In Absence Of Bishops---Business Meetings, Preachers

A brother writes:

In the absence of elders, does the business meeting take the oversight of the congregation? Has the local preacher a limited voice, or no voice at all, in business meeting affairs?

--------------

Concerning the oversight of a congregation, it is well to begin with an examination of the function of the elders---for many consider them almost as a "sacred order"---a sort of priesthood, set above the "ordinary" members---having an "official" position. Jesus makes it clear that there is only one Master, Christ, "and all ye are brethren" (Matt. 23:8). The idea of "official" (in our current sense) is completely missing from 1 Tim. 3:1. Marshall's literal translation is, "If anyone aspires to oversight, he desires a good work." The K.J. uses "office" in the sense of function, not of hierarchy. (See Vine Expository Dictionary, on "bishop.")

Nor is the evangelist an "officer of the church at large" as some have claimed. Careful reflection will show that all such "official" positions are a hang-over from the hierarchical system of the Catholic church. They seek their "authority" in a succession of bishops---divine (?) authority handed down by imposition of hands, etc., and supposedly dating back to Christ's appointment of the Apostles (which they also misunderstand and misuse). The whole idea is erroneous, making a special group of "priests" among God's people; when we are taught (1 Pet. 2:5,9) that all the saints are priests in the priesthood of Christ (Heb. 7:). Elders are never referred to as arbitrary rulers or lords (as in Matt. 20:25-26); and this sort of "rule" is specifically forbidden in 1 Pet. 5:3.

But the team-work of saints necessitates some form of harness, some one to direct and guide the "team" (congregation) and to "watch for" or inspect, oversee them. The word "rule" in Heb. 13:17 points to "leaders"; in 1 Thess. 5:12 "over you" refers to those who "stand before"; and in 1 Pet. 5:2 "feed" indicates those who "tend" or "shepherd." The Holy Spirit gives us the qualifications needed by such men (1 Tim. 3:; Tit. 1:), but in the very nature of the case it is up to the saints (members of the team) to judge who, if any, have such qualifications, and to recognize them and function under their guidance. The "authority" (right to rule and expect such submission as is essential to that rule) comes from the members of the congregation---i.e., it is a position based upon the judgment of the congregation. If the congregation believes the appointed bishops no longer have the qualifications required by the Holy Spirit---they can, by the same process, remove them from that position with its functions.

Please note, I did not say congregational agreement respecting a man "made" him a scripturally qualified overseer. The brethren could make a mistake in judgment, appointing poorly qualified men, and ignoring well qualified men. But the right to appoint is resident in the saints, and the congregation will do well or badly on the basis of how they meet this and other responsibilities to God.

Exhortations to "obey" and "submit" to overseers (Heb. 13:17), and to "esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake" (1 Thess. 5:12-13), show the necessity of respect for those selected as overseers---as it is apparent that team work would flounder if, having been appointed, their position had to be re-examined every time they tried to function. They are protected from capricious and irresponsible criticism, sometimes judged worthy of double honor and support (1 Tim. 5:17-20); and yet are subject to rebuke for their sins the same as any other Christians.

With this fresh in mind, we face the question of what to do when there are no qualified men to appoint as overseers of a congregation. A local church can exist and function in the absence of elders (Acts 14:21-23), although something is "wanting" (lacking, Tit. 1:5). I find nothing to indicate that an evangelist has "charge" in such cases---although in places where there are none but babes in Christ, and especially in the time before the written New Testament was available to all, it would reasonably fall to the more knowledgeable and experienced men to guide and instruct the group so they could fulfill their responsibilities before the Lord.

A "business meeting" of the men is simply a human expedient, with no more "authority" for its existence than any other expedient. If this plan is used, it should be remembered that it is but a method for letting the saints of the congregation express themselves, and function orderly as a team. It should not be regarded as the equivalent of a body of bishops or elders, for the experience, spiritual development, and acumen of qualified overseers is not here. These men are novices. They may be self-willed, easily angered, etc. They are not what qualified overseers should be, or they would be appointed as such. So, it does not follow that all things said of scriptural overseers now applies to the "business meeting" arrangement.

One who devotes his full time to preaching and teaching, being supported by the brethren so that this work is possible, is as much a member of the congregation---and no more so---as any other member. Both the church and the preacher are in error if he is a "hireling"---subject only to the rule of "so much preach for so much pay." In any "business meeting" he should be heard to the extend of his learning, experience, and wisdom---and that goes for every other member of the congregation. If not, why not??

In the final analysis, we must learn to "submit...one to another in the fear of God" (Eph. 5:21). This does not eliminate God-appointed "headship" necessary for orderly function of the home, church, etc., (the next verse says, "Wives submit yourselves unto your own husbands...") but it would erase the "lording" complex that wrecks havoc in all phases of the work of the saints.

In the absence of a humble spirit of love and mutual concern, there are no rules of order or oversight that can make a congregation function for the Lord as it should.

Robert F. Turner

Plain Talk, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 4-5---March, 1976