WITHIN the Christian Church certain fixed forms of Government have always been arguable and contentious. Some think they can find a special blueprint within the New Testament and others find one of a totally different kind.

      Churches of Christ in some places have held tenaciously to what may be called "congregational government." On occasion, and especially when smaller congregations are concerned, this has led to grave disorders.

      Is there any clear New Testament direction regarding government within the Church? Or is this to be conditioned by sets of circumstances which may arise in different countries at different times? By arguing for fixed forms are we likely to make Christianity itself a static and fixed affair which may lose its relevance in some given situation?

Concerning a Secretary and Treasurer.

      There is no explicit direction anywhere regarding the appointment of a Secretary or a Treasurer, yet we have appointed such (rightly so) in all of our churches. It is true that "Judas had the bag" but he is not named as an official of the band of disciples.

Concerning Deacons.

      There is no blueprint concerning the work of deacons, and apart from tradition, which we sometimes despise, we would not know from the New Testament what their duties are. But what of the "seven" mentioned in Acts 6? These are nowhere called deacons. It is true that they "ministered" but others mentioned in the New Testament also ministered without being called deacons.

      Neither Philip nor Stephen who were of these seven are called deacons. In fact, when Philip is referred to it is simply "Philip" or "Philip the evangelist who was one of the seven". Why was he not called "Philip the deacon" if he were officially such? The expression, "the seven", seems to indicate that these men were set apart for a special task just as we appoint committees today and without any continuing or official status.

      Now, if it cannot be substantiated from the New Testament (and we submit that, apart from tradition it cannot be) then we have no revealed knowledge of what the duties of a deacon are. In fact, even if we allowed Acts 6 (which we do not) to refer to a class officially called deacons we are only told of one ministry--caring for neglected widows of a certain kind in the early church. In this they met a local need which did not persist at all times and in all places.

      What then is the work of a deacon? If we are to be strictly, and only, guided by the New Testament then we must confess that we do not know. This at least should make us cautious regarding the making of dogmatic statements about forms in church government. It is true that there were deacons as an official class and their qualifications are stated in 1 Tim. 3:8-13, but of their duties we have no statement.

Concerning the Eldership.

      Here we are on a little more solid ground and yet churches of Christ have often neglected this more important office.

      1. Elders and Bishops are one.

      From the point of view of the New Testament we may as well say "Concerning the Bishopric". Nowhere in the New Testament do we have reference to elders and bishops as if they were two distinct offices. They are never bracketted together as are bishops and deacons.

      In 1 Tim. 3 Elders (Presbuteroi) are not mentioned but only Bishops (Episkopoi). In Titus 1 the bishops and elders are spoken of and it is quite clear that both terms refer to the one office or official. The descriptions are alike in both epistles to Timothy and Titus. And to confirm this, in Acts 20 the same group are called elders and bishops.

      We conclude that in the New Testament there is no distinction.

      2. A company of Christians may be a church, without elders.

      According to Acts 14:23, "They appointed them elders in every Church." It would appear that the Church was in existence before the appointment. Also, Titus was to ordain elders in every city and the church existed before that ordination. Though a congregation may be termed a church, it does not follow that it is a fully organized church.

      3. Were they appointed in every local group of Christians?

      (a) Many churches or gatherings were in houses. Were all these little groups self-governing? Was each a little separate self-governing body with the right to say what should be or not be? In this there would be some natural difficulty. And there is no papacy to be compared with that of a dominating elder in a small group.

      (b) Aquila and Priscilla housed a small group at Rome (Rom. 16:4, 5) and at another time in Ephesus. (1 Cor. 16:19.) We believe that at Ephesus, a very great city, there would be a large church collectively, for Paul worked there for three years.

      Now, when Paul later asked the elders of the church to meet him at Miletus we are told that "He sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders of the church." It was not the elders of the churches (plural). Were these elders superintending the work as a whole or were there two or more from each house group? Would that be the common-sense view? Two or more elders from each little house group is almost unthinkable.

      (c) Were they appointed for a group of churches or a city or a district? Paul said to Titus, "Appoint elders in every city" (Titus 1:5). But in Acts 14:23, "They appointed for them elders in every church". This is said of the churches in Asia Minor just lately established by Paul and Barnabas. It could quite easily have been the church in each city or town.

      Dr. W. Robinson, formerly of Overdale College and now of Butler U.S.A., in his book, The Biblical Doctrine of the Church, writes,

      "We must remember that in the period covered by the New Testament, there was apostolic oversight in the local churches and, whatever there was of congregational autonomy, there was nothing of absolute independency. Further, there does not seem to have been more than one church in one city, however many house congregations there may have been. These churches appear to have been under the immediate oversight of the city presbytery" (p. 108).

Is Ultra-Congregational Rule Desirable?

      1. In practice it has often meant disaster. Perhaps because of that it is undesirable. It has often worked to the detriment of the local and small group because it has lacked the wisdom and adequate guidance to be found in the larger group.

      2. It cannot be substantiated on the ground of the New Testament. There were those who ruled in the New Testament church (Cf. Heb. 13:7, 17, 24). And Peter explicitly writes of the need for subjection to the elders (1 Peter 5:1-5).

      3. Even Antioch, that great missionary church sent down to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders (Acts 15:2) for advice about a new issue which had emerged in the church at Antioch.

      In the church at Jerusalem there was some debate, but according to Acts 15:6 the apostles and elders gathered to consider the matter (Acts 15:6). The church wisely followed the counsel of the apostles and elders. If you say, "There are no apostles today," are we then to say we will supplant the office of the apostleship with the unlearned and ignorant.

      If Antioch had been like some of our churches today they would have said, "We are settling our own problem without reference to anybody". They then may have proceeded to unsettle the whole of the congregation. In Antioch they did the wise thing.

      4. What is the common-sense thing to do? By all means let elders or bishops be appointed or ordained. That at least is clear. But where and what is their jurisdiction? While the New Testament is not so clear on the point as some seem to think, there is surely a common-sense point of view.

      It would appear a wise thing to appoint elders over groups of smaller churches or districts as probably obtained at Ephesus where it seems unlikely that elders were appointed for every little house group.

How Were Elders Appointed?

      Again we must exercise commonsense and use some measure of interpretation. In reference to the appointment of elders we learn,

      (a) that they were appointed by the Holy Spirit. Paul to the Ephesian elders said, "The Holy Spirit has made you overseers" (bishops), Acts 20:28. When Barnabas and Saul were chosen for missionary work it was the Holy Spirit who said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them".

      (b) That Paul to Titus wrote, "Appoint elders in every city as I directed you". This work on the face of it has no reference to a congregation or group, but it does not follow that there was no such reference to the congregation by Titus. Nothing however is proven. Titus, himself, in relation to one particular task "has been appointed by the churches (plural) to travel with us in this gracious work" (2 Cor. 8:19).

      In Acts 1 an appointment was made of a successor to Judas in the following manner. Peter urged that there should be the appointment. They assembled one hundred and twenty put forward two and after prayer, the names were submitted, not to a ballot according to modern practice, but to lot, which latter seems to us a strange way to settle the matter.

      The seven appointed as a committed to serve tables were chosen by the multitude of the disciples (Acts 6:2) numbering at this time over 5000 men (Acts 4:4). Afterward they were set before the apostles who prayed and laid their hands upon them. Those 5000 quite obviously did not meet for church services in one building.

      We have no apostles today but we do have the Holy Spirit. Since we are not given explicit direction regarding the appointment of elders surely the sanctified commonsense point of view would be for the congregation or congregations acting under the direction of the Holy Spirit to appoint them.

      These then should be set apart or ordained by truly representative men of the congregation or congregations. These might be, and, if possible, should be, elders already appointed in the church congregation or church, district or city.

      Actually we are not told how elders or bishops were appointed except that the Holy Spirit appointed through representative men. But considering other texts regarding other officials or appointees we may say that the wise thing would be the selection by the congregation or congregations, assuming that the Holy Spirit guided all, and then the setting apart in a solemn way. Timothy had the hands of the elders and of Paul, who may have been one of the elders, laid upon him (1 Tim. 4:14 and 2 Tim. 1:6).

What is the Task of the Elders?

      Here we have a fairly good guide in the New Testament.

      1. Their duty was to preach or teach the whole counsel of God or, at least, to see that it was done. Not every elder is good at everything and it would be very difficult to obtain men who excel in all the duties and have all the qualifications mentioned in 1 Tim. and Titus.

      Acts 20 furnishes a splendid statement regarding this ministry.

      2. They were to rule. Presiding and ruling go hand in hand. But what kind of rule? He must rule as a wise father (1 Tim.3:4, 5). It must never be of the officious or dictatorial kind (1 Peter 5:3).

      The rule to be acceptable must be in keeping with New Testament principles and in line with local government with which the people in any country are familiar. What will be needed again is sanctified common-sense in the handling of any given situation.

      3. Elders will exercise pastoral oversight. Like Peter, all called into this ministry are bishops (episkopoi) or overseers for such the term signifies. Again, see Paul's address to the Ephesian elders (Acts 20).

      From what has been said above, if it holds good, there is room for an eldership in a large city and indeed in a state not only to oversee the work but also to plan.

      In Melbourne, e. g., where the city is expanding so rapidly a planning eldership is almost a necessity.

      Long ago we should have got beyond the local group in relation to church oversight and planning.

      Many of our congregations are no more, or little more, than house groups.

      Grave injustices often result from hasty actions on the part of these small groups. It would be better that they be linked with larger groups with a presiding or ruling eldership. That absolute independency or ultra-congregationalism which is characteristic of some churches is not good.

      Besides, we badly need a presiding or governing board of elders over districts at least, so that there may be an orderly development of the work. This too may save some small groups from the errors into which, because of isolationism and littleness, they are likely to fall.

      We may fail to find an actual blueprint for church government, but that doesn't mean there are no pointers or guides. We must remember that the Church is a living entity and as such should not be mechanically bound by any special type of government irrespective of the country in which it is found or of the conditions obtaining, or of the people who constitute it.

H. J. PATTERSON--

      After securing the College of the Bible Diploma in 1917, H. J. Patterson proceeded to the Melbourne University where he graduated M.A. after gaining Final Honours in the B.A. degree. He subsequently served the churches at Ascot Vale, Gardiner, Balwyn and is now at Hartwell, Vic. For seven years he was Lecturer and Principal in succession to A. R. Main at Woolwich Bible College. During that time he also served the church as preacher at Lane Cove, N.S.W. For over a year he lectured in New Testament at the College of the Bible, Glen Iris, and for well over a decade he contributed a Prayer Topic column for The Australian Christian.