he Apostle Paul presents rather lofty qualifications for overseers in the church. Their home lives must be in order and their children must be faithful. They must also have a good testimony with those outside the church (1 Tim. 3:1-7). They must be blameless, and must hold fast to the truth, and by handling sound doctrine they must convict and exhort those who contradict (Titus 1:7-9). These qualifications are presented in the plainest terms. Anyone who does not meet them is unfit for eldership in a church.
A survey of Paul's own life will reveal that he meets these requirements. In the New Testament we see him most clearly meeting the one in Titus 1:9. His ministry was full of collisions with false doctrine, which he usually left in a heap of rubble wherever he went. He mainly confronted the Judaizing heresy, the view that a Gentile must become a Jew before coming to Christ. The second greatest error he faced dealt with mistaken views of authority in the church — specifically, the authority of Paul himself. In much of 2 Corinthians and in the early part of Galatians we see Paul's defense of his own ministry.
In Paul's defense of his ministry, he was willing to interact on the question of whether or not he should be considered an apostle. He did not simply walk into Corinth and find a body of people willing and ready to sit under him. His followers had to recognize his authority. Now it is true that God had called Paul to his ministry, and that this calling set Paul apart from other men; thus, we know that Paul's apostleship came from God and not from men (Gal. 1:15-16). But God's means of installing Paul was to demonstrate his fitness as an apostle before men, so that men would recognize Paul as an apostle.
In Scripture we see this pattern in other types of leadership. Saul, for example, was anointed by God to be king over Israel (1 Sam. 10:1). But it wasn't until the people of Israel recognized Saul as king that he took on the office of king (1 Sam. 10:24). God made Saul king over Israel, but the way He did so was to reveal this to those over whom Saul would rule. Rutherford adds other examples to illustrate this principle:
. . . but certainly God's dispensation in this warranteth us to say, no man can be formally a lawful king without the suffrages of the people: for Saul, after Samuel from the Lord anointed him, remained a private man, and no king, till the people made him king, and elected him; and David, anointed by that same divine authority, remained formally a subject . . . till all Israel made him king at Hebron; and Solomon, though by God designed . . . to be king, yet was never king until the people made him so, (1 Kings i.); therefore there floweth from the power of the people, by which he who is no king becometh a king . . . by God's lawful call . . .
This principle which has been shown to be true of kings is also true of church officials. Paul and Barnabas ministered in Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, and "appointed elders in every church" (Acts 14:21-23). The Greek word for "appoint" that is used here, cheirotoneo, was the word which had its primary first century use in describing a vote in the Athenian legislature. Literally, it means to stretch forth the hand. Luke's usage of this word in Acts 14:23, therefore, indicates that the body of saints in these churches approved their elders, and that this approval was integral to their appointment. George Gillespie comments:
Elders (both ruling and preaching) were chosen by most voices of the church, the suffrages being signified per cheirotoneo, that is, by lifting up or stretching out of the hand (Acts 14:23). . . [I prove] the use of the word in this sense, and in no other sense, either in Scripture (2 Cor. 8:19), or Greek authors that wrote before the New Testament; so that Luke could not be understood if he had used it in another sense, but he wrote so that he might be understood. If he had meant ordination, he would have used the word kathistamai, as [in] Acts 6:3; Titus 1:5; or epethekan tas cheiras, as [in] Acts 6:6 [References on back page, ed.].
The authority to rule in the Church comes from God. And as the above discussion shows, God uses the rank-and-file in the church, in addition to the established leaders, in the appointment of a ruler into office. The kind of church government that is commonly called Episcopalian (top-down authority), employed by Methodists, Lutherans, Greek and Russian Orthodox, and Roman Catholics, does not follow the model for church government that is presented in the New Testament. In this type of government, the central body holds higher rank than the local assembly. "Priests" and ministers are appointed by the centralized authority without formal consideration of the local assembly. But the suffrage of the local assembly is necessary for any church which claims to be built upon an apostolic foundation (Eph. 2:19-2).
From here we may move on to two other important principles of church government: plurality and parity. Plurality means that a church should have more than one elder. This idea is reflected in Hebrews 13:7, "Remember those who rule over you.'' Plurality is a safeguard against arrogance and tyranny in leadership. Parity goes along with plurality. It indicates that all overseers in the church are equal in rank. Nowhere in the New Testament is there evidence of hierarchy or differing ranks of elders in the Church's government. Titus 1:5, 7 and Acts 20:17, 28 teach us that elders and bishops were one and the same; the terms are interchangeable. When apostles and elders met in Jerusalem to settle the Judiazing question, there is no hint of varying rank in the council. All the delegates seem to have had equal authority.
The Bible is not silent to matters of church government, and where God has spoken in His Word we must listen and obey. Biblical church government is local, plural, non-hierarchical, and must practice suffrage of laymen. Absences or denials of these characteristics should be addressed. Set in order the things that are lacking (Titus 1:5).
