Two novel suggestions were made regarding the Movement's theology of ministry, the first concerning the ordination of elders and the second arguing that the local minister was the equivalent, not of the New Testament evangelist, but of the teaching elder. It was also obvious during this period that the minister was being increasingly looked to for strong, if not professional, leadership.

1. Ordination
2. The Teaching Elder
3. We-Trained Leaders

1. ORDINATION

A.C., 1933, p. 499.

      Churches of Christ are committed to the restoration of the New Testament church in all things essential. While we believe that some things in the early church were to cease with the apostolic age (e. g., Holy Spirit baptism, miraculous healing, etc.), we also believe that many others were to continue right through this Christian age (such as the Headship of the church, its ordinances, its public ministry of evangelists, elders and deacons, etc.).

      This glorious plea cannot be overemphasised. When great emphasis, however, is given to many important truths, there is always a danger that others may be stressed too little, or even neglected altogether, and so lose their proper God-given place in the life of the church.

      It is in this latter class that we must place the proper setting apart of those chosen to be leaders in the church.

      We present the subject from three aspects: (1) as seen in secular organisations; (2) as seen in the Old Testament; (3) in the light of New Testament teaching and practice.

      In many organisations not of divine appointment, there is some formal setting apart of those chosen to office with more or less ceremony. This is deemed to be necessary because of the benefits derived. May we not say that even if the Scriptures were silent on the matter, it would be fitting for each church in some way to set apart those chosen? and may we not reasonably infer that the benefits would be as great as in these other instances?

      In the Old Testament times God instituted certain ordination ceremonies in the Jewish religion. Priests and kings were set apart to office with due form and ceremony in the washing with water, investing with robes, anointing with oil, offerings of consecration and the solemn covenant. There were at least two purposes in mind. First, to set apart solemnly to a life of consecrated service those chosen; and secondly, to teach all the people that these were the chosen of God to minister and so must be honored and obeyed. It is surely significant that these ceremonies were always carried out in the presence of the people. Surely such a practice, like so many other phases of Jewish worship, was to find its fulfilment and completion in the church of Jesus Christ.

      We know that with the coming of Christianity much of form and ceremony was eliminated. Yet it must necessarily be present in order to the observance of the worship of the church, but never to such an extent as to deprive the worshipper of the enjoyment of rich spiritual experiences.

      From the Word of God, our only guide in this matter, it is clear that those appointed to office in the church were solemnly set apart for their work. The following passages dealing with the ordination of officers make this evident to us:--

      1. Acts 6:1-6--After choice had been made by the church at Jerusalem of seven men, it is clear that their appointment was not completed until the apostles, after a season of prayer, had laid their hands on them. It would seem that the apostles were not acting in their special capacity as apostles but as preachers of the Word (verse 2).

      2. Acts 13:1-3--Paul and Barnabas were being appointed to the ministry of the Word. Jesus had previously called Paul to this work, but now, here, the church at Antioch has its part to perform. Here fasting is mentioned in addition to prayer and the laying on of hands, and those who laid hands on them are called "prophets and teachers."

      3. Acts 14:23--"And when they had ordained them elders in every church and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord." In this case Paul and Barnabas appointed elders in a number of churches previously organised by them. Barnabas was not an apostle, so it would seem that in ordaining, he and Paul were acting in the capacity of ministers of the Word.

      4. 1 Tim. 4:14: "Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery." Timothy was thus set apart. As the elders had no power to bestow miraculous gifts, the gift referred to was probably in connection with the preaching of the gospel.

      5. 1 Tim. 5:22: "Lay hands suddenly on no man." The context shows that in the choice of elders care must be exercised, and that only men fitted for office should be chosen. It also reveals that in the proper time hands should be laid on those chosen.

      6. Titus 1:5: "For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things wanting, and ordain elders in every church as I appointed thee." An essential part of church organisation had yet to be accomplished for which the apostle had given definite instructions. Elders must be ordained in every church.

      From these passages we learn--

      1. That in the ordination of officers no miraculous gifts were imparted. The service was purely to set them apart to the work for which the church had chosen them.

      2. That preachers of the Word were ordained by elders.

      3. That elders and deacons were ordained by ministers of the Word.

      4. That the ceremony included fasting, prayer and the laying on of hands. Though all three are not mentioned in every case, it is clear that all had a part in the service.

      5. "That apostles, elders, evangelists, teachers and prophets, all were used in ordaining, clearly showing, that the idea that hands may be imposed only by those holding an office superior to that which is to be filled, has no support in the New Testament." (McGarvey).

Benefits to be derived

      It is readily admitted that there is in some churches a lack of respect for the office of the eldership and an unwillingness to recognise its authority in spiritual matters and in discipline. In a lesser degree the same may apply to the diaconate.

      What are the causes of this? One cause may be in choosing unqualified men, the church failing to wait upon God and seek the guidance of his Spirit. Another cause, however, and one in keeping with the theme under discussion is to be found in the neglect of churches to solemnly set apart in the scriptural way the men after they are chosen. When a church just elects its officers at a business meeting (with the

emphasis often on the word business), and does nothing more in recognition of their sacred office, how can the office ever be exalted, as one God-given, in the eyes of its membership?

      But if the church solemnly and in the sight of God ordains them to office, then is the office exalted in the eyes of both the church and the men chosen.

      This question of ordination has been largely ignored by our churches in Australia, and it is pleasing to learn that in recent weeks such services have been conducted in a number of our churches in New South Wales and also in England, and in each case the report has been "the service was one of the richest spiritual experiences in the history of the church."

      With the restoration of these scriptural teachings into the practice of our churches these God-given offices will be enriched with a new meaning and power, and the work of the church be more abundantly blessed.

2. THE TEACHING ELDER

A.C., 1936, p. 707.

      There seems to be a point in the New Testament form of church government where the interests of the church universal and the local congregation meet. We have, however, such a limited knowledge of the details of the management of the early church that we must be guided by general principles and a few incidents which, perhaps, have no direct bearing upon our problem, but nevertheless point us to what is likely to be the truth.

      In the church of the first century a group of Christians would normally be under the care and attention of two or more suitable and approved men called elders or overseers. Certain of the elders or overseers it seems were set apart for the work of preaching and teaching, and are referred to as those "who labor in word and doctrine" (1 Tim. 5:17). Such "preaching elders" did not occupy any supreme position in the church, but they were men especially called for particular work and served along with other elders. Verses 17 and 18 suggest that certain elders were to be financially supported, and this rule was to apply particularly to those men who labored in word and doctrine.

      But how were elders appointed and by whom were they appointed? From evidence found in the New Testament it cannot be proved that they were just elected by popular vote, and thus became merely the representatives of a local congregation. Some authorities have suggested that the Greek word translated in Acts 14:23 "Ordained" proves that a popular vote was taken in each church. The word in question, "cheirotoneoo," literally means "to stretch the hand," and was used particularly in connection with the popular vote at the assembly. But eventually it became a technical word for the act of appointing a person to an office. Even if we take the literal meaning of the word, it does not suggest in Acts 14 a popular vote, because the sentence is so constructed that the literal meaning is that Paul and Barnabas "stretched their hands," and it was not the congregation that did so. In other words Paul and Barnabas appointed or ordained the elders for the congregation concerned. The "stretching of the hands" by the apostles may refer to the act of the laying on of hands for the purpose of setting apart men selected for the eldership. In Paul's letter to Titus 1:5 reference is made to the fact that Titus, who had been left behind in Crete, was instructed by Paul to appoint elders in each city. Thus Titus, who was not a member of the local congregation, steps in, according to the instructions of Paul, and appoints the elders of the church. It is certainly evident that the apostles or their representatives appointed or ordained the elders of local congregations, and that it was not merely a matter for the local churches. Previously we pointed out that the apostles and the evangelists were associated with the church universal. They sought to maintain the unity and harmony of the whole brotherhood. Their appointment of the elders for a local congregation was an appointment on behalf of the whole church. These representatives of the church universal, perhaps by the laying on of hands, placed the seal of the whole brotherhood upon the appointed elders. Thus these elders became the officially sealed representatives of the church universal in local congregations.

      We have no proof of the manner in which the apostles selected the men to be ordained. Moral and spiritual standards of the individual played a part in the selection. But in view of the democratic principle within the fabric of the church one should expect that the members of a local congregation would be considered and allowed to express their opinion so that they would have some representation in the selection of the men ordained. When men were needed to attend to the distribution of necessities among the poor in Jerusalem the members of the church were asked to select suitable men; and those who were selected were then set apart officially for the work by the laying on of the hands of the apostles. So the seven helpers ordained by the apostles were first of all selected by the ordinary members of the church

in Jerusalem. Thus in the selection of these "helpers" the democratic principle was recognised. We have every reason to believe, then, that in the selection of elders the ordinary members of a local church would be given as opportunity to express their desires, and would not be overruled unless their choice happened to be inconsistent with the interests of the whole brotherhood. So the men who were appointed elders must be considered as representatives of the local congregation as well as of the church universal. Expressed differently, the fact is that the elders were representatives of the church universal in the local congregation. It was the duty of these men to maintain within the local group the high moral and spiritual principles of the church universal. The elder of "word and doctrine" would not present his own philosophy of life, but rather that faith and doctrine which belongs to the nature of the whole church, and which is in harmony with the mind of the spirit.

      In view of what has been stated above there seems to be only one office in the New Testament which is identical with the office of the preacher of the Churches of Christ, and that is this special eldership of "word and doctrine." The "preacher" is certainly not the evangelist of the New Testament church who organised churches, and ordained elders, and exercised an authority over many congregations. The "preacher" has become, or rather is becoming, a settled representative of the brotherhood in a local congregation. If we are to follow perfectly New Testament principles, he ought to be identified definitely with the elder of "word and doctrine."

      Then his appointment would not be only a matter of concern for a local group, but also a matter of concern for the whole brotherhood. By some sort of ordination service the preacher would become recognised as a representative of the brotherhood in a local congregation. It would be his task not only to represent a local group but also a great brotherhood and church. Because he would be recognised as the representative of the brotherhood within the local church, greater dignity and authority would be attached to his office, being only the dignity and authority of the preaching elder of the New Testament church. In the interests of scriptural truth, of the preacher and of the church, surely this identification should be made, together with the necessary adjustments in the brotherhood constitution, to make it effective and efficient!

3. WELL-TRAINED LEADERS

A. W. Stephenson, A.C., 1948, p. 411.

      The men likely to be successful as church leaders are also capable of enriching themselves in the world of commerce or in the professions. Sometimes a young man, looking forward to a professional or business career, also faces the vision of the church. From one point of view one offers material prosperity, but the other nothing but bare material needs. It is evident, then, that the men the church ought to have to give a lead in these difficult days must have those qualities which could enable them to be successful in the world. Young men with such opportunities are called upon to renounce material security and venture into the hazards of church life.

      When a church seeks a preacher, most people expect to find the right man at hand. But is that church entitled to find that man, if no effort has been made to seek out and to train the right individuals? If, in ten or twenty years, we shall be in need of capable land well-trained preachers, and no doubt we shall, we must begin to-day to find those future leaders among our young people. Do not let any church complain about the leadership it is getting, if it has not been at pains to select and to encourage the right young men to enter the full-time ministry.

[NOF 544-547]