H. J. PATTERSON, who is now conducting a part-time ministry at Burwood, Victoria, has made an outstanding contribution to Churches of Christ in Australia, over a period of more than fifty years. He graduated from the College of the Bible, Glen Iris, in 1917, and then gained his Master of Arts degree at the Melbourne University. He has served in a number of churches in Victoria and New South Wales, and for seven years served with the Woolwich Bible College as both lecturer and principal. He has also lectured at the College of the Bible, Glen Iris, and is well known for his contributions in "The Australian Christian."

      In an introduction to a survey of the position I wish to state some of my reasons for treating the subject in the way I have done.

      1. I was born into a family associated with Churches of Christ and on my mother's side I was of the third generation. I have now grown old in the service of the churches have studied the situation and the scriptures have sat on Advisory Boards and Departments both in New South Wales and in Victoria have lectured over some years on Christian Doctrine and in the New Testament and I think I have some knowledge of churches and their needs.

      2. We claim to be Churches of Christ of the N.T. order, though I hope that we are not like some of them in some respects; and so many of our churches lack direction and will not tolerate or accept offered guidance from any one who may be well able to give it. Of course even a Corinth at one stage refused the guidance and the authority of a Paul. There was, as is quite evident, strong division among them which almost broke the heart of the apostle.

      3. Not a few of our churches have no elders or bishops who appear in the N.T. as a part of the organisation of the early church.

      4. We claim to be a democracy but over all we have little semblance either of democracy's framework or of its organisation.

      5. We seek unity, pray for it urge it, yet do not maintain it partly because we lack properly constituted authority and have little help in good government.

      6. When local churches experience dissension and division there is not any court of appeal and sometimes this results in the formation of two congregations or else a section joins with another communion in the town. Also, when a minister and a church have misunderstandings and disagree there is nothing or no one to whom either of them can or will go in an attempt at settlement. Good government and rule (which is a N.T, word in relation to this matter) are not in existence.

      7. One finds it hard to believe that this is what the Lord ever intended or apostles ever desired or envisaged.

      8. The following study though fragmentary is a further attempt to explore the situation as it appears to me today.

      Churches of Christ have never really faced the question of the Eldership and of good government within the churches and especially in relation to the church as a whole. There is some semblance of an attempt to provide for temporal government within some isolated congregations, but even so no Paul to tell a Titus to appoint elders in every city (apparently the churches were not doing it for themselves) or to instruct a young Timothy even in an older church, as at Ephesus, on the matter of the appointment of bishops and deacons. Though an older church where Paul himself had ministered for three years it still needed guidance from outside even from a young man whose "youth," that same young man, must "allow no one to despise."

      And beyond this there is not even a Conference or an eldership or anything else with authority. In some States of the Commonwealth we now have a Properties Corporation or something else like it which has been forced upon us by circumstances. But even in things like that anything beyond the local

congregation has been only tolerated. Some local churches have been hesitant to secure their property with a body of men selected by conference and truly representative of the whole church. In earlier days there have been losses of property to the brotherhood and this is still possible where and when the property has been in the hands of the local congregation which has changed over the years. The result of sacrifices by the original members sometimes comes into the hands of those alienated from the teachings of the Restoration Movement. This is but an illustration of something that has a much wider application than that of property.

      In relation to such matters which should properly be under the care of the whole church we have not developed an over-all policy such as would make for good and sound government. We have never taken up such a study as a church or communion nor do we seem to want to do so. This in spite of difficulties in plenty both within the local church and in the over-all pattern of the church at large.

      Perhaps it is due to our Protestant background and we are afraid of an authoritarianism and papacy as in Roman Catholicism, but surely it is true that other sections of Protestantism where there is some semblance of order and good government are not cursed with such authoritarianism. Perhaps for us it is only a bogey without substance in fact.

      Nothing in this life comes "out of the blue" and without some historical lead-up or cause. The church in its structural order is obviously a development from the Mosaic order and subsequent synagogue set up. In order to condense and be precise I quote from the Westminster Dictionary of the Bible under the heading of ELDER. "The Title designates high officials generally in Gen. 50:7. They exercised authority over the people (Dent. 27:1; Ezra 10:8) and represented the nation in affairs of state (Ex. 3:18; Judges 11:5-11; 1 Sam. 8:4), in extending honour to a distinguished guest (Ex. 18:12) in concluding covenants (2 Sam. 5:3) and in religious acts (Lev. 4:13-15). A body of seventy elders assisted Moses in the government of the Israelites (Num. 11:16-24). Each town had its elders . . . and who administered its civil and religious affairs (Deut. 19:12; 21:2; Ruth 4:2-11; 1 Sam. 11:3; Ezra 10:14). These functions were still performed by the elders at the time of the Roman government of Judea (Matt. 15:2; 21:23; 26:3, 47)."

      "In the churches founded by the apostles elder or presbyter and bishop were interchangeable designations (cf. Acts 20:17 with verse 28, R.V.; Titus 1:5, 7)--though not strictly synonymous. The former had primary reference to the dignity of the office, the latter to its duties. The distinction between elder or presbyter and bishop as 2 separate orders of ministers dates from the 2nd century. The origin of the office of elder is not recorded, but elders existed practically from the beginning. In A.D. 44 they already existed in the church at Jerusalem, Acts 11:30; Paul on his First Missionary Journey appointed elders in every church (Chap. 14:23), and they held office in churches not founded by Paul (James 5:14; 1 Peter 5:1). The office of elder in the Christian church was evidently suggested by the office of elder among the Jews, and was vested with similar authority. Elders were associated with the apostles in the government of the church (Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23; 16:4; cf. 211:18) . They were the bishops or overseers of the local churches (ch. 20:17, 28; Titus 1:5), having the spiritual care of the congregation, exercising rule and giving instruction (1 Tim. 3:4, 5; 5:17; Tit. 1:9; James 5:14; 1 Peter 5:1-4; cf. Heb. 13:17) and ordaining to office

(1 Tim. 4:14). There were several bishops or elders in a local church." (page 157).

      There is no teaching given by our Lord in relation to the eldership nor indeed to anything such as government within the church or ecclesia. And Hastings' Bible Dictionary agrees with this as follows--"Now though the Lord commanded his disciples to form a society, there is no indication that either he or the apostles ever prescribed any definite form of it. We should expect them following existing models till the new spirit of the society began to express itself in new forms." Surely it would be a natural thing for the early church leaders to adopt procedures with which they were familiar. It could quite well have been that our Lord knew that the church in its parts would live in different States and under different governments and thought it not good to introduce such a question of church governments. He dealt with principles of living and relationships between man and God and between man and man, but concerning the organisation and temporal structure of the new society there is no word from him. And if one reads one's N.T. and studies the history of the church there seems to be an emerging pattern which has its origin in the Jewish order of things, but nothing so precise that it is not open to interpretation. Consequently we may find some indications of congregationalism, some of Presbyterianism and some of the rule by Bishops.

      Now, contrary to that, Thomas Campbell seemed to think there was a

      In his Declaration which comprises 13 propositions he said, "The N.T. is as perfect a constitution for worship, discipline and government of the N.T. church, and as perfect a rule for the duties of its members as the O.T. was for the worship, discipline and government of the O.T. church, and the particular duties of its members."

      Of the truth of that statement I am far from being convinced and I do not believe that we can hope to restore the original or primitive or apostolic church on this score as we have known it directly from our N.T. If the N.T. constitution is only as perfect as the constitution of the O.T. church then it must be faulty or inadequate because that was not found sufficient after the nation had gone into captivity. For the control and safe guidance of local groups of people the synagogue was established and continued back in the home land until the time of Christ who himself honoured it by regular attendance. This synagogue system was established without mention or sanction under the old covenant or the Law of Moses. Yet the nation or church, through their officers appointed, managed their own civil and religious affairs subordinate, of course, to the law of the whole nation. It was thought that the Christian church was patterned on the synagogue rather than on the Temple worship. A board of elders managed the affairs of the synagogue and of the religious community. There were rulers or a ruler (Acts 18:8 and Mark 5:22). They were not only elders of the synagogue but practically the village council and court, There were also ministers or helpers or assistants to the rulers. There was also an assistant council made up of older retired men who could devote their time to the affairs of the Synagogue and community during the week as well as on the Sabbath. Usually ten men in each village. Now I suggest that right here there was a development in matters of ministry and government because of a need. The O.T. then was not a perfect constitution for it did not make provision for nor did it set out in order or ordain or provide for the establishment of the synagogue which played such an important

part in the developing religious life of the people. The analogy then drawn by Thomas Campbell does not hold. In addition the one was national as well as religious while the N.T. church is a spiritual and religious organisation without reference to nation or state.

      Again, because it was an apostolic church, it cannot be restored for there are no apostles today to whom Christ had given powers of "binding and loosing." That they exercised these powers is very evident. "This is my rule" said Paul. Again, "We command." He gave a series of commands to Timothy, charges and instructions, and said, "Command and teach these things;" and to Titus (2:15) "Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you." The fact is that conditions are different today; so different that it is impossible to restore even if we were given detailed instructions. If we say that we have the words of apostles and of the Lord I wish to say that persons and not words alone were required in that day. Strong personalities filled with the Holy Spirit, as apostles, held the churches to their tasks. If you say that the Holy Spirit is present in his church now I want to say that for many the Spirit may be spelt with a small "s" The Spirit is no more than an influence for many, whose own spirit is akin to that of Diotrephes (3rd John 9).

      Unlike Deacons who in the N.T. are not given a task (apart from tradition and the term "deacon" we do not know their work) the Elders are stated to have certain specific duties. As we consider these briefly let us keep in mind what their duties were under the old covenant, and as stated above.

      1. How Were They Appointed?

      (a) They were appointed by the Holy Spirit. (Acts 20:28 and 13:2) .

      (b) Titus was directed to "appoint elders in every city as I directed you." This work on the face of it does not have reference to the congregation or group but it does not follow that there was no such reference by Titus. Nothing is proven however.

      (c) "The seven" in Acts 6:2 were chosen by the multitude of the disciples numbering at this time over 5,000 men.

      Since we are given no explicit direction 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.

      2. Their qualifications are briefly set out in 1 Tim. 3:2-7 and Titus 1:6-9. We shall leave it at that.

      3. Their work was varied and the terms used of officials indicate what it was. They were Presbyters or Elders from the point of view of experience and as Bishops they were to exercise an oversight of the flock. In particular they must be able to teach "The whole counsel of God" and see that teaching is given to all from childhood to age. They must also "rule well." Alexander Campbell said, "To rule well is one of the most difficult attainments. It calls for meekness, firmness, patience and indefatigable attention to the first indication of remissness or delinquency." Again, To rule well has respect more immediately to those disorders and divisions of opinion which arise in every congregation." Now rulers imply that there are people to be ruled. Besides teaching and ruling there must be pastoral oversight as the term "Bishop" signifies. Cf. also 1 Peter 5:1-5 and Acts 20:28-31.

      4. Extent of operation within the Church. This is where the ultra-congregationalist and the advocate of good order within the whole church part company and it is associated with the larger question of--

      Dr. William Robinson in his book of that name published in 1948 has admirably dealt with the theme. What constitutes the church, the local congregation, or the whole body of Christians which may be called the corporate society or the Ecclesia? Let me quote--"The one church is before the churches. Not until Acts 15:41 do we find the expression "the churches." This is not due to the fact that we have to wait for the Pauline missionary movement before there were more churches than one. In this connection, Acts 9:31 is significant. In the best Greek texts, followed by all modern versions, ecclesia is in the singular. "So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace and was built up." Here it is one church, though obviously meeting in different congregations. Likewise, when particular local churches are referred to, they are referred to as "the church in Jerusalem" (Acts 11:22) or "the church at Antioch" (Acts 13:1). The one church is not the collection of separate churches, but the separate churches are the expression of the one church iii different localities. This usage is so striking in Acts that it cannot be ignored. Let it be said that it tells heavily against a certain type of congregationalism or independency. p. 60, 61. "The word ecclesia appears to be first used of the one church and later applied to the local church as an outcrop of the one church in that locality, whether it is a city church, a house church or the church of an area." p. 108. Again, "We must remember that in the period covered by the N.T., there was an apostolic oversight in the local churches and, whatever there was of congregational autonomy, there is 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 seem to have been under the immediate oversight of the city presbytery." p. 108, 109.

      Alexander Campbell himself wrote not a little at different times in relation to the Eldership and it does seem clear that he was opposed to independency as the term is now being used among us. The following will serve to illustrate as taken from Dr. Kellems' book, "Alexander Campbell and the Disciples." Dr. Kellems affirms that A. Campbell takes ground half-way between Presbyterianism and Congregationalism. He would not be in sympathy at all with what some modern Disciples mean when they speak feelingly of "The Autonomy of the Local Congregation." To quote Campbell, "There must then be some great mistake in the minds of those who imagine that Christ's kingdom is a collection of ten thousand communities, each one being wholly absolved from any respect, co-operation, inspection or subordination in reference to any work or purpose necessary to the carrying out and perfecting that grand system of sanctification and conversion which began in Jerusalem under the rich effusion of the Holy Spirit." p. 399. "We have yet to learn that the two extremes of all sorts of governments are absolute tyranny and fierce democracy." p. 399. In his hypothetical case of the establishment of churches on the island of Guernsey he tells that these congregations constitute the whole church on the island. These do not act as a body or one church till a meeting of all the elders anal deacons of all the churches is convened. They shall act as one body. And Dr. William Robinson says of the same illustration, "I fail to see what such a system is unless it is some modified Presbyterianism."

      In "The Christian Quarterly Review," a publication of our people in U.S.A. of 1887 I find the same attitude in an article on Primitive Church Government by A. T. Cuzner. "It would appear from the

foregoing investigation of the 'pastorate,' that the scriptural idea of what constituted a church, was, that it consisted of all Christians in a certain city or district ruled by their elders or bishops, who did the work of stewards and pastors among them. These were properly qualified for their work according to the requirements of God. The church, it would appear, was accustomed to meet in a number of different assemblages, in charge (no doubt) of one or more elders according to requirements. It does not appear that any of the elders of these churches took precedence over the others as we find to be the case in a later age of the church." p. 535.

      We sometimes talk about the democracy of our churches but the present situation has little semblance of such about it. It takes us back to the primitive days when each clan or small group acted independently. An indication of progress is seen in the gathering together of people in a unified group. Existence of separate self-contained kingdoms in England made the conquest by the Danes a comparatively easy thing. From the past a great motto was "Divide and conquer." If we remain divided and will not act together we must fail. What is more reasonable or rational than that groups of people belonging to the same order shall unite under a delegated and representative governing body? A delegated body is in keeping with true democracy. It is only when rights are denied to any section that democracy fails. In some things we may agree to differ but the consensus of mind of an informed delegated eldership surely would be far better than the isolated thinking and action of a small congregation which may lack the necessary background, vision or knowledge of any particular subject under discussion.

      The exercise of a little commonsense in this would surely support the statement that "In the multitude of counsellors there is wisdom." May God speed the day when we shall have more cooperation between our churches and something of a delegated authority so that we may deal with the many problems which cannot be dealt with by a small fragmentary group. There must be a way out. A movement pleading for Restoration and unity must find the way to united action.