Truth Magazine

By Karl Diestelkamp

It has been many, many years since we, in the greater Chicago land area, have had an opportunity to attend a debate between brethren occupying different positions in reference to the benevolent work of the church. David Padfield of Zion, Illinois, met Mac Deaver of Wellington, Texas, June 20, 21, 23 and 24, in debate, with the first two nights held in Schaumburg, Illinois. The Schaumburg church and the 23rd Street church in Zion challenged Padfield for the debate and endorsed Deaver. The Lewis Avenue church in Zion endorsed Padfield and provided the meeting house for the last two nights.

Attendance was 176, 125, 183 and 147 for the four nights with by far the greater number of those attending being from non-institutional churches. The debaters and those who came to hear manifested courtesy and a good spirit demonstrating that debates can provide a wholesome atmosphere for study of subjects on which brethren disagree.

The first two nights Deaver’s affirmative proposition was, “The Scriptures teach that a local church may grant benevolent aid to alien sinners.” His main support for his proposition was expressed in the following syllogism:

1. “All things that the individual can do because he is a Christian are things the church can do.” (Some-times expressed as “on the peculiar grounds of being a Christian.” K.D.)

2. “Helping deserving needy non-saints is a thing that the individual can do because he is a Christian.”

3. “Therefore, helping deserving needy non-saints is a thing the church can do.”

When Padfield pressed him to give Scripture for his first premise and to list some things which “the individual does on the peculiar grounds he is a Christian” that the church can also do, Deaver’s response was: “It is axiomatic” or self evident and he made no effort to establish this first premise from Scripture or that it is truly “axiomatic.”

Deaver stated: “It is wrong for the church to render benevolent aid to saints only,” and introduced Matthew 5:43-48, claiming the church is to “practice a higher ethic than the world” and demonstrate that we are “sons of God” by helping the non-saint. During the course of the debate he would say, “If I can help him (a non-saint, K.D.), you can help him, and we can help him,” implying that the “we” is the church. When Padfield argued that Matthew 5 did not involve the church treasury, Deaver asked where the church treasury was “excluded” or how did Padfield “get the treasury out of Matthew 5.” Since Deaver claimed the church was in Matthew 5, it was his responsibility to show that the church treasury was “included” in the passage, but he did not do so. Rather, he asked Padfield where the individual’s “billfold” was in Matthew 5.

Another telling admission was made by Deaver when Padfield asked him to identify what he meant when he used the word “church.” Deaver said:

He wanted me to identify the church. It doesn’t matter if I mean the church local (like the church at Laodicea), the church regional (the churches of Galatia), the church universal (the brotherhood), the church ethnic (the churches of the Gentiles), congregational collective (the churches of Christ). It doesn’t matter what I mean. I mean that whatever an individual can do upon the peculiar grounds that he’s a Christian, the church can do, the brotherhood can do, the regional churches can do it, the local church can do it, groups of churches can do it, the ethnic churches can do it. It doesn’t matter.

Padfield pointed out that following Deaver’s argument would allow for activating of the universal church, yet the New Testament gives no pattern or machinery by which the universal church may function.

Ignoring the context of James 1:27, Deaver made an emotional appeal by asking, “Can the church practice pure and undefiled religion?” Padfield responded by showing that “religion” is something possessed and practiced by the individual, not by the church in its collective sense. Deaver then charged that Padfield was saying the church could not practice pure and undefiled religion, even though he had not established that James 1:27 was speaking of “the local church” as his proposition demanded. Padfield showed three things not found in James 1:27: 1. the local church. 2. The local church treasury. 3. The local church contributing to the needy. He also showed from the context that James 1:27 and Galatians 6:10 were instructions to individuals.

Deaver argued for “benevolence as a vehicle for evangelism,” and de-fended church support of a clinic in Africa to provide opportunity to teach the gospel to those non-saints who were aided. When Padfield pressed him in regard to “church of Christ hospitals” being built in this country like “Baptist hospitals,” Deaver asked, “Can the church hand out Band-Aids?” Padfield pointed out that hospitals do much more than pass out band aids.

Deaver contended that the “widow indeed” of 1 Timothy 5:3,5,16 is not necessarily a saint (Christian), but rather, may simply be a woman who has nowhere else to turn but unto God. He made a distinction between her and the woman of verse 9 who may be “enrolled” or “taken into the number.” Padfield argued that the text says she “trusts in God” and “prays night and day” which shows that she is a saint.

Several times Deaver said, “Every precisely worded question is either true or false.” He would then proceed to submit a number of questions which he insisted Padfield should answer “true” or “false” without any qualification. However the questions were not asked in a context where anyone could know how he was defining the words used, such as “church.” When Padfield answered with more than a “true” or “false” Deaver complained that the answer was not what he had asked for.

Padfield’s affirmative proposition for the last two nights was, “The Scriptures teach that the exclusive New Testament pattern for the benevolent work of the local church from its treasury is the relief of needy saints.” He used 1 Corinthians 12:14; 1 Timothy 5:16; Matt. 18:15 and Acts 5:2-4 to show the difference between individuals and the church. He used charts to show the New Testament pattern of funds of local churches used to aid saints (Acts 2:44,45; 4:32-35; 11:27-30; Rom. 15:25,26; 1 Cor. 16:1,2; 2 Cor. 8:4; 9:1,12,13; 1 Tim. 5:2-16) and illustrating that there is no instruction for, or example of, the local church assisting non-saints.

Deaver dismissed most of Padfield’s first affirmative speech by saying he agreed with most of what he had said. He admitted that all of the passage cited constituted “part of the pattern” but that there was more to the pattern and suggested that James 1:27; Galatians 6:10 and Matthew 5 were part of the pattern for the church to act in behalf of non-saints. He introduced 2 Corinthians 9:13 with less than three minutes remaining in his speech be-fore Padfield’s last speech of the debate but failed to establish that “unto all” includes “non-saints.” Padfield chided him for waiting so late in the debate to introduce his complicated argument that used seven overhead charts and knowing that Padfield would not have time to fully respond in his very last speech.

Padfield showed that by non-saints not being included in the revealed pattern where the local church is clearly involved in benevolent work, they (non-saints) are thus excluded from assistance by the local church. He illustrated this by showing that mechanical instruments of music, Fri-day observance of the Lord’s supper and pizza and Pepsi as elements for the Lord’s supper are excluded be-cause they are not part of what is revealed. Padfield pointed out that “music” in worship is “limited” to the kind that is revealed (authorized) and just so also benevolence by the local church is “limited” to the kind that is revealed  always, and in every case, to “needy saints” or “brethren.” Padfield demonstrated that while the text does not say “sing only,” it only says “sing” and though the text does not say “saints only,” it only says saints when the church treasury is involved.

Interest was high and I believe considerable good will come from this debate. If only more brethren would be willing to put their questionable doctrines to the test of an honorable discussion.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 16, p. 12-13
August 18, 1994

By Vance E. Trefethen

Observations: 1. Tom agrees Acts 6 and 15 both show a church deciding a matter of judgment (Q. 1). But Connie Adams (Guardian of Truth [3/3/94] p. 4) said, “In both instances divine revelation resolved the problem at hand.” 2. Tom agrees women were present in some business meetings in the NT (Q. 1). But Mike Willis (GOT [3/18/ 93], p. 185) said, “The desire of women to be present at these meetings” is “a usurpation of the authority God gave to men.” Bobby Holmes (GOT [12/2/93], p. 723) said, “The inclusion of women participants in business meetings thus violates her role given in 1 Timothy 2:12. . .” (ital. in orig.).

I commend his courage in breaking with GOT on these issues. Perhaps he will receive the blessings of Matthew 5:11, as I have.

Arguments: Tom’s responses are in italics, and mine follow in regular type.

Makes his pattern a test of fellowship. There is no “test of fellowship” to be found in my proposition or in anything I’ve written on this topic. Please don’t misrepresent me. Jesus decides fellowship in the universal church; local churches handle fellowship for themselves.

“Pattern should reflect a binding quality.” You can’t get much more binding than “that is the pattern churches should follow  to the exclusion of all others” (1st Aff. 6 6).

He says Acts 15 is the only pattern in his book, but then adds other passages. (1) We aren’t debating the format of my book. (2) The quote was taken out of context. It was showing the sole example of how elders lead decision-making, not the cases where elders aren’t specifically mentioned (Acts 6, 1 Cor. 5, etc.), which are covered elsewhere in the book.

“Elders become mere figureheads with no authority to decide any matter.” (1) This confuses “authority” with “private decision-making in matters of judgment.” Titus was to “speak, exhort, and reprove with all authority” (Tit. 2:15). The evangelist doesn’t decide matters of judgment for the church (does he?). “Authority” doesn’t require secret decision-making, else the preacher is an “eviscerated” “mere figurehead.”

Do elders have authority to privately make decisions that bind the whole church? “The elders of the local church … are subject to Christ, the head of the church (Col. 1:18). Therefore, elders do not, and cannot enact or enforce any other laws than the laws of Christ which are revealed in the

Scriptures” (GOT [4/21/94], p. 244). Amen.

“Consensus is not found in the scriptures!” (1) The word isn’t in my proposition either! (2) The concept is taught in Acts 6:5; 15:22; 15:25; 1 Corinthians 1:10. (3) “Leadership” and “authority” don’t occur in the NT with regard to elders. Do elders have neither?

Including women leads to women overriding men, women preachers, etc. (1) If so, why does he teach that women may be included on some occasions, per Acts 6 and 15 (Q. 1)? Won’t the women in Tom’s meetings want to become preachers too? (2) Anyone “overriding” others (male or female) in matters of judgment violates 1 Corinthians 1:10; Ephesians 4:1-3; Acts 6:5 and Acts 15:22. (3) Abuses don’t disprove the practice. Baptism is often abused (sprinkling, infants), but it is still the right thing to do, if we avoid the abuses. (4) Some believe having women participating in mixed Bible classes is a dangerous step toward feminism. Should we forbid it?

“Elders have no oversight in consensus.” This confuses “oversight” with “private decision-making.” They have no “private decision-making” in the Bible pattern, but lots of “oversight.” I challenge for a lexicon defining “oversight” as “private decision-making without congregational involvement.”

Acts 6  the Apostles privately decided everything. (1) All the features he gave came after “the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them. . .” (Acts 6:2). Was it “private” (Tom) or did it include “the multitude” (Luke)? (2) My proposition says the pattern must “include (comprise as part of the whole) the whole church.” Since he says Acts 6 teaches the whole church is authorized to be included (Q. 1), he admits they were included. (3) Can elders decide whether men or women will serve as leaders over benevolence? Wow  I teach it’s a matter of faith that men (not women) are leaders, but Tom says it’s a judgment for elders to make privately. Do elders today privately decide the qualifications of deacons? I don’t think he believes this argument. (4) Since the Apostles “called the multitude,” I submit that refusal to call the multitude violates the “traditions of the apostles.” I believe we should do it the way the Apostles did it. Tom says we don’t have to. That, in a nutshell, is the debate.

His pattern calls for decisions with no private meetings, but they had them in:

Galatians 2:2: “I laid before them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles but privately before them who were of repute. . .” Where’s the decision in a matter of judgment here? Paul’s gospel was divine inspiration, not congregational judgment.

Galatians 2:9: To get a private decision for the church, one must cut off Paul in mid-sentence: “James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship. . .” He stopped here, but read on: “. . . that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision” (Gal. 2:9). Who are “we” and “they”? Was the whole church commanded to go to the circumcision or the Gentiles? The “fellow-ship” was in preaching the gospel, with an agreement to go to different audiences  but it says nothing about binding this evangelistic “decision” on the church. Galatians 2:9 will backfire on Tom. Only three men met with Paul and Barnabas in Galatians 2:9  out of at least 14 “apostles and elders” (12 apostles + at least 2 elders). Either a tiny minority (3/14) of elders or men make decisions for the church without the other elders or men: or Galatians 2:9 is not congregational decision-making, but private action by individuals. Which?

Acts 15:6. (1) This is a decision about what Gentiles must do to be saved. Do elders today have the right to privately decide what the plan of salvation is? (2) The “multitude” was included in the context (Acts 15:12).

1 Corinthians 5 includes the whole church, but 1 Corinthians 6 shows private decisions for the church. (1) I’m glad we agree 1 Corinthians 5 involves the whole church. (2) 1 Corinthians 6 isn’t about “matters of congregational judgment.” It settles a matter while still a private dispute, like the first two steps of Matthew 18. (3) 1 Corinthians 6:5 also backfires. Yes, an elder could be the “one wise man” who settles a dispute privately between two saints. Then what? Does the church now change some collective action? Can one elder privately decide things for the whole church without involving the other elders? I don’t think he believes this.

Vance will learn some things are too scandalous to be done collectively. (1) More scandalous than fornication that’s not even named among the heathens (1 Cor. 5:1)? (2) Where in the NT will I “learn” this? (3) If it causes the weak to stumble, why did God command it?

“Yes, the whole church can be involved in discipline but under the leadership of the elders. Your pattern is not supported by Matthew 18.” The first sentence is my pattern for a church with elders, so the second is wrong. I’m glad we agree that Matthew 18 includes the whole church.

Vance musts see contradiction between “male leader-ship” and “decision-making women.” (1) If Tom could see the difference between “leadership” and “excluding every one from participating,” this debate would be over. If these were synonymous, elders could never include other men or the whole church. But Tom agrees they should, at least sometimes. (2) “Decision-making women” privately deciding things are just as wrong as men who do so. In the Bible, the whole church participates  not women (or men) deciding things and forcing them on everyone.

Acts 11:27-30 shows private decisions by elders. (1) The decision is in 11:29. “And in proportion that any of the disciples had means, each of them determined [arizo] to send money for (“unto,” “towards”) benevolence. If the elders who received it had decided to spend it on a new meeting tent, they would have betrayed the generosity of the donors. (2) Where in Acts 11 are the decisions made privately by elders? Don’t just say “it is inferred”  show what phrase infers it and the specific decisions made, and show that they were made without including the whole church. Book, chapter, and verse, please. (3) Handling money doesn’t mean “privately deciding” things. Paul and Barnabas handled the money, but they didn’t privately decide anything, did they?

“In the absence of elders, male leadership prevails” (Answer to my Q. 2). Notice:

A. “Male leadership prevails” in the absence of elders (Q. 2).

B. A church with no elders included men and women in decision-making in the NT (Q. 1).

C. Therefore: including the whole church in decision-making doesn’t violate male leadership.

He must give up the arguments about feminism, women usurping authority, etc.

Answers to First Negative Questions: (1) Yes, and I’m willing to modify the negative remarks on “voting” I made in my book, in the interest of honesty and searching for truth. I found the scholarly quote on Acts 15:22 recently while preparing for this debate (is there any negative reply?). See also 2 Corinthians 8:19, where “chosen” means selected by a vote or show of hands (Thayer, p. 668; Strong, p. 77). “Voting,” as radical feminist Alexander Campbell (1835) said when he taught the whole church must be included, means any expression of opinion, whether raising the hand, saying “yes” or “no,” etc. Churches with secret decision-making have such voting all the time, among those allowed to participate. (2) Yes to both, provided the scriptures authorize it and the congregation has asked an “agency” to act on its behalf. (3) No. (4) They can’t. One group “overturning” another in matters of judgment is wrong, regardless of gender. (5) “Buying supplies”  the whole church gathered and chose servants (diakoneo) to do that in Acts 6. “Financial information” was discussed in Acts 6 among the whole church, which is how they knew certain widows were needy. “Hearing complaints”  see above on 1 Corinthians 6. “Investigating . . .” isn’t “private decision-making.” If you find out someone is sinning, you haven’t made a decision for the church. (6) If the leaders disagree with the multitude, there is no consensus yet.

Questions for Tom: (1) GOT [4/7/94], p. 206 criticized a “rump meeting” of a few men who privately decided to change a church bank account to prevent fraud by others, without including the rest of the men or women. What Scripture did they violate? (2) Where in the NT does “authority” refer to the right to privately decide matters of collective judgment? (3) When elders include the whole church in decision-making, do they lose “authority” or “oversight”? (4) Since women are authorized to attend meetings (1 A A. 1), by what authority could the men decide to exclude them? What other authorized activities may men prohibit women from doing?

Summary: We agree that all four cases I gave show the whole church included in matters of congregational judgment. Tom’s “exceptions” either deal with matters of faith, individual action, say nothing about private decisions by elders, or show the inclusion of the whole church. When-ever matters of collective judgment were handled in the NT, the whole church was included. Please join me in affirming that we should follow the Bible pattern.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 16, p. 18-20
August 18, 1994

By Harold Fite

I first met Teresa Bilyeu in the spring of 1983. She and her family moved to Houston from Fresno, California, and became a part of the congregation meeting on Fry Road in Houston, Texas. The primary purpose of the move was to acquire the best possible medical treatment for Teresa. She had a heart defect!

Doctors discovered her heart problem when she was two years old. She was in her dad’s lap with her ear against his chest. “What’s that ticking noise,” she asked. “My heart,” he replied. “Listen to mine,” she urged. He did and it didn’t sound right. Through a series of tests doctors found that she had a heart murmur. A corrective transposition of the great vessels of the right and left ventricle caused the murmur. The right was on the left and the left was on the right.

The right ventricle normally circulates blood to the whole body: the left goes to the lungs. Since these were reversed, the left ventricle had to pump double time to get the blood to the whole body. The right ventricle would be of such force that the lungs could be damaged (blown out). Her mitral valve was also bad. All the doctors could do was to watch it. They could do nothing about the transposition because they didn’t have the technology at that time. This limited her activities. A special Physical Education class had to be provided for her when she started to school.

At 13 years of age she began to take medication for her condition. At age 15 doctors replaced her mitral valve with pig’s valve! This was the closest thing to a human value. From then on she was referred to as “Miss Piggy.”

During the surgery on the mirtral valve, the person on the by-pass machine didn’t get enough blood and oxygen to her left leg  paralyzing it from the knee down. They had to take her back to surgery. She was in the hospital a month taking physical therapy. She underwent two or three surgeries over the next several years so she could walk. Her left foot is two or three sizes smaller than her right one.

She began to experience a problem with the rhythm of her heart. It wouldn’t stay in the right rhythm because of the transposition. She began taking medication to get it back in rhythm, and a couple of times had to undergo electrical shock treatment.

For the next several years her condition leveled out and she was out on her own and did the things 20-year-olds did. Then she started getting sick and could not hold down a job. Medical bills continued to mount, and she had to move back home with her parents.

The family had heard of Dr. Denton Cooley, in Houston, Texas, and moved to Houston to see if he might do something to help Teresa. This was in the spring of 1983 where we began this story. She was in the hospital having work-up done when hurricane Alecia struck. She had the experience of seeing objects fly by her window. She underwent extensive tests and was told she was a candidate for a heart transplant. If no transplant death was inevitable!

It took two years to get a heart. During this period she was in and out of the hospital numerous times. She nearly died three times and passed out several times. Any small exertion would cause her heart rate to go “sky high.” She would sleep 12 hours and be up 12 hours.

Doctor Cooley and his team did the transplant on June 14, 1985. At one time Teresa’s doctors considered a heart/lung transplant, but the force of the right ventricle had not damaged the lungs. The transplant was successful.

Before the transplant the hospital required a guarantee of financial responsibility for the heart rejection medicine. Approximately $38,000 was raised through a special contribution of the members of the Fry Road congregation with pledges up to $50,000. Teresa continues to draw from it.

She has had no major problem until this year. The medication she has been taking to prevent heart rejection has contributed to bone deterioration. After her surgery she was given massive doses of prednisone (they do not do this anymore). One side effect (among many) is deterioration of the bones. After two or three weeks doctors reduced it to a level dose. She has been taking 10 milligrams now for a long time.

She has had surgery for disk problems, and has one gone bad in her neck at the present time. The medication causes headaches, insomnia, restlessness, fluid retention and bone loss. At 33 years of age, she equates her bones with that of a 50-year-old person. Because of bone deterioration doctors have lowered the prednisone to 5 milligrams. It will probably take 2 years for her body to adjust to it.

On occasions when I visited her in the hospital, I was impressed with her knowledge of her condition and the treatments she was receiving. She could tell you all the medications she was taking, and for what purpose, and her body’s reaction to it  all in medical terms. Her knowledge prevented doctors and nurses from making grave and serious mistakes several times. She could speak of her condition and her near-death experiences in a factual and unemotional way.

A father whose son was a candidate for a heart transplant, visited Teresa one day. The son didn’t want the transplant and the father was seeking some help in dealing with his son. Teresa told him, “You must change his mind to where he wants it or he will not make it.” The son refused and he died! “He didn’t have a fighting attitude,” she said. “One thing that kept me going is my stubbornness.” She kept telling herself, “I’ve got to do this.”

This doesn’t mean she never gets tired of it all. “Many times I just get tired of fighting and fighting and fighting,” she said. “I have my `pity parties’ and then, OK, I am done, let’s go on and fight again.”

I have never heard her complain of her lot or sensed any bitterness toward the cruel fate life has dealt her. She has faced her adversity with courage and dignity. Her faith in God is strong. She has maintained her sense of humor. One doctor told her father that if she lived a sedentary life she could possible live for quite some time. With an impish smile she said, “I have doctor’s orders to just sit around.”

There is no “quit” in Teresa. I asked her, “Teresa, with all that you have gone through, if you knew then what you know now, would you have had this transplant.” Without hesitation she said, “Yes.” She explained that there was a door opened for her. To give up and refuse the transplant would be tantamount to suicide. She didn’t think God would be pleased with that. She thought, “If it is my time to go, at least I will have gone down fighting, rather than just giving up.”

Doctors thought that the transplant would extend her life approximately seven years. After seven years, they thought other avenues would be open to them. Her transplanted heart has carried her for nine years, but at the present time those other avenues have not developed. She is now getting to that thin margin: she has problems with her ankles swelling; artery buildup; bone deterioration, etc. She has had too many surgeries for another transplant. “I have this weird instinct,” she said, “that if I see my 45th birthday, I will be lucky.”

Through the grace of God, he enabled her to live until medical technology caught up to give her a heart. Now hopefully medical science will discover a cure soon for Teresa’s ailment. Until then she has no options.

I pray that these feeble words have helped you to know, at least in a measure, Teresa Bilyeu. She is a woman of unflinching courage and strength, and inspiration to us all.

(Note: if you would like to write Teresa, do so in care of this writer.)

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 16, p. 6-7
August 18, 1994

By Tom Roberts

This debate is important because Vance suggests a radical departure from the practice of the NT and makes his unscriptural “pattern” a test of fellowship. As one who serves as an evangelist and an elder in a local church, I deny his affirmative as both unscriptural and impractical. Our difference is not personal nor is his honesty or sincerity impugned.

Definitions: I commend Vance in appealing to the Scriptures. However “pattern” should reflect a binding quality beyond that of his dictionary (2 Tim. 1:13; 1 Tim. 1:16; Heb. 8:5). Since Vance is advocating a pattern that requires “congregational decision-making in matters of judgment” and requires “an increased role for women in the decision-making processes of local churches” (Vance Trefethen, Confusion or Consensus, p. 3), his obligation is to show that pattern. He brands private decision-making by elders as “without authority” (ibid., p. 6), thus sinful. Since a pattern allows no deviations, if it can be shown that a single exception to his pattern exists, he has no pattern. However, Vance is confused about what makes a pattern. He states “Acts 15 is the only Bible pattern there is on the matter” (ibid., p. 32), but attempts to add Acts 6 and 1 Corinthians 5, etc., to that pattern. Either Acts 15 is the “sole” (only) pattern or it is not. When defining “decision-making in matters of congregational judgment,” Vance emphasized that this addressed matters of judgment and not matters of faith. Agreed, but we differ on “decision-making” itself! His pattern calls for every decision to be made by the whole congregation (including women), under male leadership. This would be required in every congregation, whether or not there were elders. I suggest that this makes elders mere figureheads, with no scriptural authority to decide any matter. Though he affirms that he believes elders have “authoritative work to do in overseeing and leading a local church,” he also requires a “consensus” (ibid, pp. 22,24,25, et al): a contradiction of terms. Consensus is “a collective opinion, general agreement” (Funk & Wagnalls Study Dictionary) in which women carry the same force as men in “decision-making” or there is no true consensus. “Consensus” is not found in the Scriptures! It fits well in a democracy, but the church is a theocracy where elders are specifically mandated (Acts 14:23; 1 Pet. 5:2; etc.). It is exceedingly strange that his entire pattern is built upon a word that is not found in the Scriptures (either specifically or in principle).

What this debate is not about: (1) “Not about feminism”? Though his disclaimer is appreciated, it is futile. I respect that he rejects feminism as such, but his position opens the door to the very evil he denounces. “Consensus” puts women on a par with men in decision-making. If a consensus of women in the majority disagrees with the consensus of men in the minority (which is true in many churches), he has placed the decision of the women over the men. The women may be humble and discreet, but either they have decision-making authority or they do not! If the minority of the men over-ride the decisions of the majority of the women, consensus would be destroyed. But when he allows the decisions of the women to prevail, he has violated 1 Timothy 2:11-15. His pattern has put him on the horns of a dilemma. (2) “It is not about women serving as preachers and bishops?” Again, I respect his disclaimer and join with him in denouncing such as a violation. But as a practical matter, once he opens the gate to decision-making women, it is foolish to think that all will be content with this “increased role” and nothing more. Already, congregations exist where women are leading in public worship. Some allow women to teach mixed classes of men and women “under male leadership” or as “co-teachers.” His position, however unwitting, advances women in that direction and cannot logically prohibit it. (3) “Not about whether elders have leadership, over-sight, or responsibility in the local church?” But of course it is. His definition of “decision-making” and “consensus” eviscerates biblical elders. Elders have no oversight in a consensus. Responsibility adheres to those making decisions and since the consensus decision is the congregation’s, the responsibility is theirs and not the elders. (4) Ad-dressed in #2 above. (5) No disagreement here.

What this debate is about: The role of elders. Does the scriptural pattern require congregational meetings (including women) every single time there are decisions of judgment to be made? or: Do elders have authority from God to meet privately and make judgment decisions that bind the whole church?

Arguments: (1) Acts 6:1-6. According to Vance it is a sin for private meetings of males to make decisions for the whole church. But look at the text. The apostles (1) privately decided to change previous practices, (2) privately decided to stop serving tables, (3) privately decided to have others serve tables, (4) privately decided that these would be men and not women, (5) privately decided there would be seven of these men, (6) privately decided the qualifications of these seven and (7) privately decided that they would appoint the men and not allow the church to do so. Yes, what the apostles privately decided pleased the whole multitude and they had a role in choosing the men who would serve. The whole church can be, even should be, involved in some congregational actions. Clearly his “pattern” denies the very thing found in Acts 6: private decisions by males that are bound upon the whole congregation. His pattern is not found in Acts 6. It violates the “traditions of the apostles” (2 Thess. 2:15; 3:16).

(2) Acts 15:12-27. His “pattern” calls for a congregational decision with no private meetings. Though the action “pleased the whole church” there were private meetings and his pattern fails in the very place he affirms as his “sole pattern.” Relating Galatians 2:1-10 to the meeting in Acts 15 will reveal the flaw in his exegesis. Galatians 2 shows that when Paul went to Jerusalem, he met privately (2:2) with “those of repute.” Acts 15:2 shows this private meeting to be with “the apostles and elders” who made the decision to give the right hand of fellowship to Paul and Barnabas. After this, they met with the whole church (15:4), then had another private meeting with the apostles and elders (15:6). Again, there is no disagreement with involving the church in the process but his pattern denies the truth of these private meetings where decisions were made. These multiple exceptions to his “sole pattern” show that he has no pattern.

(3) 1 Corinthians 5:1-5, 11-13. There has never been a problem with involving the whole church in various processes, including discipline, as in this text. The problem is his assertion that no private decisions can be made that bind the whole church to the decision of the few. Read just a few verses beyond ch. 5, into ch. 6:1-5, and we see the very thing he denies. In the matter of brother going to court against brother, Paul admonishes that brethren ought not go to court before the unrighteous, but that there should be a “court of the saints” (v. 1). He advises that we ought to be able to “judge” by finding at least “one wise man who shall be able to decide between brethren” (v. 5). Here are “wise men” (would elders qualify?) who make decisions for the whole church in disputes between brethren. Vance’s pattern is in tatters!

(4) Matthew 18:15-17. He recognizes that discipline is a congregational matter and that it should be done under “male leadership”! Could these males be elders? If Vance could see the contradiction between “male leadership” and “decision-making women,” this debate would be over. When the church at Antioch sent relief to the needy brethren in Judea (Acts 11:27-30), they sent it to the “elders” (v. 30). (What decision did the women make?) When the relief went to the elders, did it not go to the churches? In this case, the elders represented the churches which received the benevolence. If discipline began individually and continued until it came before the church, would it not be before the church under the leadership of the elders? Vance will learn that there are scandalous actions of brethren that do not need to be aired before the “whole church” lest they cause weak brethren and babes to stumble. Yes, the whole church can be involved in discipline but under the leadership of the elders. Your pattern is not supported by Matthew 18.

Questions: (1) Yes, Acts 6, Acts 15, etc., but this does not prohibit private decisions by male leaders. (2) Elders are authorized to make decisions for the church as the passages above prove. If elders cannot make such private decisions, no other group could. But if elders are authorized to do so, in the absence of elders, male leadership prevails, as you yourself propose (1 Tim. 2). (3) Yes. (4) Yes, as seen above. Additionally, in Acts 11:27-30 it is inferred that the elders decided who, how long and how much, etc. (5) No, but this does not rule out an ekklesia acting through agency. Examples: 1 Corinthians 16:3; 2 Corinthians 8:23 (messengers of the churches acted on behalf of the church); Acts 11:27-30 (elders received the funds on behalf of the receiving church). (6) No, an unqualified man cannot act as or substitute for an elder. But in the absence of elders, male leadership is authorized (1 Tim. 2:11-15) as you admit. Congregations existed for a time without elders (Acts 13:1-14:23). Male leadership is necessarily inferred.

Questions for Vance: (1) Do you believe Acts 15:22 authorizes voting? (2) Can an ekklesia be represented by agency, and if so, is it the same as the ekklesia acting? (3) If the majority of a congregation is women and the women disagree with the minority men concerning a matter of judgment, can the majority rule? (4) How can women be involved in “decision making,” remain in subjection, yet overturn the decision of men? (5) Must the entire church be gathered to decide the multitudes of decisions about buying supplies, caring for the needy (including sensitive financial information), hearing complaints between members, investigating scandalous moral actions of members and make every decision about every matter? (6) Is an eldership bound by a consensus even though the entire eldership disagrees with it?

I urge brother Trefethen to abandon his faulty pattern which will only generate strife and stumbling among brethren and to turn his considerable talents to edifying (Eph. 4:29).

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 16, p. 16-17
August 18, 1994