Did the congregation have input into leader selection in the early church?

score:5

Accepted answer

While the New Testament does not give complete details about the selection process, the role of other leaders is much more clearly documented than the role of congregations, at least in the appointment of elders.

Acts 6, by contrast, involves the selection of servant leaders, known in most churches today as deacons. The Apostles were too busy to "serve tables", so they asked the congregation to select seven men "to this duty". These men were not appointed elders (although at least one, Stephen, did later do some preaching.) The Apostles laid their hands on these servants, possibly as a blessing (see, e.g., Genesis 48:14-20) or a commission (see, e.g., Numbers 27:22-23).

Acts 14 specifically refers to the appointment of elders.

Although Dr. Perkins goes to great lengths (in your linked article) to show that the Greek verb in Acts 14:23 can be used of either appointment or election, the footnote from Alexander Strauch still stands:

the point is, cheirotoneo can mean to elect or appoint. The context, not the etymology, determines its meaning. The context [Acts 14:23] is perfectly clear that appoint is the only possible meaning here.

The phrase, "they had appointed elders for them in every church", can only reasonably be interpreted that Paul and Barnabas chose the elders for the churches. As to whether Paul and Barnabas sought input from the congregations, we are not told.

Elsewhere in the New Testament, we see Titus being chosen by Paul to appoint elders:

I left you behind in Crete for this reason, so that you should put in order what remained to be done, and should appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.—Titus 1:5

Again, we are not told (nor is Titus, for that matter) how much input Titus should receive from the congregation; however, since the qualifications for the office were listed in the private letter to Titus, it seems likely that the opinions of the congregation would not carry much weight.

So although congregations may have had some input into the selection of their elders, the New Testament is only clear in stating that elders were appointed by other church leaders.

Upvote:3

Acts 6 pretty clearly says that the congregation choose the leaders. Acts 6:2-3 'Then the twelve summoned the multitude of the disciples and said, '... Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation ...'" The apostles told the congregation that the congreation should choose these men. We are not told whether this was done with a formal vote or what the process was. After they were chosen, the apostles prayed for them and laid hands on them, which perhaps indicated that they were confirming the congregation's choice. I don't know what would have happenned if the apostles had decided that the congregation made a bad choice. Would they have said, "No, these men aren't qualified"? Or would they have accepted the bad choice?

Acts 14 and Titus 1 indicates that the missionaries (Paul, Titus) appointed leaders for the new churches.

I can't find any other accounts in the New Testament at the moment of new leaders being chosen that give any indication of the process. It's certainly possible that I'm missing some.

There's an important difference between the circumstances in Acts 6 and those in Acts 14 and Titus 1. In Acts 6 we are talking about an established church, while the other two references are about new churches. One could argue that a group of new believers in a church that has just been organized would not be qualified to select leaders. If the church hasn't even been organized yet, there would be no way to hold a vote, as we don't even know who the members are. In such cases, even people with the greatest dedication to democracy would have to concede that you need some leaders to get things started before you can start holding elections.

In any case, Americans love the forms of democracy, like voting, but there's a big difference between a church and a government. If you don't like the leadership of your church and there is no mechanism to replace them, you can go across town to another church, or start your own church. If you don't like the leadership of your government and there is no mechanism to replace them, about the only thing you can do is move to another country. Businesses are not normally democratic in the sense that the employees get together and elect one of their members to be the boss. The boss is the guy who started the company, or who bought it or inherited it. But businesses (in a capitalist society, anyway) are extremely democratic in that if you don't like the way a company is run, you can quit anytime you like and go work for somebody else or start your own business. Churches could be run the same way without trampling anyone's freedom.

More post

Search Posts

Related post