In the first four issues of 2,000, Focus Magazine ran a series of articles by brother Dale Smelser on the eldership. These articles were a reprint of a booklet brother Smelser had previously written and were entitled, “The Rule of Elders.” He has a lot to say that all would agree with and makes a number of needed observations. In replying to his series I am hoping to discuss differences that exist with regards to the eldership. These differences have existed for some time and it is hoped that this review of Dale’s articles will be welcomed as a further chance to study them. In correspondence with Dale I have learned that Dale explains his beliefs differently than what I understand him to say in his series. It is my conviction that it is what brother Smelser has publicly circulated that deserves response. “Restoration requires a return to the ancient order” (3/00, p. 25). Agreeing with this statement from Dale, we begin our review. (An abbreviated version of this review appears in December’s Focus Magazine.)
- Bishop. Of “oversight” in 1 Peter 5:2, he writes, “The sense of the word oversee emphasizes watching for, not operating, running and dominating” (4/00, p. 27). Agreeing that elders should not dominate we simply note the definition of “bishop” from two sources common among us: “superintendent, guardian, bishop” (Arndt and Gingrich, p. 299); “the superintendent…or overseer of any Christian church” (Thayer, p. 243).
- Pastor. “Shepherd, sheep-herder….Of those who lead Christian churches” (Arndt and Gingrich, p. 684). “The presiding officer, manager, director, of any assembly….of the overseers of the Christian assemblies.” (Thayer, p. 527).
- Elder. “those who presided over the assemblies (or churches)” (Thayer, p. 536). While Arndt and Gingrich’s definition is inconclusive, it does have a helpful definition of “feed” (the verb form of “pastor”) in 1 Peter 5:2, which deals with the work of elders in its context: “with the symbol prominently in mind: of the direction of a congregation” (p. 683).
- Governments (1 Cor. 12:28). Most commentators believe that this word speaks of elders and deacons here. What does the word refer to? Dale must prove conclusively that it does not refer to elders for his position to float.
With the clear definitions of the first three above words before us, we now turn to look at other words key to understanding the rule of elders. Dale writes of “the versatility of words. The same word has different shades of meaning…” (2/00, p. 20). While we agree with Dale here, let it be remembered that a word must be proven to have a shade of meaning in a given text before it can be used as a basis to teach anything.
- Rule (Heb. 13:17, 24). Brother Smelser first notes that it is helpful to see the use of this word elsewhere (2/00, p. 21), and then neglects to note its being rendered, “governor” (Matt. 2:6; Acts 7:10) and “chief” (Lk. 22:26; Acts 14:12; 15:22). Its being rendered “governor” is significant in that a governor, as we will note under our next point, results from God’s delegated authority, as does an elder. It is surprising that Dale writes, “The term itself does not connote authority” (ibid.). He cites “to lead, guide” as its definition from several sources and cites several verses agreeing with this definition (op. cit.). Let us notice the word’s full definition: “lead, guide, of men in any leading position…ruler, leader….Hb 13:7, 17, 24…leading men among the brethren” (Arndt and Gingrich, p. 343); “to be leader; to rule, command; to have authority over…. leading as respects influence, controlling in counsel” (Thayer, p. 276, my emph., sw). Dale said it “does not connote authority!” Vital to his position is that the underlined parts of these definitions be left out and that it be proven that the sense of “govern” (Matt. 2:6: Acts 7:10) is in no way appropriate here. Yet, the apostles’ actions in Acts 6:2-3 show that one cannot exclude these meanings of the word as it applies to elders. They alone made decisions for the whole church — and they could do this and not be “lording it over” the flock (1 Pet. 5:3, cp. Dale’s citation of this verse and concern at 2/00, p.20).
- Rule (1 Tim. 5:17). (This word also appears in Rom. 12:8; 1 Thes. 5:12; 1 Tim. 3:4,5,12; 5:17.) Again, Dale cites some definitions of this word: “`placed in front’ (Vincent), `lit. to stand before, hence, to lead, attend to’ (Vine)`….helping…giving care'” (3/00, p. 23). The word is defined as follows: “to be at the head, rule, direct” (Arndt and Gingrich, p. 707); “to be over, to superintend, preside over” (Thayer, p. 23). All of Arndt and Gingrich’s, and Thayer’s definitions must be discounted for brother Smelser’s position to be true! This is difficult to do in light of the aforementioned actions of the apostles in Acts 6:2-3. (We will say more on Acts 6:2-3 under a later point, below.)
- Obey (Heb. 13:17). Here, the definitions which brother Smelser gives are no problem. “Obey, follow” (Arndt and Gingrich, p. 639) and “to listen to, obey, yield to, comply with” (Thayer, p. 497 [2/00, p. 22]). Please note the word’s usage in Galatians 3:1: “Who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth…?” Brother Smelser teaches that elders lead by influence or example (2/00, pp. 21-22). A simple question is in order in light of his teaching and the word under consideration here: How does one obey an example? We can all understand how one might obey written words, e.g., the gospel, or the spoken words of a person. But how does one obey influence? We know how one learns from approved apostolic example and obeys the divine command revealed by example, but this is exactly the kind of authority elders do not have. Consequently, we are back to our question: How does one obey an elder’s example or influence?
- Submit (Heb. 13:17). We agree with the definitions Dale cites here: “Yield, fig. give way, submit to someone’s authority” (Arndt and Gingrich, p. 838); “to give way, yield…, Metaph. to yield to authority and admonition, to submit” (Thayer, p. 638). Again, we ask the relevant questions: How does one submit to an example? We can all understand how one might submit to written words, e.g., the gospel, or the spoken words of a person. But how does one submit to influence? Also, we note that both definitions speak of “yielding” or “submitting” to “authority.” This implies that elders have authority. What is the nature of their authority? This brings us to our next point.
At issue here is the kind of authority elders have. Dale and I agree that they do not have the same rule as kings. However, much of what Dale writes implies elders cannot make decisions in absence of the congregation. Please notice the following examples of this:
- From what we learn elsewhere, elders certainly would exercise leadership in all that culminated in that (withdrawal of 1 Cor. 5:4-5, sw), and they would watch over the brethren as the brethren determined this action, but it was the obedient will of the congregation, not the elders, that was exercised here. (1/00, p. 24, my emph, sw)The brethren (at Antioch in Acts 15:2, sw) decided. They appointed. They arranged. They accomplished. And this with evidence of elders in place (Acts 14:23). (3/00, p. 24, my emph, sw)
Here (the congregational meeting of Acts 15, sw) is the pattern for the function of elders and congregation. Any oversight that excludes similar participation is not scriptural oversight. Any oversight that determines everything apart from congregational participation, and simply announces its decision to which all are obligated to submit&ldots;(3/00, p. 25, my emph, sw)
These quotes will hopefully help us focus in on the following question: What kind of authority do elders have? Dale repeatedly cites extreme examples from among brethren and the authority of kings or others in power, and seems to draw from them a false dichotomy: Either one takes Dale’s position or he believes in a tyrannical, unilateral rule by elders. What is the nature of the elders’authority? Let us now seek to answer this question.
What does the Bible teach us about the nature of delegated authority? Government and parents also have authority delegated to them by God, as did also the apostles (Rom. 13:1; Eph. 6:1-3; Acts 4:35; 6:2-3). What do we learn about it from the New Testament? Such authority did not make the apostles above hearing the needs of the church (Acts 6:1). However, such authority did allow them to make a decision (apart from the church) as to how the need would be dealt with (vs. 2-3). Also, please notice how the apostles’ action here agrees so perfectly with an example of one in a position of authority: “For I also am a man under authority, having under myself soldiers: and I say to this one, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it” (Matt. 8:9). While we recognize the difference between a soldier and a saint, we cannot help but note how this verse describes exactly the reaction of the brethren in the church at Jerusalem to the apostles’ words in Acts 6:2-3! (We recognize that inspiration was guiding the apostles with regards to some of the things they decided, e.g., that those who would be “over” the work would be men. The reason that the church would be obligated to follow the apostles’ guidance on this point would be because it was God’s will. However, the number of men was clearly a matter of judgment [seven]. [In correspondence Dale has been unable to show this last statement to be wrong.] Yet, the apostles spoke these directions together as things the church should do.) They were “under authority” in a manner similar to the centurion and the church reacted to them as such. To move on in our study of this point, though all believe the government has been delegated authority to make decisions, Paul did not sin when he told government ministers that they were wrong in the administration of their duties (Acts 16:35-37; cp. 1 Tim. 5:19-20). He likewise did no wrong when he questioned other agents of government who were heading in the wrong direction (Acts 22:25). Further, a father must know the needs of his family in order to “provide for his own” (1 Tim. 5:8). This would involve hearing their thoughts. However, he has authority to decide who gets what and how much of it (Lk. 15:12). All of these examples show us that delegated authority is not tyrannical in that it allows questioning, input, and even rebuke. However, those in positions of delegated authority must make decisions relative to that over which they have authority. Brother Smelser’s arguing that the whole church be involved in the decision making process denies this authority to elders in any instance where he would argue the church needed to participate in making a decision rather than just the elders (see points 1-4 under the next point).
It would be helpful at this point to stop and look at some of brother Smelser’s words. As noted above, he wrote: “The problem with that was to make elders managers of all the details that should have been delegated to deacons, who scripturally are to be `appointed over,’ over specific and limited functional tasks (Acts 6:3)” (4/00, p. 26). Let us notice some things from this quote: 1) Dale accepts that the elders can delegate “details” to deacons. Is this not a tacit admission that they have authority to do so? 2) Let us say that the deacons were “appointed over” the work of helping a needy widowed saint. They would have the right, after checking into this sister’s needs, to meet alone to decide how much they were going to give her. Please notice how Dale’s words above would allow this. If they’re appointed “over” a “specific” task, then they can do it by themselves. 3) Deacons have the authority to meet privately and make the very kinds of decisions Dale says the elders cannot make –decisions pertaining to judgment. He also wrote: “Their (the elders, sw) overall leadership is emphasized by the fact that funds sent from elsewhere for their needy were to be delivered into their hands (Acts 11:27-30).” (4/00, p. 27) Normally, one would let a statement like this go. However, in light of the hair-splitting distinctions Dale makes in his articles we will not do so here. What we see in Acts 11:30 is exactly what we would expect in light of both definitions given to the words “bishop,” “elder” and “pastor,” and the definitions of “rule,” “obey,” and “submit” (see under Definitions of Terms). Also, compare the money for benevolence being given to the apostles in Acts 4:35 (all would agree they exercised authority, Acts 6:2-3), with that being given into the hands of the elders here in Acts 11:30. In both cases, was it not the work of those who received the money to oversee the work of distributing it? Of seeing who got what? (cp. Lk. 15:12) Acts 4:35 has real implications concerning the rule of elders (Acts 11:30). They made decisions to which the members submitted.
- He cites 1 Corinthians 5:4-5 to show that withdrawal “is not a decision for the elders to make unilaterally” (1/00, p.24). While his use of the word “unilaterally” is another example of his arguing from extremes, we do not read of Corinth’s having elders. Hence, Dale, however well intentioned, makes an application of these verses which is based on the silence of the scripture. His arguments are based on the presence of elders in this church.
- He likewise twice uses Acts 15:2-3 to argue that the brethren at the church at Antioch joined with the elders there in making decisions (3/00, p. 24; 4/00, p. 27). The Bible does not speak of the church at Antioch having elders (cp. Acts 13:1-2; 14:26-27).
- With regards to the handling of the problem in Acts 6:1-5, Dale writes, “When servants were needed who would be ‘appointed over’ a task (Acts 6:3), the congregation selected them, even with the presence of elders” (3/00, P. 24, his emph.). In all his citations of Acts 6 he fails to note that the apostles made some of the main decisions to be made in the matter and they made them in absence of the church (v. 3). They decided they would not to do the work themselves but that others would do it, how many “others” would do it, their sex, and their qualifications. Why does he leave out such obvious facts of scripture?
- Of Acts 15:22-23 brother Smelser writes, “Here is the Bible pattern for the function of elders and congregation. Any oversight that excludes similar participation is not scriptural oversight” (3/00, p. 25). This is careless for at least four reasons. First, and most importantly, a Bible pattern must include all verses pertinent to it. Dale has left out (at least) Acts 6:2-3. There, the apostles acted in complete opposition to the rule Dale inferred from Acts 15:22-23. In both cases the Holy Spirit was guiding the apostles (15:28; at 6:3, inspiration says that men be appointed). However, in Acts 6:2-3 the apostles did not include the church in coming to the decision recorded there. They decided they would not do the work but someone else would and the number of men to be involved — then they “said” what they had decided to the church. Hence, Dale cannot claim Acts 15:22-23 is a “pattern for the function of elders and congregation.” Second, Acts 15:28 says, “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden” (my emph., sw). It was the Holy Spirit’s revelation that was the doctrinal basis for the decision reached in this passage (vs. 7, 12, 15). Notice that the Holy Spirit gave revelation and the church made judgment decisions based upon that revelation. In light of the Holy Spirit’s involvement, the assembly in Acts 15 more closely resembles a Bible class than a business meeting. Yet, Dale says this is “the Bible a pattern for the function of elders and congregation.” In light of the Holy Spirit’s involvement in another decision, one might justify citing it as authority for a small group of non-elders making a decision for a whole church (Acts 13:1-3, cp. 14:26-27). Third, in saying “the church” made judgment decisions we must realize that “church” does not always have to mean “the whole assembled group” as Dale seems to think. In Acts 12:5 “church” is clearly used in a distributive sense in as much as prayer was made in different locations (v. 12). Further, Paul writes in 1 Timothy 5:16 ‘that the church may relieve those that are widows indeed.’ Yet, brother Smelser’s words admit that decisions involved in that relief do not have to be made by the whole church. “The problem with that was to make elders managers of all the details that should have been delegated to deacons, who scripturally are to be ‘appointed over,’ over [sic] specific and limited functional tasks (Acts 6:3)” (4/00, p. 26). The men of Acts 6:3 were acting in harmony with what Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 5:16. The church “relieved” but the whole church was not involved in all the details of that relief. The church can act without every member being directly involved in the action. Just because we read of a church making a decision (e.g., 2 Cor. 8:19) it does not necessarily imply that all the members of that church were involved in that decision. Please notice how the following examples (some imaginary) imply the leaders’action in speaking of the decisions of the bodies governed by them:
- “The Jews…both killed the Lord Jesus…and have persecuted us” (1 Thes. 2:14-15; we know that the leaders of the Jews were responsible for killing Jesus and persecuting Christians, Jno. 11:47,53; Acts 4-5).
- General Motor announced the decision to recall all light trucks produced between 1998 and 2000.
- Iraq has demanded the pull out of all U.S. troops from countries it borders.
- Montgomery, Alabama has changed its law concerning litter within city limits.
- The U.S. Army has announced it will accept gays on the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.
All of these imply the leaders of the given bodies made decisions for the body. Even if one were to quibble and say, “Not necessarily,” it must be admitted that they can imply such. The “church” can make decisions without every member being involved! Fourth, Dale’s call for “similar participation” includes women and children who are Christians in as much as it would seem such were part of the assembly in Acts 15. Yet, he does not believe women spoke in the assembly in Acts 15 (see Truth Magazine, 3/5/98, “The Congregation as a Community,” p. 17). Hence, his call for “similar participation” is nebulous at best and misleading in the worst case.
In his third article, Dale writes, “…The Bible needs to be read more carefully” (3/00, p. 24). Amen. In all the above instances we have some very careless inclusions and exclusions. As with any position a brother might advocate, especially one written with such obvious painstaking reference to various sources, such obvious lapses as those noted above need to be given proper consideration. They were put forth as support but, upon closer examination, materially weaken that for which brother Smelser argues. But just where does Dale’s teaching lead? This brings us to our next point.
While elders can decide from whom to seek information or counsel, it is to be feared that those who would follow brother Smelser’s teaching would seek to remove the decision making from the elders and place it on the male members of the church (and Dale’s writing has shown no scripture for this). Thus, while acting in all good conscience, such brethren would cause godly elders much grief in falsely insisting on being a part of any decision of which they desired and thereby sin in taking upon themselves the rule and oversight which God has given to elders. To further complicate things, Dale has not defined which decisions can only be made by elders and which decisions must involve the whole church. Hence, his teaching may argue for consensus but in application it will lead to confusion.
How did the Lord intend for the church to be governed? Was it by consensus as brother Smelser contends? First of all, what is consensus but majority rule? The word is defined, “1 group solidarity in sentiment and belief 2 a: general agreement: UNANIMITY…” (Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 279, his caps, sw). In light of this meaning some troubling questions arise. What do elders do if they if they cannot bring the church to a consensus on some matter? In such a case, would it be good leadership to do what the church thinks or what they think? What if the majority wanted to bring in a false teacher? Can the elders meet by themselves and decide not to have him? Acts 20:28-30 implies that they could, but this would not be rule by consensus rather it would be rule by men scripturally designated to be “overseers,” “elders,” and “pastors” (see under Definitions of Terms). Further, are leaders to follow their decisions or the decisions of those they lead? Should not Pilate, as a leader, have resisted the majority and not crucified Jesus? (Jno. 19: 10-16) Did not Moses, as a leader, act countless times in spite of the murmurings contrary to his leadership by those he was leading? Leadership demands that one do what is best in spite of majority opinion. Yet, brother Smelser’s material would lead elders to be subject to majority opinion.
