lesser and isolated divisions [one cup, no located preacher, etc.].)

The fact of the matter is this: the early restorers understood that the restoration plea was a unity plea. Of the many different plans for the unity of the church, the restoration plea was the one which was founded on Bible precepts. In this article, I would like to reproduce the restoration plea as a plea for Bible unity, using the language of the early restorers to state it.

Plans of Unity

There have been, through the ages, a number of plans of unity, including the following:

1. Associations of churches. Most denominations have an association of churches under some commonly agreed upon governing and legislative body. This concept of unity also has been suggested to bring churches in all denominations under one governing body.

2. Creeds. A document drawn up by representatives of churches has been imposed on churches as the governing law for an association of churches.

3. Councils. Ecumenical councils have tried to determine the boundaries of fellowship for churches. Denominations are still organized under synods and councils that have governing authority over churches.

4. Ecumenism. The ecumenical movement has accepted churches in all denominations, regardless of what they teach and practice, into fellowship. They are willing to accept into their fellowship those who deny the inspiration of Scripture, miracles and deity of Christ, necessity of faith in Christ for salvation, and other fundamental concepts of Christianity in the interest of unity.

5. Evangelical unity in fundamentals. The Evangelicals have reduced the number of essentials to a bare minimum in an effort for the Protestant denominations to have unity in gospel but diversity in doctrine. The Evangelical unity enables the various Protestant denominations to recognize each other as saved, work together on common good works, and peacefully co-exist.

6. The unity-in-diversity movement. This movement differs from the Evangelical unity only in minor details. It redefines the fundamentals of the gospel on which all must agree to include baptism for remission of sins. It is defended by a gospel/doctrine distinction, the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ to the believer to cover his moral and doctrinal errors, continuous cleansing, a misuse of Romans 14, or some other theological method of having the grace of God to forgive men of the sins which they defend as righteousness and continue to practice.

However, none of these platforms of unity was that taught by the restoration plea. The restoration plea taught that men could be united through a restoration of the ancient order. The restoration plea was an effort to call Bible things by Bible names, to speak as the oracles of God (1 Pet. 4:11), and to bind nothing on the consciences of men except what was authorized by command, example or necessary inference (1 Cor. 4:6; Rev. 22:18-19).

The Restoration Plea

The following expressions of the restoration plea for unity are not cited as having equal authority with the Bible. Rather, they are concise statements of Bible principles which are true because of the Bible teaching they represent, not because of the men who said them. They are worded better than I can word them myself and for this reason they are reproduced:

1. Alexander Campbell: Writing in the Declaration and Address, Thomas Campbell said, “But this we do sincerely declare, that there is nothing we have hitherto received as matter of faith or practice, which is not expressly taught and enjoined in the word of God, either in express terms, or approved precedent, that we would not heartily relinquish, that so we might return to the original constitutional unity of the christian church” (p. 11).

Campbell’s understanding of this is illustrated by his approach to infant baptism. The Campbells held that “all matters not distinctly revealed in the Bible should be held as matters of opinion and of mutual forbearance.” In a sermon laying out the basis for unity, Thomas Campbell said, “Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; and where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent.” Having concluded his sermon, Andrew Munro said, “Mr. Campbell, if we adopt that as a basis, then there is an end of infant baptism.” Campbell replied, “Of course, if infant baptism be not found in Scripture, we can have nothing to do with it” (see Robert Richardson, Memoirs of Alexander Campbell I:235-238).

The Scriptures included everything which should be practiced and taught and excluded everything else. The silence of the Scripture was not viewed as opening the door to many unauthorized practices, but as closing the door to them.

2. J.M. Mathes: “If all would consent to give up their human isms that now divide them, we should come together in happy union upon God’s own foundation. . . I, therefore, propose the `Bible  the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible’ as the platform and bond of union. In making this proposition, I offer a platform, that you all acknowledge the best one on earth; nay, the only one that is infallible. . . In accepting it, no one is called upon to make more sacrifice than others. All are required to sacrifice their human isms, and those party names and sectarian peculiarities, which distinguish one sect from another, and all are required to take the word of God alone as the rule of their lives” (The Western Preacher 145,150).

3. N.B. Hardeman: “I would God to-night that all professed followers in the city of Nashville, Tennessee, and elsewhere, would be content to have but the Bible as their creed, their discipline, their church manual, their church directory, their rule of faith and practice throughout life. There would be oneness on the part of all the splendid people of this great country…. I pledge my word and promise myself to-night, if the man will thus show me that God’s book does not plainly demand it, I will gladly surrender and give that up that the cause of division may cease. . . . When I announce that platform, it is not narrow, it is not limited, it is not human; but it is big enough, broad enough, wide enough, and comprehensive enough for every son and daughter of God on earth to occupy and none feel that in so doing they have had to sacrifice a single principle of faith. . . .Take your stand on God’s book and eliminate all things that are not plainly taught therein; and when you so do, I will gladly come to you and take my stand with you, if there be any preference as to which way the coming is done” (Tabernacle Sermons II:185,186,187).

“Now, for the sake of unity, why not give up that which is in doubt in the minds of some, and walk by faith, and by that which is conceded by every scholar on earth?” (Tabernacle Sermons III:146)

4. Elijah Goodwin: “I answer, let the Bible, and the Bible alone, be adopted as the Christian’s creed. What the Bible says, all believe. Let opinions be held as private property, while faith is made the test of union” (The Family Companion 422).

5. M.C. Kurfees: “Again, some one may ask: `Since men do not all see alike or have the same opinions on certain religious subjects, how is union, in such a case possible?’ It is possible by every man preaching `the word’ and keeping his opinions strictly and always to himself, as the Bible distinctly and positively requires. We have already seen that the preacher’s inspired charge is to `preach the word,’ not his opinions nor the opinions of anybody else. Paul distinctly tells Christians what to do with their opinions in religion. In the case of eating certain meats where some Christians had scruples against it, he says: `The faith which thou hast, have thou to thyself before God’ (Rom. 14:22). There it is in plain and specific words, clearly and distinctly showing what the preacher is to do with his opinions. He is not to be teaching, preaching, and parading them among the people at all, but always and everywhere to keep them to himself `before God.’ No harm can ever come of opinions where that most vital and important command is carefully and strictly obeyed. In fact, strict obedience to it would be the grand panacea against all strife, all confusion, and all division among the people of God. They are not divided over what is in the Bible, but over what is not in it; not over what the Bible says, but over what it does not say; not over the word of God, but over the opinions and speculations of men” (The Need for Continued Emphasis on the Restoration of the Ancient Order 32).

Union Versus Unity

As brethren were working their way toward a Bible-based unity, they were confronting the denominational plea for union. The plea for union was understood to be a plea for the combining of different sects in some kind of organizational structure, a unity-in-diversity, or other kind of union of the sects. The disciples were not interested in union. As a lad, I remember hearing “union” and “unity” distinguished by use of a common illustration. The preachers would say, “You can tie two cats’ tails together and throw them over a clothesline. You will have union, but you do not have unity.”

“Union” is “a uniting or being united; combination; junction, fusion; an agreeing or leaguing together for mutual benefit.” “Unity” is “the state or condition of being one; oneness; singleness; being united; concord; agreement; harmony; oneness of sentiment, affection, or the like.”

Compare the two with reference to water baptism. The denominational plan of union recommends that each church be allowed to choose for itself whether to use sprinkling pouring or immersion as the action of baptism. The subject of water baptism in denominational plans of union can be either infants or believers, depending upon the free choice of each local church. The purpose of water baptism varies from one denomination to another: an outside sign of an inward grace, to be admitted into the particular denomination, a testimony to the world, or to receive forgiveness of sins. In denominational union, there is an agreement to have unity-in-diversity. Every church teaches its particular sectarian dogma on the subject but the other churches will continue to recognize them to be “of Christ” and receive one another into their respective fellowships.

In contrast to unity-in-diversity or union, true Bible unity works toward the “oneness of sentiment” revealed by the Holy Spirit through the apostles. The action of Bible baptism is immersion. The subject of Bible baptism is penitent believers. The purpose of Bible baptism is salvation, being variously described as “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38), to be “saved” (Mark 16:16; 1 Pet. 3:21), to “wash away” sins (Acts 22:16), and parallel expressions. In Bible unity, the disciples of Christ become united by every person believing and teaching what the Holy Spirit revealed.

A true unity was preached and practiced. It was a “the state or condition of being one; oneness; singleness; being united; concord; agreement; harmony; oneness of sentiment, affection, or the like.” What worked on the subject of baptism worked in other areas as well and the unity of the Spirit  not some denominational imitation of unity  was the result. True Bible unity can still exist today when brethren are committed to the restoration of the ancient gospel.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 17, p. 2
September 1, 1994

By Vance . E. Trefethen

Fellowship. Had I wanted to debate fellowship, I would have put it in the proposition.

Leadership and authority. The argument that leader-ship requires private decision-making for others is wrong. Many leaders (e.g., evangelists, Bible class teachers) don’t privately decide collective activity. The negative assumes leaders privately decide everything, and since elders are leaders, they must be an exception to the pattern of including the whole church. He must prove this assumption. He has already denied it by granting that spiritual leadership doesn’t necessarily infer private decision-making in collective judgment (Tit. 2:15).

We agree elders have “authority,” but no Scripture uses “authority” directly with “elders”  their authority has to be inferred from definitions of other words used of elders. The closest the negative comes is Matthew 28:18. But consider: “And they [elders] have no arbitrary authority. Christ has all authority (Matt. 28:18). But consider: “And they [elders] have no arbitrary authority. Christ has all authority (Matt. 28:18), and that does not leave any for the elders” (Luther Blackmon, Truth Magazine [10/27/1977], p. 13, Mike Willis, ed.).

(1) The “authority” of that verse was given to Jesus, not elders. (2) Jesus doesnt decide matters of judgment for churches today. Matthew 28:18 is about matters of faith. (3) His own paper says Matthew 28;18 prohibits elders from arbitrary authority. Look again at the Negative position:

1. GOT says elders cannot enact or enforce any other laws than the laws of Christ.

2. Negative says “oversight” means authority to bind things on the church.

3. Therefore, elders can indeed enact and enforce other laws on the church. The law of Christ says they can’t, and then it says they can. The problem is a bad definition of “oversight.”

Oversight. Negative’s argument that oversight and collective agreement are mutually exclusive is wrong. We agree elders have oversight. We differ on what it means. He couldn’t answer my challenge for a lexical definition. It means: “to look upon, inspect, oversee, look after, care for” (Thayer, p. 242). “Privately decide matters of judgment” is not the meaning.

Hebrews 12:14-16 contains an inspired definition and commentary: “Follow after peace with all men … looking carefully [episkopeo] lest there be any man that falleth short of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you … lest there be any fornicator, or profane person …” Episkopeo applies, in some sense, to all Christians, not just elders. Every saint would decide things for all other saints if episkopeo means private decision-making! “Oversight” means watching for the spiritual well-being of others and helping them with spiritual problems. Compare evangelism: Every Christian has some degree of responsibility to teach others the gospel, but not every Christian is an “evangelist” (Eph. 4:11). The “looking carefully” (episkopeo) done by every saint is much smaller in scope than the burden assigned to elders, but the meaning of episkopeo is consistent. It takes special qualifications to “care for” the spiritual needs of the entire flock. But every saint must, to some degree, help other saints with spiritual needs. That’s episkopeo, in the lexicon and the Bible.

Consider “the Shepherd and Bishop [overseer, episkope] of your souls” (1 Pet. 2:25). We agree that matters of judgment are things humans decide. Episkopeo cannot mean “privately decide matters of judgment for the church,” else Jesus violates it by failing to make such decisions. Jesus decides matters of faith because he is “Lord” and “head of the church.” He “oversees” (cares for, watches over, looks after) the universal church by giving spiritual help we need as we obey matters of faith. Elders perform a similar role in local churches, along with other functions covered by other words besides “oversight” in the NT.

Vine, voting and consensus. The negative quoted Vine on cheirotoneo but left out the primary definition: “primarily used of voting in the Athenian legislative assembly.” Later, Vine says it’s used of “those who were appointed (not by voting, but with general approbation). . . 2 Corinthians 8;19.” Approbation means “approval” (WCD, p. 53). It’s confusing  it means “vote,” then it doesn’t. The solution: “vote” includes any expression of opinion in a group to arrive at collective agreement. This harmonizes with Vine and with 1 Corinthians 1:10, 2 Corinthians 8:19 and Acts 15:25.

No negative response to my passages teaching general agreement in matters of judgment. And note: 1. Consensus means “general agreement” (TR’s dictionary, 1 N).

2. Cheirotoneo means “general approbation” and occurred in 2 Corinthians 8:19 (TR quoting Vine).

3. Therefore: We (along with A. Campbell) agree that “voting” in the NT is the expression of opinion by the multitude to obtain “general approbation,” not a “51% wins/49% loses” scenario.

Hebrews 13:7,17. The words “elder,” “pastor,” “bishop” are not in Hebrews 13. The Greek word for “rule” is hegeomai, which means “leader” (NASV). It referred to the “chief men” Judas and Silas (Acts 15:22) and to Paul’s relationship with Barnbas (“the chief speaker,” Acts 14:12). In Hebrews 13 it refers to those who “spoke the word of God” and whose faith (not judgments) should be imitated. “Obey” refers to matters of faith and God’s word, not matters of judgment. If this passage were about decision-making, it would authorize all “leaders” to privately decide things (because hegeomai isn’t limited to elders). I know Tom doesn’t believe that. By the way, the word “watch” in Hebrews 13:17 is not episkopeo, but a totally different Greek word (and it doesn’t mean “privately decide things for the church” either!).

Acts 6. No response to the consequences of asserting that elders decide whether women can be leaders and the qualifications of deacons. If elders today may decide whether women can be leaders (1 N$5), who’s opening the door to radical feminism?

He said “Yes” when asked if the whole church can be included under the male leadership, and cited Acts 6 (1A Q. 1). This answer is wrong if the whole church was not “included.” If we can obey Acts 6 without the multitude, we can also obey Acts 20:7 and break bread on Tuesday.

Acts 15:22. There is some confusion here because 2 Greek words have gotten mixed together. The word in Acts 15 (dokeoo is the root) is different from 2 Corinthians 8:19 (cheirotoneo). Negative’s disagreement with my scholar doesn’t make the scholar “misleading.” Let’s accept that the Apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided (“determined,” TR quoting Thayer) to send chosen men (Acts 15:22). The Bible and both of our scholars say it. Let’s humbly obey.

Acts 15:6-7. We agree this passage is about salvation, not matters of judgment (2 N 6 7).

Galatians 2:9. (1) No negative response to the problem of 3 out of 14 leaders making decisions for the church. (2) No negative response to the fact that this passage is about fellowship in preaching the gospel and individual efforts by evangelists. (3) No evidence showing changes in collective action by the Jerusalem church after this alleged “decision” was made for them.

Galatians 2:2. No negative reply to this being about “the gospel,” not congregational judgment.

Galatians 2:3. (1) Individuals decide personal matters of conscience (Rom. 14:12-13, 22). They might seek help from spiritual leaders, but this is individual action, not collective decision. (2) Do elders decide whether each member of the church should be circumcised? This is frightening.

1 Corinthians 5. Negative’s “scandal” comments (2 N 6 11) are interesting, but he gave no Scriptures. Individual investigation and rebuke are taught in Galatians 6:1, e.g. But we agree 1 Corinthians 5 shows “congregational action” (2 N 6 8) by “ye gathered together” (1 Cor. 5:4), which settles the matter.

1 Corinthians 6. Paul could have limited the wise judge to elders, had God said so. In that case, members of a church without elders couldn’t obey this passage  they’d just have to sue one another. If “one wise man” cannot be the judge, Paul was wrong for saying he could. We either have one man judging a private dispute, or one man privately deciding collective action without the other elders or men. There was no negative reply to this. In Matthew 18, two or three “witnesses” (not “elders-only”) meet with two brethren. Do two or three non-elders decide things for the church? No, they privately solve a private matter. 1 Corinthians 6 and the first two steps of Matthew 18 are individual actions, not collective judgments.

Acts 11:27-30. I’ll ask again: Where in Acts 11 did elders decide things without including the congregation? Book, chapter, verse? If it isn’t necessarily inferred that Paul and Barnabas privately made decisions by handling money, why is it necessarily inferred for elders?

Without elders. No passage has been introduced in this exchange showing a man’s business meeting in any NT church without elders. We agree men’s business meetings cannot scripturally substitute for elders (1 A Q. 6). We agree a church can “decide a matter of judgment by including the whole church under male leadership” (1 A Q. 1). A decision by a few members is a “rump meeting” (GOT) of “rebels” (TR) and violates 1 Peter 5:5 (2A Q. 1). We also agree:

1. “Acts 6, etc., authorizes congregational meetings in which women are present” (TR, 2N 6 13).

2. “Men do not prohibit women from doing any authorized activity” (TR, 2N 6 13).

3. Therefore: We must agree that a small business meeting is unauthorized (violates 1 Pet. 5:5 and prohibits women from an authorized activity) and a congregational assembly under male leadership is authorized in a church without elders. This is the pattern I affirm.

With elders. 2 A Q. 3: “When elders include the whole church in decision-making, do they lose `authority’ or `oversight’?” 2 N answer: “Yes.” Elders “lose oversight” if they ever include the whole church! They included them in Acts 15:22. But they never can under negative’s view. Are you ready for that conclusion?

Acting by agency. The seven men in Acts 6 acted “by agency” after being authorized by “the multitude.” I’m baffled how the negative can argue these men acted without the multitude in light of Acts 6:2. Men claiming to act for the church without “general approbation” (TR) are “rebels” (TR).

Now there’s a new definition of “oversight”: “God has commanded agency: eldership oversight” (2 N 6 12). Try “an agency deciding matters of judgment for a local church” for episkopeo in Hebrews 12:15 and 1 Peter 2:25. This new definition destroys these passages.

2 N Questions. (1) I don’t affirm that deacons decide collective matters without including the church. (2) The same way she does when she disagrees with a male Bible class teacher. She meekly expresses her opinion for the group to consider. She can’t override or complain against her husband or the male leaders. In matters of judgment, the whole church, guided by male leaders, should find a solution all can go along with (1 Cor. 1:10, Acts 15:25). (3) No. (4) No.

Dictatorship, democracy and the NT. In a dictator-ship, a few decide things and bind them on the multitude, claiming that including the many would destroy their “authority.” In a democracy, 51% get their way and the losers go home mad, vowing to come back and win next time. In the NT, the leaders call the multitude, explain the problem and offer solutions. When the whole congregation comes to “one accord” (Acts 15:25), with “the same mind and the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10), everyone goes home happy and the Lord is pleased.

Conclusion. We agree on the four cases I cited, and we’ve found one more (2 Cor. 8:19) showing the inclusion of the whole church. The exceptions failed, either by being inconsistent with Negative’s own position or by referring to individual rather than collective action. Please join me in affirming that we should follow the pattern of including the whole church.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 16, p. 23-25
August 18, 1994

By Roy H. Lanier, Jr.

It has been puzzling to me as I read some of the new papers, magazines, and bulletins seen recently across our nation. Somehow I have been missing something. I cannot quite understand what is being said.

Then it dawned on me that I was not using the right dictionary. When I stumbled across the idea of this glossary and began to use it, things began to clear.

If you wish to understand some of our brethren, take note of the following definitions:

Conservative: a person with selfish motives steeped in tradition and ignorance.

Liberal: an altruistic person with pure, high, and holy motives for the church, who has a higher level of learning, and who waits patiently for conservatives to be enlightened.

Ultra-conservative: any conservative who disagrees with a liberal, resists change, and does not accept the higher level of learning and sophistication.

Ultra-liberal: no such word, never used, never heard of it!

Right-winger: anyone who disagrees with a liberal and is hurting the church by outdated preaching; a “proof-texter,” and a “Bible-spouter,” can only quote a lot of scripture.

Left-winger: no such person in the church today!

Women’s freedom: free at last, praise God, free at last; at least to compete with men for all activities, especially those that pertain to public appearances.

Authentic woman: one who holds liberal views, demands equal time and pay with men, vigorous, outspoken, aggressive, willing to attack preachers and elders to show them their dinosaur ways.

Progressive: connecting to the culture, speaking to the “boomers and busters,” fulfilling human potential, and responsive to youth and authentic women.

Traditional: refuses to connect, fulfill, or be responsive, set in ways of dinosaur worship and study.

Extremist: anyone critical of “change agents.”

Tolerance: one who accepts identity with other streams of the “American Restoration Denomination,” broad-minded and loving enough to accept denominational brethren.

Victims: anyone suffering criticism from traditional right-wingers.

Worship change: realizing freedoms and potentials of all folks to ape denominational forms of worship.

Equality: a woman doing every-thing a man can do, no submission, no following, but showing the beauty of feminine potential and power.

Church renewal: changes to suit teens and young teens and young twenties, the worldly, and all the friends in denominations.

Worship renewal: making enough changes in worship songs and forms so that all well-known songs and ways are never used again.

Non-sexist: a man who will agree with a woman liberal.

church of Christ (lower case “c”): one in the New Testament.

 

Church of Christ (upper case “C”): one of three denominations born of the American Restoration Movement, and the one that is presently in the U.S.A., and the one that is perhaps, just perhaps, closest to the Bible.

Change agent: a person in a congregation helping a traditional Church of Christ to be a church of Christ.

Old hermeneutic: inadequate interpretive methods used only by legalists, proof-texters, Bible thumpers, and such as ignore context, history, culture, and eschatology.

New hermeneutic: an enlightened new method in response to being better educated, one that understands and applies New Testament teaching ac-cording to our modern culture.

New Testament: a love letter from the Lord.

Core gospel: teachings found in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and the only applicable teachings to our enlightened and educated generation.

Epistles: only the way certain first century teachers tried to apply the true “Core gospel” to their congregations and cultures.

(With apologies to the Wall Street Journal, January 21, 1994, p. A14 in an article by Dennis Prager!)

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 17, p. 8
September 1, 1994

By Tom Roberts

The responsibility of the negative in a debate is to follow the affirmative and answer his arguments. I have done this and Vance’s proposition has failed. I will affirm a proposition in a second debate to be carried later in GOT.

Fellowship: Vance labels as sinful the practice of elders making decisions. Will he fellowship what he considers sinful? His views will divide brethren in local churches.

Leadership & Authority: Collectivities (congregations, families, etc.) require decision-making to reach a common mind, whether by elders or church votes. Leader-ship and authority are inherent in decisions. Evangelists and Bible class teachers have no authority but elders do (1 Pet. 5:3). This oversight includes private decision-making (Acts 6, 11, 15, etc.). I refuse to debate Luther Blackmon or any other than Vance. But if Christ has “all authority” (Matt. 28:18) without delegating any, explain why resisting authorities (magistrates, fathers, husbands, elders) is to resist God (Rom. 13:1-5; Eph. 6:4; 5:22; Acts 14:23).

Oversight: Voting is leadership authority or minorities and women would not insist on their right to vote. Vance avoided the consequences of my questions regarding women voting. A vote is an absolute expression of authority that knows no gender and respects no higher authority; there is no “submissive” vote and does not “meekly express an opinion for the group to consider.” Even more than consensus, voting opens the door to female equality in decision-making. A 13-year old Christian girl would have the same power in voting as elders (Acts 20:28). The lexical definition he seeks: Bishop, overseer (episkopos), 1 Timothy 3:2, Titus 1:7: “An overseer, a man charged with the duty of seeing that things to be done by others are done rightly, . . .” (Thayer, p. 243). Jesus is overseer, elders are overseers and it means the same in both cases (1 Pet 2:25; 5:3). Vance says Jesus as overseer can make decisions but elders as overseers cannot make decisions. We do not agree on oversight; it clearly permits decision-making.

Vine, Voting and Consensus: Vine on voting (cheirotoneo, p. 69) is not confusing. Noting the primary meaning, he states that it is “not to be taken in its literal sense” (cf: Acts 10:41; 14:23; 2 Cor. 8:19). Dokeo (Vine, p. 340) does not support voting (Acts 15:22, 28). Vance’s “authority” (The Interpreter’s Bible) is a commentary, not a lexicon, that likewise says Paul is “less than Christian” (Vol. 10, p. 126) in his view on women (1 Cor. 11:2-16)! Is that scholarship? “General agreement in matters of judgment” is not guaranteed by consensus or voting. Either the voting majority decides the issue (51% wins  49% loses) or chaos results. God’s way is to have qualified elders who conclude the discussion. Congregational meetings (Acts 6, 15, etc.) do not negate private decision-making in those same passages any more than faith in Mark 16:16 negates baptism. But voting and elder oversight are mutually exclusive.

Hebrews 13:7,17: Are there “chief men” like Judas and Silas today? If so, what are there qualifications? If those of Hebrews 13 were considered “chief” because they “spoke the word of God,” would this not authorize evangelistic oversight? Vance wants us to “obey” and “submit” to “chief men” (with no stated qualifications) but rejects “obeying” and “submitting” to elders who have stated qualifications (1 Tim. 3; Tit. 1). Vance assumed “obey” referred to matters of “the faith” and not “judgment.” If “hegeomai isn’t limited to elders,” could we agree that hegeomai applies to elders at all? Is it scriptural to submit to and obey elders?

Acts 6: Vance knew that I did not believe elders can decide matters of faith and cannot appoint women to be leaders. Radical feminism will never trouble the church which accepts scriptural elders but it will when matters are decided by the vote! Vance has opened the door to female leadership. Decisions were made in Acts 6 before and without calling the congregation together (the apostles selected 7 men, not 6 or 8, surely a matter of judgment). If you want to use this to take the Lord’s supper on Tuesday, it will be your decision, not mine.

Acts 15:22: Galatians 2 with Acts 15 shows that there were private decision meetings with the apostles and elders that did not include the whole church. Acts 16:4 states that the decrees were “determined by the apostles and elders at Jerusalem.” These facts destroy Vance’s proposition. Private decisions by elders are authorized by the word of God.

Acts 15:6-7: Not all matters of Acts 15 referred to matters of salvation; some included items of judgment. Refer to my previous negative. We do not agree and our difference is clear.

Galatians 2:2-9: Consideration of my previous negative material will prove that I responded to Vance’s material. Not all decisions of Acts 15 and Galatians 2 were matters of faith. Titus’ circumcision, a religious liberty (Gal. 5:6), affected the whole church and a private decision was made not to circumcise. Private decisions on matters of liberty are authorized.

1 Corinthians 5: Vance’s inexperience fails to realize that scandalous matters can destroy the faith of the weak and babes and they should be protected (Rom. 15:1; 1 Cor. 8:7, 9-12). While sin must be dealt with in the congregation, the lurid details must be contained by mature brethren.

1 Corinthians 6: How can this passage be an individual matter since verse one suggests going to law (court) before “saints” and was addressed to the church? Paul used hyperbole (v. 5) to emphasize “is there not a wise man among you, not even one” (more than one is implied) who could settle the dispute. The decision affected the whole church in that the “wise men” acted on behalf of the church to keep the matter out of Gentile courts. The last step of Matthew 18 could be handled identically to 1 Corinthians 6:1 after the first two steps are handled individually. The congregation can be represented by agency (2 Cor. 8:23), either by messengers or by wise men who settle disputes for the church. Authorized agency action is church action.

Acts 11:27-30: I’ll state it again: since the elders received the money, they had to distribute it. Decisions necessarily inferred: who are needy? how much do they need? how long will they need it? The elders had to make these decisions. As messengers, Paul and Barnabas could make no decision but to deliver it to the elders who accepted the responsibility of oversight.

Without elders: Vance may affirm a pattern of a congregational consensus under male leadership all he wants to, but when he advocated the vote he abandoned male leadership for feminine equality. We have congregational meetings every week in which women participate in authorized activities (singing, praying, etc.), none prohibiting them. But it does not follow that women are authorized in business meetings to cast equal votes any more than they are authorized to preach. 1 Peter 5:5 must not be arrayed against 1 Timothy 2:12 nor 1 Peter 5:2. If “being submissive” (1 Pet. 5:5) means women in business meetings with equal votes, it also means women in the pulpit. Apostasy will not stop with voting and Vance has opened the gate!

With Elders: The KJV and NKJV states: “Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men. . .” (Acts 15:22). It is clear that a congregational meeting took place in Acts 15, but equally clear that private meetings took place in which decisions of judgment were reached. Vance’s error creates an eldership figurehead that makes no decisions while voting (including women) decides everything for the congregation. This is oversight?

Acting by Agency: Though it “baffles” Vance, when the seven men of Acts 6 took care of the widows, the church acted through them. This is corporate action by agency: deacons at work, preachers at work, elders at work. Must every member visit every widow or can the church act through the deacons? Must the whole church be involved in every decision or does the church act through the elders (Acts 11:30)? Elders are authorized to exercise oversight even as Christ and the apostles exercised oversight (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 2:25; 2 Cor. 5:20). Not all oversight is of the type elders have (Heb. 12:15), but elder oversight includes acting for the church.

Vance’s Questions: (1) Vance did imply that deacons made decisions when he answered my question 1N #5: “the church gathered and chose servants (diakoneo) to do that in Acts 6.” Deacons may decide (without a congregational meeting) how many loaves of bread to buy. If deacons can make judgment decisions without consulting the congregation, so can the elders. (2) A woman voting her conscience is not “meekly expressing her opinion.” A vote is a decision equal to that of a man (a violation of 1 Tim. 2:11-12). A woman is not in subjection while voting; her vote nullifies her husband’s or another male’s vote. (3) Vance doesn’t understand authority if he thinks voting doesn’t give a woman authority. He has opened Pandora’s box for the feminists. (4) Vance’s position on voting gives women leadership authority. It is inconsistent of him to deny them leadership in teaching or public worship.

Dictatorship, Democracy, and the NT: The whole church can come to “one accord” (Acts 15:25; 1 Cor. 1:10) under eldership oversight and godly submission (Heb. 13:7, 17): the expressed will of God (1 Pet. 5:3). Consensus and voting is human wisdom. God’s way works.

Conclusion: Vance’s proposition has not been sustained; we don’t agree. On the other hand, we have proven beyond doubt that private decisions by males (apostles, elders) were reached without the congregation being present. Eldership oversight that permits private decisions in matters of judgment is scriptural. Consensus brings confusion. “Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another” (Gr Rom. 14:19). My affirmative arguments which follow will sustain eldership oversight.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 16, p. 26-27
August 18, 1994