“Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.”

“If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.”

“Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,’ and, ‘The laborer deserves his wages.’ Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses.”

“This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you—if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party. They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach. One of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said, 'Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.' This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply…”

“Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.”

“Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.”

“So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another…”

I'd never thought much about the power and authority of elders before recently. I'd naively assumed the issues surrounding the office were broadly understood and accepted. I’d memorized some of the major New Testament passages on elders and assumed I knew the issue well.However, I recently found myself mired in a controversy that challenged me to question my beliefs about church elders. I won’t go into much detail, but the incident involved a controversial use of authority accompanied by a threat of being disfellowshipped over an issue unrelated to morality or doctrine. It was a matter of opinion, perspective, finances, and social reputation. The eldership never claimed the controversy extended beyond those concerns. I'm not suggesting this eldership was abusive or authoritarian, I just want to explain some of my personal biases and inspiration for writing. No one is objective, and I'm no exception. However, I had no clear idea about the authority of elders before writing this, and my subsequent exploration inadvertently created more questions than answers.The Bible is our most important source material for exploring the eldership, and I want to provide a quick overview of the major passages involved before diving into the deeper issues. Specifically, there are seven major relevant passages about elders that I’d like to explore.After surveying more than twenty Church of Christ articles written on the topic of elders, I’ve come to realize that there’s no consensus nor theological clarity on this topic within our fellowship. [1] Almost everything I read on the topic devolved into something like: “This or that Greek word means this or that, but we shouldn’t take anything to an extreme.” For the sake of clarity, I’m going to assume the many accomplished translators who worked on the English Standard Version were correct in their textual interpretation (or at least as correct as anyone else). Arguments about what various Greek words “really” mean is normally ridiculous and leads nowhere. The men who translated the major English Bibles were all more accomplished in this sphere than any Church of Christ preacher with a blog and preaching school certification. If the KJV and ESV translators didn’t know how to translate the Bible than nobody does. Acts 20:28 says that the Holy Spirit appoints elders to oversee and care for the church. 1 Timothy 3:1-7 lays out the qualifications a man must possess before appointment. These qualifications are often quoted and stressed among conservative Christians. The most relevant of these qualifications to our discussion is the comparison between managing his own household and caring for the church. Many commentators regard the relationship between a father and his family as comparable to the level of authority an elder has over the church. However, none of the commentators I read were willing to take this comparison to its logical end: elders must, then, have authority over every aspect of their member’s lives just as fathers have authority over every aspect of their children’s lives. Can elders tell their flock what to eat for dinner just as they can force their kids to eat vegetables? I’m not prepared to rule out this possibility, but I doubt there’s a single Church of Christ in the world that believes elders have such authority. If Paul intended to advocate comparative authority between elders and fathers then why did he decline to specify the limits and boundaries of this authority? Why did he drop the analogy without elaborating? 1 Timothy 5:17-19 says elders “rule” the church and should be paid wages just as a workers are paid for their labor. Some commentators have argued the word “rule” allows for an authoritarian or government-esque control, but it’s interesting that the elders are then compared to laborers being paid by an employer, the church, as if those giving “double honor” were in a position to withhold the money if they chose. If the elder has control over the members and their finances then why did Paul and Timothy have to ask them to give money? Why did Paul not compare “double honor” to taxes or tribute? Perhaps I’m reading too much into this, but if Paul chose the word “rule” with the intention of conveying a power of spiritual force then it’s confusing that his subsequent comparison between elders and laborers doesn’t seem to contribute to that idea. Additionally, he quoted an Old Testament passage about feeding the oxen used to plow fields (the oxen being elders and the church being the farmer). Perhaps Paul wasn’t projecting a power hierarchy into his word “rule” as some commentators assume he was. Titus 1:5-13 basically repeats the qualifications for elders mentioned in 1 Timothy 3, but it also offers its own insights. Paul wrote multiple times in this passage that elders should rebuke and silence those who weren't preaching sound doctrine. He said they should be knowledgeable for the purpose of refuting trouble makers. It’s interesting that Paul did not suggest the elders could disfellowship these troublemakers, and he seems to imply that rebuke and argumentation were the extent of the elder’s role. It might be argued that “silencing” carries an implication of excommunication, but I think this inference isn’t apparent enough to accept without supporting passages. In any case, the context of the passage doesn’t directly lend itself to the question of an elder’s authority in all matters because its immediate purpose is to explain the qualifications. Hebrews 13:17 is the clearest biblical evidence we have for elders possessing forceful authority over the church. It’s difficult to misinterpret “leaders,” “obey.” and “submit.” However, we once again encounter the problem of scope. Submit and obey in what? If the elders tell us to wear an orange shirt every Thursday should we submit to that? If they tell us we can’t send our children to public schools because they teach evolution should we submit to that? If they tell us we can’t buy Starbucks due to the LGBT movement should we submit to that? If they tell us we should vote Republican to oppose abortion should we submit to that? There are perhaps thousands of possible “grey areas” in which Paul gave no guidance. Returning to the personal controversy I mentioned in the introduction, how can we know that we must submit to elders when they intrude into semi-religious or even non-religious parts of our lives? Hebrews 13:17 lays down a principle that we often don’t know how to put into practice. For elders, who must give an account to God for their flocks, these questions about the extend of their authority might be salvation issues. James 5:14 is an interesting passage because it outlines an elderly role that we, in the Churches of Christ, never fulfill. To my knowledge, I’ve never been under an eldership that anointed sick people with oil. How much of our perception of the eldership is colored by the socio-cultural era we live in?The last passage I want to analyze is 1 Peter 5:1-5 . I think it summarizes many of the ideas from earlier passages. Elders should lead by example rather than dominate. Some have claimed this means elders have no authority beyond personal example, charisma, and teaching. I don’t think the passage proves this because leading by example doesn’t necessarily exclude having the hard authority to assert one’s will, but that interpretation is certainly possible. This passage also raises the important question of what exactly “elder” means. In some passages, including this one, there appears to be a contrast between youth and age. The younger should submit to the older members. However, what does this entail, and who is young and who is old? To what extent does a thirty five year old married father have an obligation to submit to an eighty year old man two generations removed from his situation? Again, how far is this submission expected? In what situations does a failure to submit represent legitimate grounds for being expelled from the church?Unfortunately, surveying the major New Testament passages about elders doesn’t really give us a detailed doctrinal picture of the role and authority of elders. We can analyze all of them without gaining a clear understanding of how much authority elders are capable of wielding or how much we’re obliged to submit to them. I’ll attempt to answer some of these questions after further exploration. Perhaps the following “side quests” will open new doors for clarity.Perhaps exploring the way in which elders are appointed will give us more insight into the authority they should wield. It was with this hope that I explored the question. Unfortunately, it may lead us into greater ambiguity.Biblically speaking, elders are appointed from the top down. In Acts 14:23 , the Apostle Paul appointed elders in every church. In Acts 20:28 , the Holy Spirit appointed elders. In Timothy, Paul appointed Timothy to appoint elders. In Titus, Paul appointed Titus to appoint elders. In Exodus 18 , Moses appointed elders to judge the people.There's no precedent for the bottom up appointment of elders that we practice in the modern Churches of Christ. The hierarchy appointed elders in every New Testament example. The “chain of appointment” ran thus: God to Jesus to apostles to apostolic-assistants (Titus/Timothy) to elders.I read two Church of Christ commentators who were aware of this problem, and they addressed it by claiming that the appointment of the seven deacons, assigned to care for the widows in Acts 6:3-6 , represented a biblical example of the bottom up appointments practiced by modern Churches of Christ. They reasoned that the apostles told regular Christians to find qualified men from among their ranks. There are two rather large problems with this interpretation, however. First, the men appointed were deacons (not elders), and the Church of Christ doesn’t believe deacons are authority figures. Secondly, these deacons were still appointed from the top down. Even after seven men were chosen, they weren’t appointed until the apostles laid hands on them. So, in fact, this event just reinforces the hierarchical trend already described.The top down appointment of elders supports the idea that elders have power and authority that members should submit to. If elders are appointed “from on high,” and stand at the bottom of a ladder of authority leading back to God, then they should probably wield considerable power. The problem, however, is that in our modern churches elders are specifically not appointed in this manner. Elders are nominated by other elders or members before being placed into their positions from below or sideways. I’ve heard innumerable sermons denouncing the practice of church hierarchies among Catholics and denominationalists. The Church of Christ is among the only institutions in the Christian world that has no certification process or seminary requirement for preachers or authority figures. We have no formal mechanism for any appointment process. argued in the first century that congregations couldn’t overthrow their elders because they’d been appointed directly or indirectly by the apostles (Paul or Timothy, for example). He reasoned that if the apostles trusted a man enough to make him an elder then he must be orthodox and therefore legitimate. Clement’s first century argument for the authority of elders was based on an early version of “ apostolic succession ” (the idea that the church’s hierarchy retains legitimacy via an unbroken line of direct appointments leading back to the apostles). Few first century Christians appear to have anticipated a scenario in which Christ hadn’t returned two thousand years after his death. Most Christians believed Jesus would return within their lifetimes. It was this belief that led John to comment at the end of his gospel about whether Jesus would return before he died ( John 20:20-23 ). In this context, the problem of how to rule a church in the twenty first century was likely beyond most people's time horizon. I’ve previously explored this dimension in another paper on pacifism and just war in which the anticipation of Christ’s rapid return prevented many early Christians from exploring ethical questions about the viability of Christian societies on earth. If the apostles and first century writers were thinking Jesus was on the verge of returning at any moment, they probably weren’t concerned with the formulation of a theological doctrine about how elders should be appointed two millennia later after the church had fractured into thousands of pieces.There are dire implications in this exploration of the appointment of elders. If the biblical and historical evidence suggests that elders have to be appointed from the top down, a question arises about whether the Church of Christ is even capable of appointing legitimate elders. Do we need to ask a Catholic bishop to appoint elders for us simply because he can produce a chart showing he occupies an office dating back to the apostles? Do we need to wait for the Holy Spirit to anoint men on our behalf?I can think of one possible solution to this problem. Perhaps we can argue that elders are put in place like governments. Paul wrote in Romans that secular authority figures were established by God. Perhaps we can argue that God simplyappoints elders to power in various congregations. We might assume that if an elder is qualified and appointed then his appointment resulted from the Holy Spirit’s mystical will working in our process? This solution is not without problems, however. It has no biblical precedent. If we allow ourselves to use such an indirect theological justification for a major doctrine involving church authority then how far will we stoop in the direction of dubious arguments based on questionable biblical evidence? If we’re prepared to “ necessary inference ” this doctrine into existence then how can we criticize the Catholic Church for “necessary inferencing” its apostolic succession argument into existence? At least the Catholics can point to biblical and historical examples of elderly appointments that vaguely resemble what they now practice.Among the more practical questions in need of being addressed about the eldership is the limits of it's jurisdiction. The Church of Christ generally holds that an elder’s authority is limited to the local congregation. However, judging by my personal research on this subject, there appears to be only a very limited and shallow understanding of what this means. Few commentators have analyzed this issue, and their analysis of the subject can be summed up as: “Elders have no power outside the congregations they attend, and this is necessary because the Catholic Church is bad.” Our belief in congregational organization and local authority is based on a reaction against the higher church traditions from which we broke away in the Restoration Movement What does the Bible have to say on this issue? Do we have biblical precedent for the jurisdictions of elderships being limited to the local congregations they personally attend?The biblical precedent for the Church of Christ’s autonomous congregational structure can be located in the books of Acts, Timothy, and Titus when Paul and his assistants traveled around to churches setting up elderships. We as a church have read a “one church one eldership” paradigm out of these texts. However, there are massive differences between the first century religious landscape and our own, and our fellowship has never seriously dealt with the resulting implications. The Church of Christ is famous for ahistoricism, “We don’t need history because we have the Bible,” but history must be factored into biblical interpretation. God never expected the Bible to wash ashore a deserted island and produce Churches of Christ. The gospel must be accompanied by personal preaching, historical context, and linguistic translation. In other words, Christianity is a historical religion operating within time, and the history of the church is crucial to our understanding of God’s will.One major difference between first century elderships and our own is that ancient elderships were not then the highest authorities in the church. Paul was building congregations in the middle of the first century within the context of apostolic guidance that would last for another half century. First century elderships were never autonomous decision making bodies, they relied on appeals to the centralized authority, represented by the Acts 15 council, in order to make important global church decisions. This historical context effects the question of how large modern elderships' jurisdictions should be because the level of jurisdiction that once existed above them no longer exists in today’s world. There are no apostles or church councils that make global decision. So, who should fulfill that role? Did elderships move into that jurisdiction as the apostles died off? Or, did the Bible somehow replace that higher level of jurisdiction as it was compiled and distributed during the first three centuries? Either way, we have to admit that the Bible says nothing about this question. The New Testament was composed within a time period in which the jurisdiction of local elderships could not have been a question.Another major difference between first century and twenty first century elderships is the proliferation of congregations within a single city. Most, if not all, of the first century churches Paul dealt with were city wide groups. The elders of a congregation were theauthority figures within a city. This later evolved into the “ metropolitan ” organizational provinces that still exist in the Catholic and Orthodox churches. Among the major problems now plaguing the Churches of Christ is the inability of elderships to discipline their members because those members can simply leave one congregation and move to another across town or down the road. In fact, the members usually have more power than the elderships in that they can “discipline” the elders by leaving and taking their contributions with them. There’s nothing wrong with this within current Church of Christ doctrine. If a member leaves one congregation, because the elders make an unpopular decision or asked them to do something they didn’t like, then they’ve successfully vacated that eldership's jurisdiction by attending a new church. One might argue that the member who leaves is still accountable to God, but we must admit that God will not hold that member accountable for the sin of disobeying the elders because they effectively removed themselves from under their old eldership's jurisdiction. This could not have been a problem in the first century, however, because the church was a single institution united by a hierarchical authority structure represented by the “apostles and elders” operating out of Jerusalem (Acts 15). As far as I know, the church never abandoned the “one city one eldership” model, and it simply evolved into the Catholic hierarchy. In other words, the modern Church of Christ’s autonomous congregational eldership structure never existed anywhere until the Reformation Movement of the mid-second millennia. Please correct me if I’m wrong on this point (I honestly want to know).Biblically speaking, there were obviously some elders who held jurisdiction over the entire global church (Acts 16:4, Acts 15:2, Acts 15:6, Acts 21:14), but what is the modern jurisdiction of elderships? Is it possible for a member to gain freedom from an eldership’s decisions simply by moving to another congregation? The answer appears to be “yes” in the twenty first century, but we must admit that this conclusion has little biblical precedent and arises from a kind of historical accident or misunderstanding.So, the questions remain. How much jurisdiction do elderships have? Are we obliged to obey an eldership’s decrees even if we move outside their jurisdiction? Does God expect us to follow an eldership’s decrees even if the eldership itself doesn’t claim to have jurisdiction over us (because we moved, etc)? Are our spiritual obligations to an eldership effected by how much authority the eldership itself claims to wield? Or, is there some objective measure of their authority that cannot be effected by their opinions about how much authority they have? When Paul wrote “obey your leaders” did he intend for us to obey them even in the extent that they claim authority for themselves? If an eldership claims not to have authority does that mean it really doesn’t have authority?There are no easy answers. Given the biblical and historical facts we’ve now covered, it seems the answers to these theological questions remain shrouded in the “mists of time.” What did the apostles intend to establish to replace themselves? Historically speaking, the Apostle John was still alive when single bishops began usurping authority over the metropolitan areas. Neither John nor his students appear to have opposed this development. In fact, one of John’s disciples, Ignatius , defended the power of bishops less than fifteen years after John’s death. And yet, if we’re obliged to respect an eldership’s claims about it’s authority then what’s to stop this from accelerating into a hierarchy? Would we accept a situation in which one congregation’s elders claimed to be THE global eldership over all the churches? Who would arbitrate this claim? At the same time, if all elderships claim to be autonomous and local how do we arbitrate between elderships, cross congregational institutions, and members who move churches? And, if we forfeit this ability then how are we a single institutional church? When the biblical authors declined to specifically define the limitations of the eldership’s power, they opened the door to interpretations of the eldership that led directly to the development of the Catholic and Orthodox hierarchies that we Church of Christers abhor. If one eldership claims a certain power, and another claims another, there’s no biblical passage checking their claims. Ultimately, the logical result is the papacy (a single center of authority through which Christ himself arbitrates church affairs ex cathedra ).The question of authority is the problem most likely to destroy the entire five hundred year Protestant experiment. [2] The logical end of Protestantism is “ every man his own pope .” Every man is spiritually bound, not by church authorities and thousands of years of accumulated wisdom, but by the random naïve movements of his own conscience, and if every man is his own arbiter than the church cannot be said to believe anything (i.e. “not all Christians believe homosexual activity is a sin”). [3]In order to illustrate this point, I want to explore a common hypothetical scenario that churches face on a weekly basis. A member becomes firmly convinced that he’s discovered a truth unacknowledged by the broader group. This could include anything: KJV only, swimming pools are sin, Christmas is a pagan holiday, God accepts LGBT marriage, God accepts women preachers, eating in the church building is sin, etc, etc. The member who “discovered” this truth naturally believes his congregation is sinning by not acknowledging it, but he meets opposition after confronting his eldership. They won't allow him to preach or bind his newfound “truth” on the rest of the members. The man then claims the elders are wrong for trying to silence the truth, and he compares them to the Jewish leaders who tried to silence the apostles from preaching in the temple. This hypothetical member is spiritually correct for acting in this way, according to the Church of Christ’s position, because he believes himself bound by God to speak the truth. To him, the eldership has become an evil authority structure akin to the Catholic Church in its suppression of truth. The man might realize in ten years that his position was absurd, but it doesn’t matter, because he was spiritually bound to fight for the “truth” as he perceived it while he was convicted it was true. Nothing is higher than his own conscience, and thus nothing is capable of suppressing his divisive behavior.What I’ve just described is the history of Christianity over the last five hundred years. Because no one is obliged to just “shut up and listen” everyone is instead obliged to “follow the truth” as they perceive it, and because humans, especially young humans, are stupid, the church keeps repeatedly dividing because naïve people are told they alone, with their Bibles, are the final arbiters of truth.This brings us to the final question I’d like to explore. Can elders disfellowship members? In Titus 1:9-11, Paul told the elders to “silence” and “rebuke” those who were a bad influence. The other passages about disfellowshipping, Matthew 18:15-17 and Romans 16:17-18 and 2 Thessalonians 3:6 , don’t connect the process to elders. 1 Corinthians 5 implies that Paul could disfellowship people by passing “judgement” on them, but could he do this in his role as an elder or an inspired apostle? Perhaps I’m overlooking something, but I can’t find any direct biblical evidence that elders are responsible for pronouncing a member’s excommunication. It seems that the modern Churches of Christ have simply “necessary inferenced” this into the Bible (I’m not necessarily arguing that we’re wrong).Furthermore, where’s the biblical precedent for an eldership disfellowshiping an entire church? And even if they do have this power, at what point do they have the right to exorcise it? Is it the moment that a majority of the offending church’s elders decide to believe something that contradicts the disfellowshipping congregation? Or, is it the moment their preacher says something false from the pulpit? If we can’t be certain elders even have a biblical mandate to disfellowship offending churches can we even be certain we’re not still in fellowship with the Baptists or Presbyterians? There certainly must be some form of corporate church, and thus some way to police its borders. If not, how does the church exist as anything but a voluntary club of like minded people? And if this is its nature, why is it compared to the nation of Israel?I legitimately entered this study of the eldership with an open mind. I really hoped I'd find answers. However, the deeper I explored into the Bible and history the more confused I became, and the more questions I had. As far as I can tell, Church of Christ theology is woefully unprepared to clarify the deeper issues revolving around the institutional corporate church and its organization and structure. It now appears to me that the Bible doesn't clearly define the authority of elders, and it doesn’t even claim to provide a blueprint for the post-apostolic church’s institutional authority structure. I’m afraid the deeper we look into these questions the more we may arrive at the depressing conclusion that our minimalistic focus on the Bible isn’t enough to resolve the deep problems lurking below our presumptions.[1] A small sample of the Church of Christ articles I read on elders before writing this essay: Authority Of Elders [2] Phyllis Tickle , in her book on the Emerging Church Movement , argued that Protestant Christianity (including all post-Reformation traditions outside Catholicism and Orthodoxy) are doomed to increasingly divide and discredit one another because the "question of authority" has never been resolved.[3] The spread of LGBT affirming Christianity might be the final undoing of Protestantism. I've had numerous discussions on Reddit, and other forums, in which thousands of years of Christian doctrine are simply dismissed as rubbish in favor of some new individualist deconstruction utilizing a unique interpretation method and different first principles. The problem with Protestantism is that if the Church was wrong for thousands of years than anything can be wrong at any time, nothing is safe, no precedent is sufficient, and no living authority exists that can't be reinterpreted or academically criticized out of meaning. If "Christianity" includes everything embraced within the modern denominations, even homosexuality, than "Christianity" becomes a meaningless spectrum standing for nothing and having no identity center.