Lack of Eldership

Question 1: What do we call the person who chairs the church meetings?

ANSWER: I assume from the question that there are no elders where you worship. If there are, these men, of course, would have the authority to chair meetings. If there are no elders then one of the brethren should be appointed to chair the meeting. Having no authority, it would be his purpose to assure orderly transaction of the business at hand. Under no circumstances, should a woman chair such a meeting, unless it is in a congregation made up solely of women (I Timothy 2:11-12). To refer to a man chairing a meeting as the "chairman," because it describes the function he is doing would not be wrong. However, allow me to suggest that you avoid using any title or expression that might elevate one brother over another. Nothing good can come from it, but will often create jealousies and division within a congregation. Even the words preacher, teacher, deacon, and elder are not to be used as titles. These are to be used simply to describe the function scripturally performed by individuals or groups. We all have given names! Let us use these!

Question 2: If a church has no elders, how can such a church be governed?

ANSWER: If a congregation has no elders, it must do everything possible to scripturally qualify men for this vital office in the Lord’s church. Until at least two man are qualified and installed, all of the faithful men of the congregation have an equal say and responsibility toward the church affairs in matters of opinion and to assure that only the truth is taught and practiced! Very often, preachers attempt to become the “Pastor” in such arrangements and attempt to be the final word in church matters. Such is not scriptural! Neither is it scriptural for the women to rule by attending and participating in the business meetings that are to be restricted to the faithful men of the congregation in the absence of elders (I Timothy 2:11-12)!

Question 3: Does a church without a preacher have a right to ordain elders and deacons?

ANSWER: Yes! A congregation with elders and deacons may exist without a preacher and a congregation with a preacher may exist without elders and deacons, if it is the case that none in that congregation are qualified to fill these offices. If men are qualified to be elders and deacons, God expects that these be appointed to those offices (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5-9; I Timothy 3:1-13). There is nothing in the scriptural qualifications for the appointment of a man to either of these offices that is dependent upon the presence of a preacher. To so assume would be to demand that qualified elders and deacons leave office upon the departure of the preacher, whether his departure were permanent or temporary.

Neither is it necessary that a preacher be present when a man is being appointed to one of these offices. The term “ordain” as used in the Bible (Acts 14:23) does not imply a formal ceremony that is presided over by a preacher. The thrust of the word in the original Greek indicates an election or an appointment. Though Paul and Barnabas were present and clearly played a part in the installation of men to the office of elder in this particular area, we should not assume that they did so without participation of the local congregation. The word “ordained” in the original language occurs only one other place in the New Testament, i.e., II Corinthians 8:19. Here it is applied to Luke as one who was “chosen” (or ordained) of the churches to travel with Paul. The word properly means to “stretch out the hand”, as was the usual practice in voting by a show of hands to indicate approval. It is in this sense the word is used to mean, election, appointment, or designation to office, not solely by the preacher, but by the congregation over whom rule is to be exercised, including the preacher! The announcement of the fact of congregational selection and acceptance of one qualified to be an elder or a deacon may indeed be stated by a preacher, but as well by another elder/deacon, or one of the other men of the congregation. The critical issues are: (1) Does the man meet every one of the qualifications? (2) Has the congregation shown acceptance of the one to be appointed through a selection process that does not violate any biblical principle?

Question 4: (Follow-up to the above): I am thankful for your answer! However I do have a further question. In his letter to Titus 1:5, Paul writes, "For this cause left I thee in Crete that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and appoint elders in every city." From this scripture, it seems as though Paul is assigning that duty, appointing elders..." to Titus. While I know that it is true that there are congregations without preachers that have elders, to my understanding, there is nothing that says that elders must step down from their offices if the preacher departs for some reason, I must receive some clarification on this point. Does Paul give this assignment to any other person in the local congregation? Are there any scriptures that give this particular duty to any other? I have taught that this is the job of the preacher once the congregation has determined that there are men that fit the qualifications and desire the office.

ANSWER: You suggest that Titus 1:5 teaches that only preachers may do the "job" of appointing elders. Based on this passage, what is that "job?" What does the preacher "do?" What ceremony does he follow? Is it simply that he announces the decision of the congregation? Must he state that, "I, the evangelist, officially appoint you, at this time, as an elder over this congregation?" Does such a statement make one an elder? Your suggestion, by implication, teaches such! Or is one made an elder by the Holy Ghost through His Word (Acts 20:28)? Your suggestion would mean that the Holy Ghost could not "make" an elder and there could, therefore, be no elders without a preacher or without the action of a preacher! Carry the thought over to I Timothy 5:20. Paul is directing the young preacher, Timothy, to 'rebuke the elders who sin before all (the congregation). According to your rationale, if "all" elders, on the basis of Titus 1:5, must be appointed by a preacher and none can be appointed by a congregation without a preacher, then it is the case that "all" sinful elders, on the basis of I Timothy 5:20, must be rebuked by a preacher and a congregation cannot rebuke an elder without a preacher! Then it would be the case that congregations without a preacher must work under sinful elders until a preacher can be found to come and rebuke him, an action, by the way, that (in either case) smacks of a hierarchy and the acknowledgement and recognition of a laity and clergy system! May I now ask your questions? Does Paul give this assignment, i.e., rebuking of an elder, to any other person than the preacher in the local congregation? Are there any scriptures that give this particular duty to another? If so, where? Certainly, the preacher may and should, if present as a member of the local congregation, participate in that rebuking, but that does not mean an elder cannot be rebuked by a congregation without a preacher! Similarly, neither does Titus 1:5 teach that an elder cannot be appointed without a preacher!

It is the case that the Holy Spirit directs that qualified men be appointed to the office of elder. Paul was telling Titus, by His direction, to see to it that such would be accomplished in the congregations of Crete. This was the thrust of Paul's direction in Titus 1:5. He was not here limiting the appointment of elders to the preacher, just as he was not limiting the rebuking of elders to the preacher in I Timothy 5:20! It is worthy of note that Paul did not tell Titus what ceremony to follow or what action he must take in appointing elders! Clearly, the emphasis and thrust of the passage is not toward the sole appointment of elders by a preacher! It was toward the necessity of having godly elders in each and every congregation of the Lord's church! What part Titus was to play in the appointment of elders in Crete is not known, nor was any specifically mandated. Preachers should encourage the local congregation to select elders that are qualified to rule. And the local preacher may participate in that process, even to the announcement of the decision made, but the appointment of elders does not depend upon the presence of a preacher!

The Holy Spirit mandates that each congregation must strive toward the appointment of qualified elders. If a congregation goes year after year without qualifying men of that congregation to become elders, it, and the preacher, is failing to do what the Bible teaches. Congregations in such situations, though often in denial, many times fall after the denominational practice of the "Pastor System" and "Evangelistic Oversight." Indeed, some preachers love to have it so! In fact, on occasion, preachers have been known to manipulatively campaign to assure that certain men are appointed to the eldership; often weak-willed men (and often unqualified) who will easily relent and bow to the wishes and direction of the preacher/pastor, so that even with “elders” there is many times a de facto “Pastor” who has total control of the congregation through “Evangelistic Oversight.” A preacher/pastor that will work manipulatively behind the scenes in order to assert his opinions and will is not worthy of his hire and needs to be rooted out and encouraged to repent.

Question 5: May a preacher appoint deacons in a congregation where there are no elders?

ANSWER: The function of "deacons" is to serve the congregation and that under the oversight of the elders. If deacons are appointed without elders, who then directs the deacons? Under whose rule do they function (Hebrews 13:7 & 17)? Will it be the preacher? Or is it a "Board of Deacons" that directs itself? We have no authority for a ruling preacher (evangelistic oversight), neither a ruling Board of Deacons! But there is little doubt that without elders, that either one or both of these unscriptural arrangements will arise, simply because they are the only two situations that are probable and likely to arise.

The notion that the seven men of Acts, Chapter six were the first "deacons" is pure speculation and opinion. We do know that they were assigned a specific function or service, but that alone does not require, indicate, or prove the appointment to an "office." Even if the opinion were correct, it must be recognized that that there were inspired apostles present at the congregation in Jerusalem who approved of and appointed these seven to that particular work. Surely that situation does not exist today, rendering such an opinion as being improper and irrelevant.

It must also be understood that the initial selection of the seven men was conducted, not by a preacher, but rather by the church congregated who were instructed to "look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost, whom we (the apostles) may appoint over this business." One should not be selectively opinionated in considering what one perceives to be an approved example!

The Scriptural arrangement is a plurality of deacons serving under a plurality of elders. To this we are limited!

[Return to Index]