The question sometimes arises, "Should we recognize and appoint elders in each local church." Some believers argue that in Scripture, elders were only appointed by Apostles or their delegates, and so today, we should not appoint or recognize elders each local church. How do we answer these arguments?
We will start by admitting that in the examples we see in Scripture, it would seem that elders were only appointed by Apostles or their delegates. We read about the Apostolic appointment in Acts 14:23 and the appointment by a delegate in Titus 1:5. However, as we examine the Scriptures more closely, we see a couple of interesting facts. First, the two passages we have mentioned are in fact the only places where we see elders or overseers being appointed. In most places in Scripture, elders are simply mentioned in the text without any reference to how they became elders. It is not as if we have dozens of examples of elders being appointed and they all occur through an apostle or a delegate. In fact, there is no explicit instruction as to who may appoint elders.
The second fact concerning Apostolic appointment is that the appointment in Acts 14:23 was by Paul and Barnabas. While Barnabas is described as an "apostle" in Acts 14:14, it would seem from the distinction made in Acts 9:27 that in Barnabas’ case the word "apostle" might carry it’s normal meaning of "messenger" rather than the special ecclesiastical meaning. So we see that it is quite possible that one of the men making the appointment of an elder was not really an "Apostle" in the ecclesiastical sense of the word, but simply a messenger.
We must also acknowledge that the Holy Spirit has given us a considerable amount of Scripture describing the qualities of character found in an elder. Of course, we could say that 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 explain the qualities of character that every Christian man should have. This is true. Every Christian man should have these qualities. However, the text was obviously given so that those men who were elders could be identified. These passages gave instruction to Timothy and Titus how they could recognize who was an elder and who was not. If we believe we should not recognize elders anymore, we remove the primary purpose for which these two passages are found in the Bible. I believe these passages are in Scripture for a reason, and that reason is so we can identify the elders within our meetings.
The passages we have just mentioned are interesting for an additional reason. While Titus was given a clear charge to by Paul to appoint elders, Timothy was not. And yet instruction is given to Timothy on how to identify elders. Like Timothy, I believe we have been given the instructions on how to recognize an elder without the need of an Apostolic charge. I believe we must stand on the Scripture alone. When the Holy Spirit makes a man into an elder then we will be able to identify him based on the qualifications given in Holy Scripture.
If there are no elders in the local church, who will lead it? Some will give the obvious answer, "The Lord Jesus Christ, who is the head of the Church." Of course, we recognize that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church. There is no question that He is the Head! But if the Head of the Church saw the need to have under-shepherds appointed in each local church two thousand years ago, why would He not need them today? Based upon Hebrews 13:17, "Obey your leaders, and submit to them; for they keep watch over your souls, as those who will give an account" someone will identify himself as a leader, take charge of the church and demand obedience. This is what has happened with the "Pastor" system, where one man is given rule over a church. If we recognize elders, we will guarantee that our leaders must possess the qualities of character given in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. If we do not recognize elders, we will still have leaders of some sort, and yet these could be men who fall short of the Biblical standard.
What will we be missing if we do not appoint elders? We will be missing those who are given the charge to shepherd the sheep (1 Peter 5:1,2) and protect them from the savage wolves (Acts 20:28,29). We also miss out on the presence of men who are given the specific charge to pray for the sick and anoint them with oil (James 5:14). This would leave quite a gap in the church! The early church needed men like this, and I believe we need them today! Another point to remember is that we place ourselves on slippery ground if we reject some of the teaching in 1 Timothy and Titus "because they were Apostolic delegates." The simple fact of the matter is, once we start rejecting some parts of 1 Timothy and Titus for this reason, we run the risk that other portions may be rejected.
We must acknowledge that many churches that do not officially recognize elders, in fact appoint men to a position that is that of "elder" in everything but name. Whether we call these men "responsible brothers" or "pastors", they still occupy the place, role and function of an elder, and in many cases command the obedience that must be shown to a true elder. The only real difference between these men and true elders is that these men do not need to have all the qualities of character that a real elder must have.
So if we do believe that elders should be appointed or recognized, how do we do it? I have two suggestions along these lines. First, consider the pattern given in Acts 14:21-23. "And after they had preached the gospel to that city and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch, strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying, "Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God." And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed." If some would suggest that it is the Biblical pattern that only Apostles or their delegates appointed elders, we can just as easily suggest that it is the Biblical pattern that having planted new churches, it is the pioneering evangelists that later return to appoint elders. I have heard of pioneering evangelists doing just this, and I take no exception to it because I find this in Scripture.
But what about an existing congregation that has become convinced about New Testament Church truth, and wishes to appoint elders? What about a small group of Christians who wish to establish a new church without the efforts of a pioneering evangelist? How might they recognize and appoint elders? I believe we can recognize who should be an elder by the same standard Timothy and Titus used! If a man has the qualities of character described in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, and if he is willing to serve in the role of shepherd, then I believe he already is an elder, and we need only recognize publicly what the Holy Spirit has already done within that man.
I know this is a topic that will stir up considerable debate within some. I maintain a deep love for many who do not believe that elders should not be appointed or recognized today. And yet, I believe it is the teaching of Scripture that we should have elders, and I believe we are robbing ourselves of great blessing if we do not recognize those brothers whom God has given us to be elders.
Shawn Abigail
July 1998