When Scriptural Organization is Lacking
Although there is no indication that the Corinth church had an eldership at the time, Paul instructs his readers to “submit [ὑποτάσσω] to such” (1 Cor. 16:16a). While in a sense all Christians are to submit to one another (Eph. 5:21; 1 Pet. 5:5), here we find an example of unilateral submission similar to that expressed in Hebrews 13:17.
Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus had “devoted themselves to the service of the saints” (1 Cor. 16:15). The word translated “devoted” (“addicted,” KJV) is the Greek ἔταξαν (from τάσσω), meaning to “arrange, put in place .... order, fix, determine, appoint” (BDAG 991; cf. Matt. 28:16; Acts 22:10; Rom. 13:1). It seems that these brethren had actually appointed themselves to this ministry – not that they usurped the wishes of the congregation, but they saw what needed to be done and got to work. Stephanas and his fellow-laborers were not self-appointed leaders but self-appointed workers, and Paul acknowledges this as a quality of true leadership.
3 Luke records that “for three sabbaths” in Thessalonica Paul reasoned with them from the scriptures (Acts 17:2b). We are not told how many days prior to the first sabbath the team arrived in the city, or how many days after the third sabbath they departed, but it would appear that they were in Thessalonica about a month (give or take). This would explain why there were initially things “lacking in the faith” of these new converts (1 Thess. 3:10). The Thessalonian letters seem to have been composed within close proximity of one another, and 1 Thess. 2:17 indicates this was a reasonably short time after the missionaries had left these new converts. At the time of writing Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy were together, and Timothy had had time to revisit Thessalonica and rejoin his colleagues (1 Thess. 3:1-6; cf. Acts 18:5).
4 Cf. Luke 5:5; Acts 20:35; 1 Cor. 4:12; 15:10; 2 Tim. 2:6. This word is also used in reference to an elder’s work (1 Tim. 5:17).
5 Years ago a congregation in New Zealand consisted of three widow ladies and a single mother. One of the women took the initiative to ensure they had a place to meet, communion was prepared, a preaching video was available, and collected funds were used for good works. There were no elders or other male leaders, but they were not without leadership.
6 The fact that elders were appointed in every church near the end of Paul and Barnabas’ first missionary campaign (Acts 14:23) is not at variance with scriptural requirements if the length of the campaign is estimated according to biblical data rather than the unfounded guesses of commentators. The first missionary journey, like those that followed, was an extensive church-planting mission involving approx. six years of preaching the gospel, making disciples (incl. households), and establishing autonomous churches in at least three cities where elders were appointed. See K. L. Moore, “The First Missionary Journey,” Moore Perspective (10 Feb. 2013), <Link>. It was about twelve years after the Philippi congregation had been started that reference is made to “overseers and deacons” (Phil. 1:1).
7 See F. LaGard Smith, Male Spiritual Leadership: Special Study Edition. Nashville, TN: 21st Century Christian, 1998. Also K. L. Moore, “The Bible’s Radical View on Women,” Moore Perspective (6 March 2019), <Link>.
8 1 Tim. 1:16; 2:1-7; 4:15-16; 5:25; 6:1; also Matt. 5:13-16; Luke 2:52; John 13:35; 17:21; Acts 10:22; Rom. 2:24; 13:12-14; 1 Thess. 4:11-12; Tit. 2:5.
Related Posts: Qualifications of Elders (Part 1), One Eldership Multiple Churches?
The New Testament is clear—elders are the biblical model for church leadership, and anything else is a stopgap at best. Paul instructed Titus to “appoint elders in every town” (Titus 1:5), not as an optional improvement but to “set in order the things that are lacking.” That means a church without elders is incomplete. When Paul and Barnabas went on their missionary journeys, they “appointed elders in every church” (Acts 14:23). These weren’t churches that had been around for decades—they were young congregations, likely only a few years old. Yet, eldership was still a priority.
ReplyDeleteThe qualifications for elders (1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:6-9) require spiritual maturity, but the idea that a church has to wait decades before it can have elders is unfounded. The early church was built on new converts, yet elders were still appointed. There is no biblical basis for churches to indefinitely function without them. Temporary circumstances might delay appointing elders, but the goal should always be to establish them as soon as qualified men arise.
You acknowledge that any leadership arrangement other than a scripturally appointed eldership is “less than ideal.” Yet, you argue for adapting leadership structures based on circumstances. This creates a contradiction—on one hand, eldership is the goal, but on the other, alternative structures are considered acceptable if they “work.” That kind of pragmatism is dangerous. The church is not called to operate based on what seems effective but on what is commanded. Colossians 3:17 reminds us, “Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus.” The biblical pattern is elders, not human-devised stopgaps.
Another issue is that leadership structures should be determined on a case-by-case basis. But the New Testament does not give room for this flexibility. Every congregation Paul planted, no matter how young, was expected to work toward establishing elders. There is no example of a long-term alternative model. If these early churches, with members who had only been Christians for a few years, were expected to have elders, why would we think modern churches should delay indefinitely?
The Danger of Settling for Stopgaps
History shows that once churches get comfortable with a non-eldership model, they tend to stay that way. The argument often becomes, “The work is getting done, so why change?” But efficiency does not equal obedience. The church is not a business where we measure success by how well tasks are completed. The issue is faithfulness to God’s design. 1 Peter 5:1-4 is clear—elders are to shepherd the flock. That is the structure God put in place. Anything else is settling for something “less than ideal,” which, in biblical terms, means less than obedient.
At the end of the day, there is only one biblical model—elders. Any other arrangement is an interim measure, not a permanent solution. Churches that claim they are “not ready” for elders need to recognise that Paul expected churches that were just a few years old to have them. If elders were necessary then, they are necessary now. The church’s responsibility is not to find alternatives that seem to work but to follow God’s pattern.
Bro. Eugene, Thank you for your well-thought-out response to my article and your obvious concern for faithfulness and obedience. We share the same concern. Just a few words of clarification. The article does not promote a “permanent” or even a “long-term” solution to a lack of elders. The overarching aim throughout is for each congregation of the Lord’s church to be scripturally organized with a plurality of qualified men serving as the congregational leaders, as the Bible directs. So we agree, “a church without elders is incomplete.” But what is a church to do in the absence of qualified men (as per 1 Tim. 3:1-7; Tit. 1:5-9)? No newly started church comprised of recent converts can have qualified elders (Acts 13:13–14:22), and prematurely appointing unqualified elders is not according to God’s design, on which I think we can agree. We also agree that having no elders indefinitely is not a scriptural solution either. Your response seems to be a concern about churches that have existed for decades without elders, which is a concern we share and a situation the article does not promote or condone. The apparent disagreement is about what to do as a stopgap measure in the meantime. Nowhere does the article suggest that “appointing all men to lead is unscriptural.” It does point out the dangers of allowing men to lead who are spiritually immature, weak in faith, biblically ungrounded, and doctrinally unstable. It is scriptural to affirm that not everyone in the body is a leader (Rom. 12:4-8; Eph. 4:11-14), some men ought not be leaders (e.g., 3 John 9-11), and those who are spiritually mature and faithful are recognizable (Rom. 15:1; 1 Cor. 2:6; 1 Tim. 5:25; 2 Tim. 2:2). I totally agree with the statement: “At the end of the day, there is only one biblical model—elders. Any other arrangement is an interim measure, not a permanent solution.” The whole point of the article is to address this “interim measure,” and if there is a detailed biblical pattern that tells us what to do prior to appointing elders, I sincerely want to know it. Thank you for your commitment to the Lord and his church. May he bless you, your family, and our good brethren.
Delete