The Position of Preacher-Elder in Churches of Christ

The problem with a positional-culture such as ours is that, as life progresses, a higher position is needed for one to feel he is maturing. Using rank to show maturity, a positional culture (oligarchical, hierarchical, representative form of government) offers an increase in positional power up the ladder and over others; however, for the church, the NT teaches "self control" and forbids other control (Gal. 5:22; cf. Mark 10:42-45).

Having this positional-mindset causes us to misapply and misunderstand what doing something "for" someone else means. I believe that we have an unhealthy, and therefore, unsound, usage of the word "for" in the church that maintains dependency and hinders God commanded growth (2 Peter 3:18; cf. Eph. 4:11-16).

Also, I think that this entitlement and military-rank mentality has caused the belief that, as one gets older, s/he is simply owed this status based on their age. Perhaps because when they were younger, they "respected their elders," and now they feel that this "respect" (read obedience, not dignified treatment among equals) is their God-given right. I don't know if some attached these strings earlier in their lives and are now pulling on them. I am simply trying to understand why some people act as they do.

As if the oligarchical system we have where a few "decide for" the many in private meetings is not foolish enough when compared to the wise Biblical process of open discussion and consensus (Acts 15:1-30), what is becoming more evident to me is that when elders have delegated their teaching responsibilities in the assemblies (Eph. 4:11) to "gospel preachers," this has, over time, caused the emergence in churches of Christ of a head-pastor as at the beginning of the 2nd century depicted in the letters of Ignatius.

Please don't think that when I say private meetings that I am talking about matters in life of a personal nature which is actually what elders (older men and women) are for (1 Tim. 3:1ff; cf. Titus 1-2). Real life help--not institutional, organizational rule. I am also not against elder-led consensus where elders would naturally have more influence (not rule) in the assembly.

When I was a "gospel preacher," I was never bothered by the fact that in many churches the preacher and one other man are often considered a "Scriptural eldership" with God-given "authority" to "decide for" (rule) other Christians in "matters of expediency," but the harmfulness of this "position" in our position-minded culture is becoming clearer as I see it more and more. (I have also found that the "expediency" realm is a fictional compartmentalizing in order to sustain "pattern worship" that is imposed onto the Biblical text).

This oligarchy between the rest of the eldership (sometimes one man) and the one preacher-elder is sustained by the argument that the preacher-elder is "subject" to the decisions of the "eldership," as well as, the fact that an eldership does hire and fire preachers, and especially, the argument that if a preacher is qualified (for the position) why can he not be an elder?"

Setting aside the fact that it would take a "majority" of elders to outvote a "minority" of elders to fire a preacher which cannot be done in an "eldership" of two men one of which is the preacher!--which is simply a religious manifestation of our democratic government and is not mentioned in the NT--allow me to continue addressing the assumption of "position." 

It's why I put the word position in the title of this post. 

It is the paramount assumption of those who make this argument.

My purpose is to shed light on our own assumptions and to challenge them ensuring that we are "doing" or "living" the truth (John 3:19-21), and not just "saying" Bible things in Bible ways, believing that we "have" the truth, but in reality we are living in the darkness (John 3:19).

We are to "prove all things," (1 The. 5:21) and this goes far beyond looking at a verse on a page and believing some "authority figure's" interpretation. Especially, if its an elder who has delegated his responsibility of interpreting and teaching the NT to a "gospel preacher," and the gospel preacher got it from an "older" preacher.

"Agreeing" with one another "doctrinally" is not thinking for ourselves, or wise (1 Cor. 10:13). Agreeing with one another on assumed, unchallenged doctrine is not meditating on opposing arguments to consider their veracity. It's fear gone to seed. It's taking the easy way out, rejecting responsibility, and leaving the door open to blame someone else in the end. None of which will the Lord accept since elders and preachers will not be standing next to us at the judgment--it is an individual event according to 2 Corinthians 5:10.

POSITIONAL ELDERS?

Typically, the qualities of character that are used to identify and appoint males who have already become elders through submitting to God's Holy Spirit in character transformation and conforming to the image of Christ, are viewed as a "checklist of qualifications" for a "position" to "decide for" everyone else in supposed "expedient" matters.

Through this interpretation/viewpoint, these men are given a position above everyone else in the church. It is claimed that a plurality of these men shows "God's wisdom" and it is expected that no one should dare question these things further.

And since few indeed have questioned it, what has emerged in the church and what is becoming clearer to me, is that what we are "saying" the Bible says is okay to do, and what is actually happening are not the same.

When the same preacher speaks every week and controls the interpretation of the Scriptures that all are being influenced to believe is "the word of God," and therefore being spoken with God's authority, and when this same Christian is on the "eldership"--who do you think has the most pull? Regardless of what is "said" is okay to do, what is being done week in and week out? What power is being displayed? As was Paul's concern in testing "talkers" at Corinth:

"But I will come to you soon, if the Lord wills, and I will find out not the talk of these arrogant people but their power" (1 Cor. 4:19).

Paul's point matters to you and me on this topic, because in our system, the other elders have already "delegated" their responsibility to the preacher! They have "subjected" themselves to the preacher and his publicly unquestioned interpretations based on inherited traditions. As a result, the preacher is now a "representative" of the eldership and speaks "for" them just as he is a "representative" of the congregation and speaks "for" them, regardless of what is "said." This is truth that is being "done." This is the "power" on display for all to see, and that Paul would see were he here today.

It's simply a religious imitation of the American representative form of government that we all know is dysfunctional and worsening by the minute. It is the kind of system that takes the whole group into more and more indebtedness/bondage of one form or another. No one is accountable in this system, and it is not because "the other side is evil hearted," so if everyone would just agree with me, my side, and my "good heart," it would all work out. No it wouldn't. It is man-made, stagnant, and destined to fail whether religious or secular.

The "gospel preacher" becomes the "representative" of everyone in the congregation--their de facto head instead of Christ regardless of what is said. "Agreement with the preacher-(elder)" then becomes the "power" that sustains the church's life--not truth. That is why he can stand on stage and say things that no one else ever challenges week after week, year after year. He has this "position" that all have been duped into submitting to. Very dangerous and unwise.

Of course, much of what I say is often dismissed with the "matters of expediency" doctrine (which is a Pharisaic hedge against breaking God's laws), but the truth is "expediency," or efficiency--which I have read about nowhere in the NT being part of God's will--does not prevent nor contain this abuse of power by the "oligarchical eldership" much less a "preacher-elder" whose interpretive opinions are deified at worst--and, at best, never challenged publicly or with equal status in the assembly in real time when it matters.

What we "say the Bible says," and what actually happens are not the same, which is harmful enough, but we have even gone so far as to have institutionalized one man's unchallenged interpretations into a system and stamped God's name on it with this mythological position of "gospel preacher," and that has emerged as its own "position" in the church of "preacher-elder."

Additionally, only those who are as equally vested financially and reputationally are allowed to "fill in for the preacher"--other preachers. Someone he himself usually suggests or secures if he is to be away.

None of this is found in 1 Cor. 11--14 or Acts 2, 8, 15, or 20:1-11. There is no "position" of monologue interpreter of God's word "for" everyone on a week in, week out basis for years on end.

Bible "preaching" is dialogue and engaged discussion (1 Cor. 14:29-33; cf. Acts 20:7).
 

The eldership has become dependent on a preacher and the preacher is dependent on the eldership, but don't mistake this for a healthy interdependency. Both are "representative" partners in the oligarchy and the majority are made subject to this unhealthy system. There's really no freedom of choice involved. The system is built on the inequality of clergy/laity and the "have to"'s and "musts" of "God's authority." All this is designed to sustain and keep the organizational and institutional church operational which in itself is not first century Christianity.

The building, or "place" of worship is deified, the "gospel preacher's" inherited interpretations are deified, the eldership is deified in "matters of expediency," and the majority of Christians--by their own choice--believe chaos would reign otherwise. The system does not permit itself to be challenged.

It is institutionalized and representative irresponsibility--just like in the American Government.

So, as the church continues its search for a king to rule over them, will the emergent preacher-elder emerge into the presiding (President) elder whom all "dress up" to see every Sunday?

Perhaps, it's already later in our own history than we realize.