Truth Magazine

By Dale Smelser

I appreciate Mike’s offer to reply to his response. We have been working at this for over a year. Charges of in- consistency, which may be only in the mind of one who misconstrues what is being discussed, and the iterance of things that seem problems, do not mitigate scriptural prescriptions. Apart from a few observations I am happy to leave it to the reader to judge the applicability of Mike’s objections.

His first statement shows what colored his response. He thought my article was about how decisions are to be made in the local church and that it advocated egalitarianism, which I explicitly rejected. My article is about congregations being involved in things beyond just liturgical worship. It was critical of a view that decrees that all decisions be made by elders or men’s business meetings. That is lordly, and destroys community (sharing). On that limited theme, his third paragraph is a better description of what I believe, if elders’ decisions being “binding on the church” means such as, “We need some servants to take over a certain work and we need seven of them. Choose.” He would have done well to answer what he there said I believed, and which is a pretty good summary of what happened in the New Testament.

That congregations in Scripture made some decisions has long been recognized among brethren. There was a recent article here by Weldon Warnock which said: “Each congregation has the right to choose its own officers. Acts 6:1-7 shows this . . . The church did the selecting and the apostles appointed.” He quoted McGarvey: “We conclude that all church officers were selected by the congregation at large.” He quoted DeHoff: “The New Testament teaches that the power to select officers is in the church itself . . . The church selects its own functionaries for any purpose what- soever (emph. DS) . . . It is not right for a handful of chosen members to get off in a corner and say, ‘We’ll pick out so and so and tell the church.’” If all this is accurate, neither men’s business meetings nor elders’ meetings are the forum of all decisions. What I am saying is not “different.” Noting my article, which Mike had before he had Weldon’s, it is especially in the area of functionaries, representatives, and messengers that I gave scriptural examples.

Mike’s objections to my use of a church appointing its messenger (2 Cor. 8:19) is defused by the quotations from Warnock’s article. If those quotations state truth, some decisions were made by the congregation. Choosing is a decision. The whole multitude chose in Acts 6. Therefore the whole multitude made a decision. The congregation made a decision about “business” (Acts 6:3). He opines that “whole multitude choice” must somehow inappropriately involve women and baptized young people, then concludes that such consequence must nullify the possibility of “whole multitude choice.” Well try this: “The saying pleased the whole multitude . . . and they chose” (Acts 6:4).

Mike graciously notes that I do not insist on all decisions of every nature being made by the congregation, but then argues as if I did. This is why he sees “false dichotomy.” Without some congregational sharing in responsibility, I say, “The alternative is lordly hierarchy and dominated at- tenders.” Yes, elders or business meetings that so operate are guilty. Mike says elders “can oversee a congregation without relegating decision making.” Well, yes. But Scripturally?   In fact, they cannot be leaders and shepherds and abdicate all decision making. But if they oversee as elders in the New Testament, there are decisions they will make in conjunction with the congregation. And Weldon’s article well shows that actual choices were made by the congregation at large in some instances. Was that false dichotomy?

About generic authority for men meeting for business. Okay. My point was that there is specific authority for some congregational involvement. Why exclusively bind the former and prohibit the latter? Now, where is specific or generic authority for men’s meetings to make all decisions for the congregation? Mike says that “oversight and leadership given to elders is withdrawn to the degree that there are limits in the decisions they can make.” No, limits on decisions they can make does not withdraw their leader- ship. It does say something about what oversight is. It is not totalitarian.  Can elders acceptably impose decisions to use instrumental music? Can they make every decision for the congregation? Who the servants shall be? Are there then limits on their permitted decisions? Relegating some decisions defines the kind of rule they have. They don’t have the kind of “rulers of the gentiles” have (Matt. 20:25-26). Though Mike recognizes that elders are not lords, his arguments tend otherwise.

Elders are not equivalent to the IBM board of directors. Elders are shepherds and watchmen, concerned with people’s souls instead of running a business. The kind of rule they have is effected through the leadership the Holy Spirit insists they have proven themselves capable of, and then assigns to them. And even the IBM board is limited in power. Shareholders can bring issues before annual meetings and out vote the board, and they regularly vote on various  issues. Nor does Congress illustrate Mike’s contention. There are citizens initiatives for which California is famous, and the people decide on all sorts of issues including Constitutional Amendments. Mike’s contentions make elders more lordly than Boards and Congress.

Elders as “government” (1 Cor. 12:28) does not tell us how elders operate. There are different ways of governing. There are kings, dictators, tyrants, and chairmen, anarchies, democracies, and republics. Perhaps the footnote to “governments” in the ASV is helpful when it says “wise counsels.” All this passage proves about their government is that it is implemented by counsel. Others passages tell the flock to respect it. And couple that with the fact that elders are not to be self-willed. This tells us some kinds of government they must not employ. And Mike assumes that in this “government” the word translated “rule” applies only to elders. That is incorrect. Check the word rendered rule, first, and chief  (Heb. 13:17; Lk. 22:26: Acts 15:22). It is the same word. Elders share this distinction with others in the congregation. “Rule” is not speaking of government by decree, or else elders must share the decree making.

Mike’s arguments here do not let the church make any decisions. He is saying the church acts in the action of elders and men’s business meetings. But when the apostles made their decision, the church’s decision had not yet been made (Acts 6). Amazingly, what Mike is arguing is, if the apostles had chosen, it could be said that the multitude chose. Furthermore, a representative doing something may involve, but not exhaust, church action. Or it may not. The elders of Ephesus met Paul at Miletus. The church didn’t. Using the example of the churches sending greeting to Corinth (1 Cor. 16:19), the churches acted before Paul. There had to be some church action for Paul to represent.

Mike would like a list of things the church decided in the New Testament. He has a list from me in private correspondence, and there is a list in my article under, “And More.” If it would please him I will be glad to submit a future article expanding on the points made.

You can re-read his paragraph rejecting “assembly method.” All that refers to is an action taken when all the congregation is together; for instance, to meet and deliver one to Satan. That was done by “assembly method” (1

Cor. 5:4). Assemblies acted at times in things beyond social worship. Must I reply to “assembly method” being un-biblical? If what is described is in the Bible, it is biblical.  Now, while we are requiring an exact quote from an English translation in order to be biblical, let’s find “Men’s Business Meeting.”

Note this faulty dilemma: Would “whole multitude choice” follow the decision of children who might be in the majority? Just apply his hypothetical at Jerusalem: “the whole multitude. . . chose.” Does his dilemma undermine that fact?  And my article has specific comments about the unscripturalness of the immature leading and majority rule.  If it is argued that choosing servants was not done in assembly, how does one know that? And if the whole multitude may act and no way is specified, is not acting in assembly an authorized option where feasible? Stating that the congregation acted authorizes the congregation to act, not an exclusive method. While Mike’s arguments seem to prohibit the congregation from making any decisions, if they do share in them his arguments would bind doing so exclusively by the “unassembled method.” He asks incredulously: “May others take leadership and make persuasive recommendations when elders are present in the congregation?” The Pharisees did, others were involved in much questioning, and Peter, Paul, and Barnabas did, as well as James (Acts 15:5, 7, 12). And the appointed lead- ership with the help of other chief brethren brought what Mike objects to, decisions involving assembly consensus: “Then it seemed good to the apostles, and the elders, with the whole church (assembly), to choose men. . . and send” (Acts 15:22). I rest my case.

I do not call for democracy or for elders being only vote counters. I shudder at the thought. But like apostles, elders have a spiritual work that should not be neglected for all the mundane operations of a congregation. Their leadership, and decisions relative to leading, will determine course, and their watching will correct anything amiss. God bless us with such men. For more study I mention my booklet, The Rule of Elders.  I also recommend the volume of Truth Commentaries by Clinton Hamilton on 1 Peter, both in the comments on 1 Peter 5:1-3, and the appendix on Elders, Bishops, or Pastors.

By Mike Willis

My good friend Dale Smelser has presented for our study the preceding article on how decisions are to be made in the local church. Brother Smelser is an honorable man whose knowledge of the Scriptures and moral character commend itself to us. He deserves to be heard and, therefore, his material is presented. Because there are some statements with which I have disagreement, this response is being offered for your consideration as well.

Brother Smelser does not wish to lend support to the women’s liberation movement and is definite in stating that when the whole church assembles, women are commanded by God to keep silent. We appreciate these statements.

Brother Smelser argues for some decisions being made by congregational, decision-making assemblies, with women present, in addition to some decisions being made by elders or men’s business meetings. Whereas brother Smelser admits that private meetings can be conducted by elders and men’s business meetings, in which some decisions binding on the whole church can be made, he argues that the Bible also authorizes congregational assemblies for the purpose of decision making.

Looking at the Scriptures on Leadership

Before looking at brother Smelser’s specific arguments, one needs to review what the Scriptures teach about leadership in the home and the church. The role of leadership, including decision making, has been given to the man. The man is the head of the home, just as Christ is the head of the church (Eph. 5:23). As the head of his home, he is to provide the same loving, nurturing, and cherishing leadership that Christ provides for his church (Eph. 5:25, 29). His is not to be a selfish, dominating leadership similar to a tyrant.

In the church, God placed leadership in the hands of men, giving specific qualifications for those who are appointed to serve (1 Tim. 3:1-7; Tit. 1:5-7). These men are overseers (Acts 20:28) who have the responsibility to “rule” (1 Tim. 5:17). They are the “government” that God has instituted for the church (1 Cor. 12:28). The church is obligated to be submissive to their rule (Heb. 13:17). Elders are cautioned about “lording” their will over the flock (1 Pet. 5:3). Consequently, their leadership and rule is not that of dictators who never consider the will of those whom they lead. Any charge that I am defending “lordly hierarchy and dominated attenders” would be inaccurate.

There is nothing inconsistent with overseeing the local work for the elders to receive input from and give information to the congregation. That is wise leadership. There are decisions that have to be made with reference to which others inside or outside the congregation are much more knowledgeable than the elders; elders frequently have made use of that technical knowledge to make wise decisions, even if that technical information must be gained from non-Christians (for example, an architect who works on building plans). There needs to be congregational involvement in many aspects of the local work, even though God has given to elders the role of oversight and ruling (Acts 20:28; 1 Tim. 5:17).

Brother Smelser wrote,

But as for general men’s business meetings, some have become so authoritarian, exclusive, and institutionalized that they have supplanted community. I do not believe Acts 6, Acts 15, or any of the other examples cited tell us anything about them. If one must categorize these conclusions, let it be with the community of the assembly of saints in a locality, where the whole group shares in congregational action. The alternative is lordly hierarchy and dominated attenders.

Brother Smelser creates a false dichotomy in arguing his position for decision making by the whole congregation. Anything less than decision making by the entire congregation is “lording it over the flock.” He said, “The alternative is lordly hierarchy and dominated attenders” (par. 6). This conclusion does not logically follow. Godly elders can oversee a congregation without relegating decision making to the “consensus” of the congregation and without “lording it over the flock.”

What Role Do Elders/Men’s Business Meetings Have in Decision Making?

Brother Smelser argues for some decisions being made by the congregational assembly in contrast to them being made by business meetings or elders.

To avoid female usurpation some believe a woman must never be present when congregational decisions are made. Next the idea necessarily follows that assembled congregations can take no decisive actions (par. 3).

But apart from that, where is authority exclusively to employ any group of men-saints, separately and finally, to make all congregational decisions (par. 4).

A brother was appointed by churches to travel with Paul. The churches had to make a decision. This doesn’t say men’s business meetings made decisions (para. 7).

Brother Smelser gave an example of how elders lead in making a decision. He wrote,

. . . The congregation here is authorized to appoint, and no one method larger or smaller can be bound. Thus an assembly of the community is authorized for making the appointment. Can anyone show a statement, implication, or example to prove otherwise? The answer is, no. Can elders, or in their absence others, do the ground work and make persuasive recommendations in their leadership? Yes, but the ultimate appointment lay with the congregations (par. 8).

This cited example emphasizes for us the issue before us. Brother Smelser is calling for a different kind of decision making (rule/oversight) for the congregation. Elders can take leadership and make recommendations (persuasive speeches), but the decision is made by the congregation. He also says that in the absence of elders others can do the same (take leadership and make recommendations). Could those “others” be women? Could they make persuasive recommendations to the congregation? Brother Smelser says “no,” women cannot speak when they attend business meetings, but others who call for women attending business meetings say “yes” they can speak and discuss the relative merits of the various alternatives. And, one may ask, could “others” take leadership and make persuasive recommendations when elders are present in the congregation?

The main point of the quotation cited above is to observe that some of the decisions are made by the congregation, not by elders! This effectively changes the government of the local church from a body overseen by elders to a body that is governed by what some have termed “consensus.”

Brother Smelser believes that “some places are falling short of ‘multitude’ involvement” by allowing all decisions to be made by elders alone or by men’s business meetings in the absence of elders. As a matter of fact, he goes further to charge that the church that has its decisions made solely by elders or men’s business meetings “loses something of the gospel of Christ.” He wrote: “That loses something of the gospel of Christ, however well and orthodoxally intentioned. That is my concern here” (par. 19).

Brother Smelser admits that elders and men’s business meetings have the right to make some decisions for the church, but not all. He needs to provide us a list of what decisions they have the right to make and what decisions they do not have the right to make. Then he needs to pro- vide us the criterion by which he makes this distinction so that we can evaluate it. I understand and concede that the church has the right to select its own officers (Acts 6:3). It also has the right to remove men who become unqualified to serve. However, the selection of elders is for the purpose of their taking the “oversight” (1 Pet. 5:2 — episkopeo — “to look upon, inspect, oversee, look after, care for: spoken of the care of the church which rested upon the presbyters,” Thayer 242), “ruling” (1 Tim. 5:17 — proistemi: “to be over, to superintend, preside over,” Thayer 539; this word is used to compare the husband’s rule in the home to the elder’s rule in the church, 1 Tim. 3:5), and to “rule” (Heb. 13:7, 17 — hegeomai: “to be a leader; to rule, command; to have authority over. . . so of the overseers or leaders of Christian churches,” Thayer 276). What is here given to the elders in their authority to oversee and rule is withdrawn to the degree that they are limited in the decisions they can make. This might be compared to the elections of the United States selecting men to be Congressmen. When they are just as biblically authorized as decisions made by the elders. If not, why not?

Brother Smelser here contends for “consensus,” whether that “consensus” be obtained by positive or negative form (lack of objection), as one autho- rized means for congregations to make decisions. If women and children do not participate in the “consensus” (decision making), then the decisions are made by some group less than the total church, although those decisions are made by the smaller group in the presence of the rest of the church.

Brother Smelser is contradicting himself when he appeals for decisions by the whole church (in contrast to those made by a group smaller than the whole corporate body) and women being silent in the assembly where that decision is made. What kind of “whole assembly” decision making can occur when over 50% (women and children) are not selected to be Congressmen, they have the right to make decisions for the American people. The American people have the right to put them in office and remove them from office. However, the decisions of raising taxes, the budget, and such like things belong to them. What would be the need for having Congressmen if matters had to be decided by general consensus of the citizens of the United States?

Multitude Involvement

Brother Smelser speaks of “multitude involvement” and the “assembly method” of decision making. What is this method of decision making? These are non-biblical terms, although brother Smelser thinks the concept is found in the Bible. But, what is the “assembly method” of decision making? It is not a decision made by elders, because brother Smelser has argued for the assembly method in contrast to that. It is not a decision made by only the men of the congregation, because it is made by the whole congregation. If there is anything less than the total assembly making the decision, he has reduced decision making to that which he opposes — a group smaller than the whole church. He explained that whole church complicity was different from that done by elders or the men of the congregation saying, “To find harmony here with insistence that separated men make all decisions alone, just cannot be done” (par. 17). Hence, anything less than the total church — including women and baptized children — does not fit his mold.

He argues that no specific method of assembly decisions is legislated. “Authorizing a congregation to do something authorizes the congregation to do it, not any specific meth- od. They could therefore use the assembly method” (par. 11). If he is correct, they could use any other method as well because general authority does not restrict. The conclusion logically follows that decision making by “consensus” is permitted to speak? They cannot express what they think about the thing proposed. If they participate in the decision, they are a part of the “consensus”; if they do not participate in the decision, then a group smaller than the whole church has made the decision!

Brother Smelser is logically compelled to one of two choices: (a) accept that a group less than the whole church (elders or, in the absence of elders, the men of the congregation) always makes the decisions or (b) allow women and children full participation in the decision, thus reducing congregational decision making to “consensus.”

The Church Decided

Brother Smelser’s proofs all fall into one category, al- though several Scriptures are cited (Acts 6; 13:1-3; 15:1-3, 30-31; 2 Cor. 8:19; 1 Cor. 5). The point of these texts which he thinks support his conclusion is this: “the whole multitude chose. . . ,” “Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send. . .,” and “who was also chosen of the churches.” Brother Smelser concludes from these statements that the decisions were made by the whole congregation in its assembled body, not by its representatives. This is an inference from the text, the conclusions to which brother Smelser himself would reject (that is, men, women, and children making decisions through “consensus”); it is not a necessary inference.

Paul wrote, “The churches of Asia salute you” (1 Cor. 16:19). How did they do that? Did the whole congregation meet together in its corporate capacity in the various cities of Asia and send their greetings? No, they sent their greetings through their representative, in this case the letter of Paul to the Corinthians.

The church has just as certainly made its decision when that decision is made by its elders (or men in a business meeting) as when the whole congregation gets together and decides things by “consensus.” The question is this: which of these two methods of decision making is authorized in the Scriptures, “consensus” or decision making by elders?

The language of the cited texts (“the church chose”) is very common. A person reads in the newspaper that IBM decided to do something. How did IBM make that decision? Does anyone believe that IBM gathered all of its employees in a room and that the whole group participated in the decision? Everyone understands that IBM made a decision through its representatives appointed to make decisions (board, CEO, etc.). In a similar way, when we read that the church decided to do something, we make an unnecessary inference when we  jump to the conclusion that the decision was made by someone other than its ap- pointed representatives (elders). We frequently read about decisions made by IBM that “please” the corporation. Does that mean that the corporation assembled all of its employees together and a poll was taken to see how many liked the decision? Obviously not! On what basis can we make a similar conclusion when we read about the church being pleased about something?

Answering Some Questions

Brother Smelser asked, “Where is authority exclusively to employ any group of men-saints, separately and finally, to make all congregational decisions?” In response, we see that elders are limited to “men-saints” (1 Tim. 3:1-7) and that they have the role of oversight (1 Pet. 5:1-4; Acts 20:28). If elders cannot make all decisions, brother Smelser needs to define for us what decisions they have authority to make. I respond by asking brother Smelser, “Do you believe that they have the right to make any decision that is binding on the whole church?” I know that he will answer “yes,” so we ask him to tell us what decisions they can and cannot make and what criterion he uses to made that distinction. If the answer were “no,” then elders would be reduced to vote counters for the congregation, because the decision-making authority resides solely in the congregation, not in the elders.

The Role of Women

Brother Smelser insists that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 forbids women speaking when all of the congregation is in one place (without regard to the kind of meeting that is conducted). He believes that stating that women can never be present when decisions are made is wrong (and I agree). But, he goes on to state the New Testament shows a pattern of “whole multitude choice” in contrast to decisions made by the men isolated from the rest of the congregation. The “whole multitude choice” logically implies women helping to make the decision. This raises a multitude of questions for brother Smelser: (a) When the women outnumber the men in reference to a particular decision, which choice is made? Does “whole multitude choice” mean that the decision supported by the women in the majority predominates over the choice preferred by the minority of men? (b) How do women express their part in the “whole multitude choice”? (c) If the children of a congregation have the majority vote in a congregation, should the “whole multitude choice” method of decision making follow the decision of the children?

Conclusion

The material submitted by brother Smelser, however well intentioned, undermines the role of elders in decision making and substitutes in its place decision making by the assembled congregation.

Let me close by saying again, that the alternative to what brother Smelser proposes is not tyrannical elders who have no regard to the will of those whom they lead. Just as the husband being head of the wife does not justify or defend autocratic and despotic husbands, neither does contending for the oversight of elders lead to the conclusion that elders are tyrants. Just as egalitarianism in the home (male and female with equal authority) undermines the authority of the husband in the home, so does whole congregation decision making undermine the authority of elders.

By Dale Smels

“As indicated in the following articles, Mike Willis and I have been working together on this subject for well over a year. While this resulting exchange is ear- nest, we hope you will see two brothers struggling to convey a scriptural understanding of congregational function, and to understand one another. There is not the full agreement either of us would like. But it is our contribution to the discussion of a perennial problem among brethren, without aiming to be partisan. I am sure we can benefit from subsequent contributions from others exhibiting forbearance. I acknowledge that if they are accurate, we ought to profit whether they demonstrate for bearance or not, but seeing longsuffering toward a brother makes immediate consideration of his material easier. Longsuffering, not compromise.” Dale Smelser

From studying first Israel, and then the apostolic churches, it is evident that whatever is going on in the world is going to affect churches. Effective resistance is achieved through vigilance and faith. But vigilance must not be so paranoid as to spurn everything unaccustomed, or we may bring upon ourselves the judgment accorded the Pharisees who were unaccustomed to people neglecting their traditional washings. Thus cautioned, we note a feminist movement that would dis- regard divine order and gender roles which are beneficial to women, men, and children. When a whole culture seems bent on destruction of male- female roles, it will take a lot of faith for Christians to stay their course. But it now appears also possible for resistance to be so misguided as to keep congregations from being what they were in the Scriptures.

The New Testament congregation was a community, its members sharing want as circumstances required, and always sharing more labor, responsibility, and activity than is found in some congregations today. Have some earnest views forbidding the presence of women during discussion and resolution meetings changed the community nature of the New Testament congregation?

There is a lack of leadership among men today. That is another symptom of our times. Trying to offset this flaw rather than curing it, has done two unfortunate things. To avoid female usurpation some have decreed that a woman must never be present when congregational decisions are made. Next, the idea necessarily follows that assembled congregations can take no decisive action. This has reduced the assembled congregation to being an entity only for social worship, transferring virtually all other function to a “men’s business meeting,” or to the burden of elders. A meeting of men, or certain men, may have its place, but to dictate that every decision must be made therein in order to alleviate men’s weak leadership is unwarranted, unscriptural, and paradoxical.

I have seen two examples cited as authority for limiting all congregational decisions to meetings of only men. Both are inadequate. They are where Paul met privately in Jerusalem with those “who were of repute,” and where the apostles in Acts 6 decided upon the necessity of servants and how many. In the first instance Paul met with those he thought were influential and thus could help in the controversy about circumcision, but no congregational decision was made. That came after the whole congregation was involved. And what congregation do you know that allows only those reputed to be pillars (Gal. 2:9) to attend business meetings? And who would make the decision for the congregation about who is of repute? In the second circumstance the apostles after forming a plan, assigned a decision to the congregation. For elders to lead congregational action, similar planning and decisions are necessary. But apart from that, where is authority exclusively to employ any group of men-saints, separately and finally, to make every congregational decision by themselves? Not even the apostles did that (Acts 6).

The following is not to say that leadership does not belong to men. It is not to say that details of congregational decisions cannot be relegated to a group of men. It is not to say that women must be present where every plan is made. This primarily is not even about the participation of women in congregational affairs. It is about more congregational community and function. In your experience, apart from social worship, for what does the whole congregation, as the congregation, come together today?

It is not my aim to get women into a “business meeting” where a congregation has assigned men to accomplish something. But as for general men’s business meetings, some have become so authoritarian, exclusive, and institutionalized that they have no semblance to anything in the Scriptures. I do not believe Acts 6, Acts 15, or any of the other examples cited tell us anything about them. If one must categorize these conclusions, let it be with the com- munity of the assembly of saints in a locality, where there is congregational sharing in responsibility. The alternative is lordly hierarchy and dominated attenders. When the group shares responsibility and has the wise and mature leadership of scriptural elders, and is served by deacons “set over” specific tasks, the local community approaches that ideal description of the body, “fitly framed and knit together through that which every joint supplieth, according to the working in due measure of each several part.” I believe some places are falling short of “multitude” activity. Where that is true, New Testament example is being neglected and a detached “laity” may evolve. Compare that to the sense of community, congregational involvement, and responsibility sharing found in the examples following.

2 Corinthians 8:19

A brother was appointed by churches to travel with Paul. The churches had to make a decision. This doesn’t say men’s business meetings made decisions. Could separated men in each group have discussed this and made a recommendation accepted by each respective congregation? Yes. Is that what happened? There is not a soul on earth who can establish that, or the necessity of that happening. The Holy Spirit said the churches appointed. The churches may have used various methods, but no one method can be bound in the absence of a statement, exclusive example, or inference. And if the text says congregations appointed, that authorizes congregational action. That authorizes the presence of the spiritual community in the making of this appointment, or acceptance of a recommendation, which itself is a decision. But the text says the congregations made that decision. In no way can this be used to bind the practice of a smaller group exclusively making all decisions for the congregation.

As in the selection of servants, the congregation likewise here is authorized to appoint its representatives, and no one method larger or smaller therefore can be bound. Thus an assembly of the community is authorized for the making of the appointment. Can anyone show a statement, implication, or example to prove otherwise? The answer is, no. Can elders, or other leaders where no elders exist, do the ground work and make persuasive and compel- ling recommendations? Yes, but the ultimate appointment lay with the congregations complying with good leadership. Could there have been a choice so apparent that the elders recommended it in the assembly and brought about agreement and a decision then and there? Obviously. That is authorized, whatever acceptable method may have been used.

But it has been argued that the implications of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-12, giving leadership to men, prohibit the very presence of women when such decisions are made. Now please note this, and note it carefully. These passages in no way imply that women could not have been present when the decision to appoint the brother to travel with Paul was made. In fact, if these passages apply to decision making occasions, they imply the presence of women. In the first, they are present, not at home. In the second, their presence necessitates their relational quietness. How can passages regulating presence be used to decree absence? Understand that the primary purpose here is not to get women into decision making meetings, but to accept the sense of community seen in New Testament congregational function. It is to say that congregations, congregations, assembled, or could assemble, for action and certain decisions, and not just for “worship services” and receiving decisions.

1 Corinthians 5

“Ye being gathered together . . . deliver such a one unto Satan.” The congregation, the whole congregation, is authorized to assemble to effect congregational action. An action was taken. It was not done in a men’s business meeting, a meeting of those of repute, or of men recognized by the congregation to plan this, or by elders where existing. Any such leadership may initiate and lead to this, but they do not make the decision solely and only announce it. The congregation, the assembly, the community, was required and present to effect it. The man wasn’t “delivered” until the gathered assembly did it.

Acts 6

The apostles told the “multitude of the disciples” to look out seven men. In their leadership and seeing what was needed, had a decision been made about solving the need? Yes. This would be analogous to what elders do in leading the flock. But this initiating action required a subsequent congregational decision to be made. Choosing is a decision. And the whole multitude chose (v. 5). Could various methods of selection have been used by the multitude? Yes. Did they relegate it to a men’s business meeting? No one can prove that. Can we insist then that such meetings are the only way for every decision to be made? No. Since the assembled multitude was told to choose, “and they chose,” would that authorize doing such in that capacity, then and there, if feasible? Yes. Authorizing a congregation to do something authorizes the congregation to do it, not any specific method. They could therefore use the assembly method in selecting servants or other representatives.

But, the argument again arises, since men are given leadership, women inferentially must not be present. That assertion falls far short of an inference. And it proves too much. Are men given leadership in assemblies of liturgical worship? Yes. Since they are given leadership, does this then forbid the presence of women there? If men having leadership prohibits the presence of women, women must not be present for preaching or the Lord’s supper.

Relevantly, the assembling of the whole multitude was with reference to “this business” (v. 3).   It is therefore scriptural for the congregation to come together for the purpose of expediting by choices, decisions, certain matters of function, or “business.”

Again it is objected, if women are present, they might speak out, or try to dominate the procedure, which they must not do since men have the leadership. If that is a valid argument, then again it means, since men have leadership in liturgical service, women must not be there or else they might speak out or try to dominate the procedures. If the possibility does not prohibit their presence in the one circumstance, it does not in the other. And besides that, the fact is, the congregation was there to expedite business. It is extremely arbitrary to insist that the apostles went to the trouble of calling the whole multitude together for 15 seconds of instruction with no discussion or questions, and then required their dispersal so the men, isolated, could decide the procedures, make the plans, and effect how they would make the choice for the multitude. However spiritually sound that may seem to some, the Holy Spirit, by the words recording this example, requires and authorizes a choice, a decision, by the whole multitude.

Acts 15

“Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose. . . . and send” (v. 22). Something was concluded, decided, with whole church complicity. Was it a levied decision accepted distributively? The language does not say that. It states actual participation; a decision concluded, with the assembly involved. Concerning the meaning of the word rendered “it seemed good”: “The meaning to conclude (emph. added) is found especially in Acts (e.g. 15:22, 25, 28)” (NIDNTT); “Dokeo has the force of ‘decided’ in Acts 15:22” (Kittel). The whole church was in on the deciding. Thus as used in this context, “dokei ‘it seems good’. . . is the technical term of Gr. of all periods for ‘voting’ or ‘passing’ a measure in the assembly” (Lake & Cadbury in A Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament). How? By voting, acclamation, lack of objection? No one knows the method by which the leadership involved the congregation, though popular vote tabulation can be eliminated. This, even though one may wonder at the example of the successor to Judas being selected by lot. That selection does not indicate ballot voting. Lots were put forth for Matthias and Barsabbas respectively, and by indicating one in some manner, the Lord showed who was his choice, as the apostles had prayed.

However, in the past many brethren such as T.B. Lari- more made a case for congregational voting. It kept a small minority from hobbling the rest of the congregation. On the other hand, allowing voting gives opportunity for lobbying the immature and outvoting the wiser and more spiritually inclined, devaluing the counsel of mature wisdom. And decision by ballot may inhibit love and wisdom wherein a majority may forgo some things for the sake of others’ conscience. Neither majority rule nor coercive minority was the basis for congregational decision making, as indicated in my booklet, The Rule of Elders:

In all this inclusive participation we must not conclude the congregation is to function as a pure democracy. Christ established function by leadership. There are, after all, those who are chief (Lk. 22:26), first (Matt. 20:27), and leaders (Heb. 13:7, 17). He did not intend for minimum knowledge and brash assertiveness to have equal influence with wisdom, proven service and spiritual maturity, as can happen in a democracy. So while Christ banishes personal authority and dominion, he has ordained a leadership by the mature, the exemplary, the spiritually experienced, and the knowledgeable. It was the job of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers to perfect the rest (Eph. 4:11-12). Whether these were gifted or not is not the point. It was the truth and spiritual wisdom abiding in them that gave them leader- ship, however it resided there. This spiritual leadership finds continued residence in his shepherds, elders. While other good and knowledgeable disciples may exercise leadership, Paul demonstrated respect for the assigned leadership of elders by calling the elders at Ephesus to him at Troas for a final personal reminder of their responsibilities (Acts 20:17-38). Significantly, we are not told to follow the novice and the immature, or ones who covet influence without attaining the necessary qualifications of character, knowledge and experience (18).

Voting aside, a whole assembly is still specified as involved in what was “decided.” To find harmony here with insistence that separated men make all decisions alone, just cannot be done. Hence one must not bind this latter preference as an exclusive pattern for making all congregational decisions. To suppose that something didn’t necessarily happen in the assembly does not prove it did not and must not happen in the assembly, especially when the text states that the assembly did something. For in the absence of a specific example, inference, or statement otherwise, this authorizes the assembly, as the assembly, to do it.

Do I believe women publicly voiced individual opinions in the assembled congregation at Jerusalem? I do not. It is shameful for a woman to speak in the assembly (1 Cor. 14:35). But may she make suggestions to leaders and then be present in the assembly when decisions are finalized, to observe and share in the informed consensus? This whole passage cries out in the affirmative. Assembly action does not require everyone’s speaking. It does not mean that all men, or all red-haired men, or all of any specific classification actually addressed the assembly. But the decisions were consummated, with the whole assembly. The whole assembly was involved in choosing and sending. The language here authorizes, even if, as some imagine, it does not delineate it, the presence of the entire assembly when some decisions are made and actions taken. This does not say they always must be present for the decision of every detail. Remember the plan the apostles set before the multitude in Acts 6. It pleased the multitude who accepted and acted upon it. And related to the assigned work the chosen deacons were “set over,” they must have made numerous decisions which require so many business meetings now. But to forbid congregational presence at some level, decreeing instead a “men’s business meeting” as the exclusive forum for every decision in the absence of elders, is to insist upon something we do not find specifically in any Scripture, while totally rejecting that for which we have both stated and exemplified authority. And note, even with elders, there was congregational participation. No doubt the faith of James, and the good judgment and respected leadership of the elders, and agreement of the apostles, provided the circumstances for the salutary actions taken.

And More

In the passages cited, congregations, assemblies, are authorized to choose messengers to carry money, to assemble to note a sinner, to select deacons, and to have part in sending a letter and choosing its carriers. Such congregational involvement can be seen also in Acts 13:1-3; 15:1-3; 15:4-6, 15:30-31; and 14:27, where assemblies are authorized to designate and send out preachers, appoint and arrange to send men on a designated mission, participate in settling controversy, assemble to receive a communication from elsewhere, and hear reports on evangelism. All this is to say that congregations met for more and were involved in more than some current opinions allow, limiting any action of the whole assembly to little other than “worship services.” To do that is to change the very nature and community of the New Testament congregation. That loses something of the nature and relationship of God’s people, however well and orthodoxly intentioned. That is my concern.

This contention for making all decisions apart from the congregation and thus away from the presence of women, is obliged by the unwelcome consequence of other beliefs. They are, that women need not remain silent in the assembly, but may speak as long as they do so with subjection, quietly (1 Tim. 2:11-12). Another is that the “silence” requirement at Corinth was only for the time of spiritual gifts, or for the wives of the prophets. Another is that the silence is only for liturgical assemblies, not for other assemblies. All these positions would allow women to speak today in such assembly discussions as that one in the Jerusalem church about circumcision, and publicly to join any “much questioning” as occurred there before the multitude fell silent. Yet people whose positions would allow that, think the advocacy of congregational involvement as there, is the rankest of dangerous heresy. It is too cosmetic to pretend Acts 15 was just a debate. But if it were, all the positions above would allow women joining it, if done “with subjection.” Thus to avoid in congregational function, what their positions justify, some decree that women must be kept out of decision making meetings. (Tradition will keep them from speaking in the “worship service.”)

Constraint of space inhibits making the case for the input of godly women and their good influence on a congregation, and expressing sufficient gratitude for it. But their participatory conduct in private counsel, in separated classes, and in work groups, will be within divine parameters (1 Tim. 2:11- 12), and in the assembly will be governed by non-speaking (1 Cor. 14:34-35). Some will ask, “Why then have ‘them’ there?” That sounds arrogant, and considering what the Holy Spirit recorded, is presumptuous. Why have women present for preaching? Let us activate and involve today’s congregations in all they were in the New Testament, and be blessed by the ensuing community.

By Clint Springer

Dedicated Christians live in anticipation of the second coming of Jesus. Whether that event transpires during our lifetime or many years from now, the attitude remains the same.

Parousia is the Greek word most commonly translated “coming,” and Vine’s Dictionary says it “denotes both an arrival and a consequent presence with.” This article is being written in order to clarify several points with relation thereto.

There are at least three Bible doctrines that are interrelated so far as time and event are concerned: The coming of Christ, the judgment, and the end of the world. A concise study of the New Testament leads to this conclusion. A resurrection of the dead may be classified as a fourth in that listing. “Second Coming,” however, may be considered somewhat arbitrary, as most Scriptures only speak of a coming without any numerical number. Hebrews 9:28 may be considered the exception, but in that passage the writer is also speaking of judgment after death — that which is still in the future for us.

Some verses, especially in Luke, are hard to interpret. Most of those verses are related to the destruction of Jerusalem, but also sound like the ending of the universe. A probable explanation is that the catastrophe of A.D. 70 prefigured the end of the world. Some of the saints were resurrected along with our Lord (Matt. 27:52), and the destruction of Jerusalem was certainly a judgment against the rebellious Jews of that age.

When the Romans destroyed Jerusalem, the New Testament teaches that to have been a coming of the Lord (Matt.

24:30). However, it has been shown that “coming” does not demand a personal appearance of Christ, and such verses as Isaiah 19:1 in the Old Testament use that type of language when civil war in Egypt was being considered. Conversely, “Second Coming,” in our vernacular, implies all that was stated in paragraph one (1 Cor. 15:22-25).

Some believe the whole chapter of Matthew 24 (also Luke 21) relates only to the A.D. 70 event. However, the “day” of the second division is a time about which only the Father knows. On the other hand, Jesus knew when the Jerusalem catastrophe was to take place and so informed his disciples. That answered the second question asked by the disciples, and obviously pertains to the final end of all humanity.

A problem arises relating to that as the language is very nearly like Luke seventeen. The latter is believed to be the end of Judaism, but that event has already been suggested as a foreshadowing of the world’s end. It should also be understood that similar language does not always demand a single event.

Those who hold the view that Jesus literally returned in A.D. 70 also contend that all spiritual gifts ended at that time — that all the books of the New Testament were writ- ten before that date. While this seems like a moot point of argument, it should be remembered that spiritual gifts were given by the laying on of an apostle’s hand (Acts 8:18), and no doubt some of these lived beyond the A.D. 70 date. It is also true that those letters of Paul to the Gentiles have little to say about the Jerusalem catastrophe, as that event did not mean as much to the Gentiles as it did to the Jews.

In my Royal Publishers King James Bible, First Thessalonians is listed as having been written in A.D. 58, but in view of Chapter 2:16, which is written in the past tense, that, too, can be questioned. After charging the Jews with killing Jesus, and prohibiting the gospel from being preached to Gentiles, the last part of verse sixteen says, “But God’s wrath has come upon them at last!”

In those books written to Gentile churches, a clearer view of the final judgment may be found. Conversely, only Judea was involved when the Romans destroyed the city of Jerusalem. 1 Thessalonians 5:2, 2 Thessalonians 2, and 2

Peter 3 are passages directly related to the end of the world.

You may remember that after receiving their first letter, some of the Thessalonians thought the end was literally at hand. In the second book the apostle declared that a falling away had to come first, and we know that to have pertained to the Catholic system. Any good church history book will trace that falling away to its completion.

From John 20:17 we learn that Jesus did not immediately ascend to the Father, there is a difference between Paradise and the Heaven of God’s throne, but did so afterward and was then crowned King (Luke 19:12). This was foretold by Daniel (Dan. 7:13,14). Thus we conclude that Jesus went before the Father with the blood of his sacrifice, then came back to earth and appeared to the apostles and several others.

His coming was foretold in the Old Testament, as is his final coming in the New. Just as many ungodly Jews were destroyed in A.D. 70, all who obey not the gospel will suffer the second death and be damned to outer darkness for eternity.