It has been said that "poets are born, not made." This is also true in some sense of elders. There is no doubt that some of the qualifications required in an elder are attained by him or developed in his character, and a lack of these would unfit him for the work; and sometimes circumstances of a man's life might render him ineligible for the office or work of an elder. If a man is unable to control his family and his children are known to be guilty of misconduct, to be riotous and unruly, or if his wife is a busybody, a tattler, etc., he is not suitable for an older, although he may not be at all responsible for the wrongdoing of his family. This may seem upon first thought to be unjust, but upon more mature study it will be seen to be both just and wise. Such a wife and such children, especially when they are considered members of the church, are certain to have difficulties with other members of the church, and the husband and father might not be able impartially to decide between them; or if he is, he is liable to be accused of partiality. In the civil courts he would be disqualified as a juror.

      But, in addition to these attained qualifications, the elder should have certain natural qualifications; hence in that sense he is born, not made. He should at least have good sense. A man who is not normal either physically or mentally would hardly be suitable for an elder. We know human nature by knowing our own nature; and if we are not an average normal human being, we cannot know the feelings, weaknesses, and temptations of others.

      Some men have by nature what others have by culture and attainment. Some men are kind, gentle, and meek by nature; others have to develop these beautiful graces in their characters; but, whether natural or attained, an elder must possess these. Whatever else is necessary to make a man an elder of a church, it is certain that he must have developed or inherited, or both developed and inherited, the characteristics required by the New Testament. And these should not have come to him in a purposeless and accidental way. He should have been training himself for the work of an elder. Every congregation, and especially its elders, should always be developing and training men with a view to making them elders, at least preparing them for the eldership, so that whenever there is a need for them, either in the church that trained them or some other that they may chance to be members of, they will be ready. We need men who are trained for service in all lines of Christian endeavor, and there is no greater responsibility or nobler work than that which is placed in the hands of the elders of a church of Christ.

      Let us say, then, that the first essential in the making of an elder is:

      I. Training. Paul says that "if a man desires the office of a bishop, he desires a good work." In this sentence the word "desires" is used twice, but it is from different Greek words. The first word is oregetai, which means "to reach out after," "to stretch forward to," "to give oneself up to the love of," etc. The second word is epithumei, which means "to wish for crave," or "long for," etc. Either word expresses strong desire, but the first signifies aspiration to obtain, efforts to reach, etc. The sentence might be paraphrased thus: "If a man seeks the office of a bishop and gives himself up to the preparation for it, he is desiring an honorable work." How else would a man stretch forward to the office of a bishop except by preparing for it? How else would he seek it? We could not suppose that he would canvass the congregation and work political schemes in order to influence the members to elect him. He could only aspire to the office by aspiring to possess the qualifications, to be able to do the work, and to merit the respect and esteem of a congregation that would be willing to submit to him.

      He would acquire the qualifications only by experience in the Christian life, by growing in the graces of religion, and by the practice of self-denial and self-control. He would gain the ability to do the work by doing it. All the work that is done by the elders may be and should be done by all Christians, except that of ruling and overseeing the whole congregation, which can be done only when the church appoints them to do it and thereby agrees to submit to them. So the man seeks the work of a bishop will learn to teach by teaching; he will learn to admonish the erring by practice. There are always people who need admonition and encouragement, and we are all our brother's keeper. This is another reason why a novice should not be appointed. Paul states one--namely, lest he become "puffed up." But the man who has had the widest experience in Christian service is best fitted for the duties of an elder if he is otherwise qualified. A man who is rich in experience in the ordinary duties of a Christian will be able to perform the work of an elder. In all walks of life the man who most diligently meets the obligations that fall upon him and discharges whatever duties are incumbent is best prepared for promotion--for greater responsibilities and higher duties. So also the man who most faithfully lives the Christian life is best prepared to help others.

      It is sometimes stated that work of an elder he is then an elder and needs no appointing ceremony to make him an elder. In one sense this may be true; but it is not a systematic, a satisfactory, or scriptural of becoming an elder. If by doing the work a man does not excite jealousies or bring down upon himself the charge of wanting to "run" things, and if the congregation tacitly agrees to submit to him and to be ruled by him, then he is, indeed, an elder. But how often would such a condition exist? Even if that condition should prevail, in ordinary circumstances the man's authority would certainly be questioned if he undertook to discipline the disorderly members. For that reason that manner of becoming an elder is not satisfactory. The following considerations would lead us to believe it is not the scriptural way:

      1. In the New Testament the elders were appointed. (Acts 14:23; Tit. 1:5.) They did not merely assume the position. It would not have been at all necessary to leave Titus in Crete to appoint elders if no appointing ceremony is necessary.

      2. The Holy Spirit has given minute instructions as to what kind of men should be appointed to the eldership. This was all unnecessary if any man who does the work of an elder is thereby constituted an elder. The Holy Spirit would no doubt have given only the duties of elders and said nothing about their qualifications if that contention were correct. If a novice--new convert--begins at once faithfully to do the work of an elder, is he then an elder? If so, the precaution against appointing a novice was useless. If a man who does not rule well his own house does the work which the Scriptures specify as the work of an elder, is he, therefore, an elder? Why, then, was that required as one of the qualifications of an elder? In fact, it seems that the contention that the eldership is not.an office among Christians which a man can enter and hold only by the consent and appointment of those whom he rules, makes useless and even absurd the instructions concerning the character of men who should be made elders. If a woman should do the work assigned to the elders, would she be an elder? Or if all the men of a congregation should do the work of the elders, would they all be elders? This condition could not exist, it matters not how faithfully all the men serve the Lord, because there are certain duties that belong to an elder that a man cannot do unless he is authorized by the congregation to do them. He could not rule the church unless the church agrees to submit to him and to recognize him as an overseer. We conclude, therefore, that after a man has developed or acquired the qualities of character required in an elder, which has been set down as the first step necessary in becoming an elder, he must be--

      II. Appointed or Set Apart. It is believed that what has been said is sufficient to prove that some form of appointment is necessary; but there is no scarcity of proof on this point, and we shall offer a little further evidence. If all men who assume the responsibilities and do the work of elders are by that made elders, Paul would have left Titus in Crete to build up the church and instruct all the members to do the work instead of instructing him to appoint elders to do certain duties. Paul addressed the Philippian Epistle "to all the saints in Christ Jesus that are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons." (Phil. 1:1.) Of course the bishops and deacons were included in "all the saints," but they are mentioned as special individuals among the saints. They were unquestionably persons set apart or appointed to a special work--that of overseeing the flock, as we know from other scriptures. Again, Paul beseeches the Thessalonian church highly to esteem those who were over them in the Lord. How could some men be over the church if they were all privileged to be over it? What would they be over if none of them are subject to certain ones? It would be impossible for the church to obey those who are over it without an understanding as to who they are, and no man is over the church unless the church submits to him. He must, therefore, be placed over the church by some authority. Two questions naturally present themselves here: (1) Who can or should do this appointing? (2) How is the appointing done, and by what ceremony?

      In answering these questions we shall take the liberty to quote from others who are more able to speak on this subject. After arguing ably and at length to prove that the ordination ceremony consisted in fasting, prayer, and the laying on of hands, Alexander Campbell gives the following directions for appointing elders and deacons:

      "1. The congregation, after having proved the abilities and capacities to teach and rule found in its own members, and, above all, tested their character as approved by those within and without the congregation, appoints a day for the proper election of its officers.

      "2. Having agreed upon those eligible, possessing, in an acceptable measure, the qualifications commanded by the apostles, a day is appointed for their solemn consecration to the Lord.

      "3. The day arrives. The church assemble with fasting and proceed to select members to impose hands on the officers-elect in behalf of the congregation. The persons thus chosen then proceed to impose their hands on the heads of those elected, while all unite in prayer to God that those brethren chosen by them, and now devoted to the Lord as their bishops and deacons, may, feeling their responsibilities, with all diligence and fidelity to the Lord, and with all humility of mind and affectionate concern for the brotherhood, exercise the office with which they are hereby invested in the name of the Lord, according to the true intent and meaning of the Christian institution, as they shall account to the Lord at his glorious appearing and kingdom. The whole congregation then, lifting up their voice, say, 'Amen.'"

      It will be observed that Mr. Campbell was giving directions for a congregation that was being organized for the first time; hence it was necessary to select certain members of the congregation to impose hands on those who were being ordained as bishops or deacons. If the congregation already had ordained officers, but needed others either to fill a vacancy or because their number was not sufficient to administer the affairs of the congregation, their ordained officers would impose their hands on the newly elected officers. On this point Mr. Campbell says:

      "It will be remembered that we are writing in reference to a new church-to a congregation coming into the apostolic order; for after being once set in order, it will be unnecessary to select persons to ordain, or to introduce other seniors into a participation of the oversight or ministry of the community. Those already ordained will, for the brotherhood, always act in such matters. They are the standing presbytery or senate of the congregation." (This quotation from Mr. Campbell will be found in the 1835 volume of the Millennial Harbinger; or his whole essay on this subject can be found in Dr. Brents' "Gospel Sermons," Chapter XX.)

      It will be observed that in the directions given by Mr. Campbell there is, first, an election, and, second, an ordination. The whole congregation selects or elects the men whom they would have to be appointed as officers over them, and then at a convenient time the officers-elect are ordained or inaugurated by fasting, prayer, and the laying on of hands. The whole congregation takes part in this ceremony also; but only the presbytery, if they have one, selected members if they do not, lay hands on those being ordained or appointed.

      This seems to be the scriptural order. In the church at Jerusalem the whole "multitude of the disciples," at the command of the twelve apostles, appointed men to serve the church. Notice, there was first an election, then an ordination or appointing. After the whole church had elected the seven, the record gives their names--the names of all those "whom they set before the apostle: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands upon them." (Acts 6:6.) It certainly seems proper that the whole church should select their overseers; for the Lord strictly requires that the church submit to the elders and obey them, and no earthly authority can put a man over the church who is objectionable to the church. Alexander Campbell argues that only members of the congregation should lay hands upon those already elected by the congregation; that visiting preachers or visiting elders from other congregations are not the ones to do either the electing or the appointing.

      But how can the will of the entire congregation be ascertained? The whole transaction should be participated in by the whole congregation--if in no other way, by the sanction of presence. If any one in the congregation has any reasonable or scriptural objection to anything that is being done, he should be allowed to state the objection, with reasons for it; and it should be considered fully, fairly, and in the spirit of Christ. If it can be explained to the satisfaction of the objector, well and good. If he cannot be satisfied, but if all the rest of the congregation are satisfied that the objection is not sustained by the Scriptures, but that the brother is in error either honestly or willfully, there seems to be no other choice but to proceed with the organization. The brother should be admonished in all meekness and love to abandon the objection.

      Brother Campbell said the congregation should express its wish by a vote. Many people object to voting in the church, and there can be little doubt that the ordinary business matters of the congregation should not be submitted to a vote. That is why we must have elders. There were objectors to voting in Campbell's day, and in the essay from which the above quotation is taken he treats the objections in his usual vigorous and masterly style. He begins his argument with this sentence: "Some Christians are opposed to voting in the church. They only vote against voting."

      A number of persons together cannot agree on anything or could not know when they are agreed, unless they expressed their minds or wish in some way. Voting in an orderly and systematic way in organizing a congregation, which would then prevent further voting on every minor question, is far better than letting the church remain unorganized and the work undone, while the members wrangle, dispute, and contend about the "whys," the "whats," and the "whos" of the church. In every unorganized congregation every little question must be decided and settled by the whole body, because they have no officers to administer their affairs. Either all questions must be submitted to the whole body, or else some self-appointed man or men must assume arbitrarily to manage the business of the church; and men who assume such authority are usually unsuitable for the place and objectionable to a large number of the members. But if the congregation does not submit to them, there will always be strife. God's way is best. Let us sacrifice our opinions and be governed by his word.

      We have cited one New Testament example to show the directions Brother Campbell gave are scriptural, and we might say that all the cases of ordination in the New Testament are the same. On this point allow this quotation from Conybeare and Howson:

      "In all cases, so far as we may infer from the recorded instances in the Acts, those who were selected for the performance of church officers were solemnly set apart for the duties to which they devoted themselves. This ordination they always received, whether the office to which they were called was permanent or temporary. The church, of which they were members, devoted a preparatory season to 'fasting and prayer;' and then those who were to be set apart were consecrated to their work by that solemn and touching symbolical act, the laying on of hands, which has been ever since appropriated to the same purpose and meaning. And thus, in answer to the faith and prayers of the church, the spiritual gifts necessary for the performance of the office were bestowed by Him who is the 'Lord and Giver of life.'" ("Life and Epistles of Paul," Volume II., page 437.)

      Those who object to laying on hands say that it was done for the purpose of conferring some spiritual gift. In reply to this it is usually argued that none but the apostles could confer spiritual gifts by the imposing of hands, and we know that others than the apostles laid their hands on those being ordained or set apart for service. (Acts 13:1-6.) In the Old Testament they practiced the laying on of hands as a ceremony of consecration, and not for the purpose of conferring a gift. The children of Israel laid their hands upon the Levites to consecrate them to the priesthood, and we could hardly suppose that it would be contended that the children of Israel could confer the Holy Spirit. (Num. 8:9, 10.) Luke does not give any account of the institution of the eldership, as he does of the diaconate, perhaps because this same office was a well-known feature of the Jewish synagogue. The synagogue naturally served as a model in the organization of churches. On this point Brother David Lipscomb says:

      "So God set Moses and the elders the judges to decide the difficulties that would rise among the Jewish people. These elders in the different tribes, families, and cities continued to adjudge the difficulties and settle differences until the days of Jesus Christ. This order of elders, with their duties, was by Jesus and the Holy Spirit transferred to the churches of God, and the same duties seem to have followed them." ("Queries and Answers," page 142.)

      We may well suppose that the Old Testament manner of ordination followed them also. If any reader is inclined to think that there is no appointing or ordination ceremony needed now, he should ask himself by what consistency could we retain an officer and yet eliminate the office; and if we retain both officer and the office, how can we eliminate that which is essential to induct him into the office? How can a man be placed in any office without some form of election, initiation, inauguration, consecration, or ordination?

      While the plan suggested by Brother Campbell is held to be scriptural and we recommend it, it must be understood that it is not the purpose of these lessons to contend for any plan or theory. The Lord's work must be done if we desire to please him and to receive his blessings, and all Christians, of course, want to follow the New Testament order in both work and worship; but where there is a difference of opinion as to why a certain thing was done, it would be poor judgment to let that difference interfere with the work. We must not neglect to appoint elders in some way--some way satisfactory to the congregation to be allotted to them. Never mind whether it is satisfactory to all the editors and preachers in the brotherhood or not. They differ; and we cannot, therefore, follow all of them. Let us earnestly and prayerfully try to learn for ourselves what God teaches and follow that. Do not let the things said herein stir up a controversy, but rather let them provoke you to love and good works.

      The author of this book believes that the appointing should be done as indicated in the preceding paragraphs, but he does not contend that it cannot be done acceptably in any other way. So far as he has been able to see, that is the method used in all the cases that are reported in the New Testament; but there are some good brethren who contend that hands were imposed in those cases to confer the Holy Spirit, and out of deference to that view it is thought best to leave the manner of appointing optional with the congregations. The author has, however, clearly shown his views in the matter, and he has done so intentionally; but he is willing to concede that it is a debatable question, and he does not, therefore, dogmatically contend that no way is acceptable which does not include the laying on of hands. He does contend, however, that the practice of most of our congregations of the present time is wrong. The result of such practice is all the proof that needs to be cited. The appointing is done without any sort of solemnity or ceremony, and it is most frequently done without the acquiescence of the congregation. Somebody nonchalantly announces that Brother ----- will, after two weeks, be an elder of the congregation if no one objects. Those members who happen to hear the announcement pay about as much heed to it as they do to the announcement of a midweek prayer meeting. The two weeks expire; and no objection having been offered, Brother ----- is an elder!

      That is one way that is in use to-day. Other congregations wait till some preacher comes along and appoints elders all on his own authority; or if he gets suggestions, they come from some few members who may have personal reasons for their choice.

      Either method is sadly, shamefully, and manifestly wrong; and the results of either process when not entirely negligible are disastrous. This is a serious matter, and it should be seriously attended to.

      If a congregation about to appoint elders or deacons cannot agree to follow the New Testament custom and lay hands on them, thinking that it was done in those cases to confer a gift, let them at least not dispense with all solemnities and ceremonies. Let the whole church acquiesce in the formalities in some way, so that it can be truthfully said that the elders thus made are over them in the Lord. Let them submit to the elders. Appointing elders is a very important and far-reaching step. It is full of possibilities, both of good and of evil. Such a step should always be attended by fasting and prayer. Why eliminate the fasting and prayer even if we do refuse to lay on hands? Do we not need it as much as the apostles and other inspired and Spirit-guided men of the New Testament did? Some of our present day congregations never did anything in the history of their work that they regarded as solemn and serious enough to fast and pray over. It is small wonder that there are factions and strife among them. Let us return to the New Testament pattern, brethren, and have qualified men selected by the congregation and duly appointed to the eldership; let; the elders rule well, and let the church submit to them and obey them, "esteem them exceeding highly in love for their work's sake." That would mean a new day in the history of the church in our country. God speed the day!

      For the aid of those who may wish to appoint elders without the laying on of hands the following program is suggested. It will make the act solemn and impressive, and it will also be the act of the whole church. It is given, however, simply as a suggestion, and it may be modified by those who lead in the service as they may think proper.

      Those who are to be appointed having previously been selected by the congregation for their overseers, the whole church assembles to ordain or appoint them, to inaugurate them; or if these terms are not pleasing to the feelings of all, lot us say that they have come together publicly to acknowledge their elders. The meeting has been repeatedly and thoroughly announced, and every member has been urged to be present. When the whole church has assembled with solemn purpose and the elders-elect have taken the front seat, the following order may be observed:
      1. Hymn.
      2. Scripture reading. (1 Tim. 3:1-7; Tit. 1:5-9; 1 Pet. 5:1-4.)
      3. Prayer.
      4. Hymn.
      5. Sermon or talk on eldership.
      6. The evangelist, or the leader, asks the elders-elect to stand and face the audience; and when they have done this, he says: "These are the men, brothers and sisters, that you have elected to serve this church as overseers; and now, to assure these men that you have chosen them for that office, and to actively express your approval of the steps now being taken, I shall ask you to answer this question: Do you, as members of the ------ church of Christ, now publicly acknowledge that you have chosen these brethren to be your overseers, and do you now agree to submit to them and to obey them in all things that God has commanded them as bishops of the church to require of you? If this be the sense of the congregation, you will please signify it by standing." (Let the whole audience stand.) When the people have resumed their seats, the leader turns to the elders-elect, who are still standing, and asks.: "Do you, John Loyal and James Faithful and Philip Worthy and Cephas Humble [the leader will call their real names], who have been so highly honored by the people of God as to be chosen to lead them and to direct their affairs, now accept this charge, and do you solemnly pledge yourselves to this church in the sight of God, to whom you shall account for every member of this body, to learn and to perform the duties of your office to the best of your understanding and ability?" Each one shall answer for himself. "I do." Then shall the leader say. "This, then, brethren, seals the covenant. You and the other members of this church have entered into a solemn agreement. They have honored you by placing you in the most exalted, because the most responsible, position in the whole church of God. You are now their bishops, and they have placed themselves under your oversight. You have promised to lead them, to feed them, and to watch concerning their souls. In order to perform these duties faithfully, you will have need of the help that comes from God; therefore let us now invoke his blessings on what we have here done."
      7. Prayer.
      8. Hymn.
      9. Benediction.
      10. Congratulations and general handshaking.

1. What is the first step necessary in making an elder?
2. Name some of the qualifications that an elder must have by birth. Name some that he may have by birth.
3. How can a man who desires to be an elder acquire the ability to do the work?
4. If a man assumes the position of an elder, is he, therefore, an elder?
5. If some member of the congregation should deny that such a man was an elder and refuse to submit to him, could there be any action taken against him, or against the members?
6. What is the second step necessary in becoming an elder?
7. Give, in full, the steps Brother Campbell said should be taken in appointing elders and deacons.
8. What do some people think the laying on of hands was for?
9. Could you find some place in the Bible where they imposed hands as a ceremony and not to confer the Spirit?
10. If we eliminate fasting, prayer, and the laying on of hands from our appointing ceremony, in what would the appointing consist?
11. Granting that there is no need to lay on hands, is there any reason why we should eliminate the fasting and prayer?
12. Did your congregation or the leaders of your congregation, as a body, ever fast and pray over anything?
13. Who should elect the elders?
14. Who should appoint them?
15. Does your congregation have elders?
16. If so, how were they appointed?
17. Is the congregation in submission to them?
18. If not, would it not be best for the congregation to all together solemnly agree to submit to them and obey them and by that place them "over you in the Lord?"
19. If that is not scriptural, what is?
20. Should personal animus lead any one to endeavor to find fault with the elders and pronounce them unfit?
21. Should personal preference or favoritism cause any one to suggest or nominate a man for the eldership?
22. To avoid this, would it not be best that making elders be done with fasting and prayer?
23. Is fasting and prayer ever wrong except when it is done to be seen of men?
24. If we feel at liberty to leave off the fasting, can we afford to omit the prayers?
25. The whole future welfare, the growth and prosperity, and the final salvation of the congregation depend, to a great extent, upon the kind of men who are placed as elders over it. Should not every member, therefore, be interested? Should not the whole proceedings be seriously, earnestly, and prayerfully carried out?

[TMC 62-81]