Sermon Tone Analysis

“When they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed.”

[1]

The New Testament model for a church of the Lord Jesus differs significantly from what has been commonly accepted among the churches of our Lord’s Zion during the past century.

The model of church governance that is provided in the New Testament is what we commonly refer to as congregational polity.

Congregational polity should not be interpreted to mean that a church is a democracy—it is not.

A mere majority does not of itself ensure biblical certitude.

Congregational polity does mean that as each member submits to the reign of Christ among His people—He is the Head of the Church—the church is united in one spirit to discover the mind of the Master of the church and to obey His will.

That holy mind and divine will is revealed through His written Word, which is to be received as inerrant and infallible.

Thus, the Word is for a biblical congregation a perfect guide for faith and practise.

Yet another difference from contemporary models is that each church is autonomous.

Though most Baptists give lip service to this truth, in practise it seems seldom to be followed.

To say that a congregation is autonomous is simply a way of saying that each church stands as a separate entity.

No outside agency is permitted to dictate to a church in matters of faith and practise.

As a congregation, we may plead with other churches, admonish them and even declare them to be out of fellowship on the basis of deviant doctrine or because they permit moral/ethical contamination to continue unchecked; however, we have no authority over another congregation.

In the same way, no other church or convention or fellowship or association or union has authority over our own congregation in matters of faith and practise.

Having stated that truth, I must hasten to add that churches are responsible to make every effort to be co-operative with other Christians; but co-operation must always be bounded by biblical strictures.

As a Community of Faith, we are willing to co-operate with other Christians on the basis of doctrine and not on the basis of mission.

By this attestation, I mean clearly to state that doctrine underlies all co-operation—even when we have agreed to co-operate in areas of mission.

Without a doctrinal foundation, there is nothing on which we may build fellowship.

Therefore, any supposed co-operation built on anything other than doctrine is a fantasy leading into ever-greater error.

Moreover, each congregation is responsible to determine for itself the limits of co-operation and the degree of participation with other churches.

The practical import of this truth is that there can be no authoritative hierarchy, as such, permitted among the churches of our Lord.

There are neither popes, nor cardinals, nor bishops authorised to appoint individuals for pastoral oversight.

No power clique exists for regulating the pastorate through ordination or to direct the churches.

Neither is there to be found in the canon of Scripture executive directors, area ministers, director of missions or other individuals holding authoritative offices to direct the affairs of the churches.

In the whole of Scripture there is not to be found a single synod, diocese, convention, union nor any such entity possessing authority over the churches either collectively or individually.

The New Testament model does provide that each congregation should have a plurality of elders to provide oversight of the ministry and the mission of the church.

In the early days of the New Testament churches, elders were not mere board members charged with oversight of the finances or authority in disciplinary matters; rather, they were servants of Christ within the church to which they were appointed.

The study this day focuses on the model that is described quite early in the history of the Faith, the model which Paul employed during his first missionary journey.

Join me in exploring this biblical model for our congregation.

*ELDERS ARE APPOINTED TO OFFICE.*

One of the tragic concepts that has invaded the sacred precincts of the congregations of Christ in this day is one which declares that Pastors are elected.

We are careful to avoid actually saying that a pastor is “elected”; instead, we have developed the idea that a congregation “calls” a pastor.

This “call” comes about because the potential pastor “candidated” for the vacant position.

His candidacy came about because he submitted a resume or MIP (complete with a sermon tape and references) and a cover letter telling the appropriate people that he was open to a new “call.”

If the candidacy was successful, the candidate will have convinced a critical majority of the congregation that he should be the pastor.

The church held a vote, and when it was determined that he had secured enough votes of the members, he was “called.”

Upon receiving the “call,” the pastor retreated to a secret place where he prayed for God’s confirmation.

If no better offer came in during the time he prayed, then he accepted the “call.”

I am not attempting to trivialise the process of seeking out elders, but I am simply reviewing the manner in which the process is too often conducted among the churches of our Lord.

Unfortunately, it is a truism that whom a congregation “calls,” it can dismiss.

Consequently, the concept has arisen among the churches that pastors have a limited shelf life, after which they need to be rotated to another church and the congregation “calls” a fresh pastor.

One major concern I have with this scenario is its lack of biblical support.

In the entirety of the New Testament, there is not found a single instance of an individual receiving a “call” to a pastorate; neither is there found anywhere in those sacred pages a command for a pastor to seek a “call” to a position.

The churches are weaker for adopting the concept of a “call.”

Frankly, the assumption drawn from the New Testament is that an elder was raised up from within an assembly and would conduct his ministry among those saints until his service was concluded.

Churches in this present day appear to be on a perpetual quest to find the Perfect Pastor.

Responding to this perpetual search for the Perfect Pastor, one wag has generated a (hopefully) tongue-in-cheek review that has made the rounds on the Internet.

“The Perfect Pastor preaches exactly ten minutes.

He condemns sin roundly, but never hurts anyone's feelings.

He works from 8 a.m. until midnight and is also the church janitor.

“The Perfect Pastor makes $40 a week, wears good clothes, drives a good car, buys good books and donates $30 a week to the church.

He is 29 years old and has 40 years' worth of experience.

Above all, he is handsome.

“The Perfect Pastor has a burning desire to work with teenagers, and he spends most of his time with the senior citizens.

He smiles all the time with a straight face because he has a sense of humor that keeps him seriously dedicated to his church.

He makes fifteen home visits a day and is always in his office to be handy when needed.

“The Perfect Pastor always has time for church meetings and all of its committees, never missing the meeting of any church organization.

And he is always busy evangelizing the unchurched.

“The Perfect Pastor is always in the next town over!

“If your pastor does not measure up, simply send this notice to six other churches that are tired of their pastor too.

Then bundle up your pastor and send him to the church at the top of your list.

If everyone cooperates, in one week you will receive 1, 643 pastors.

One of them should be perfect.

“Have faith in this letter.

One church broke the chain and got its' old pastor back in less than three months.”

I suggest that confusion arises over the use of several words in the Greek text that are translated either “call” or “appointment” in our English Bibles.

Consequently, the terms tend to be used rather loosely in our English tongue, often being used interchangeably.

Nevertheless, it is a good thing for us to be precise to avoid confusion or distortion of the divine intent.

To be certain, twice in the New Testament do we witness one said to be “called” to a particular ministry.

Paul does say that he was “called by the will of God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus” [1 CORINTHIANS 1:1].

Again, the writer of the Letter to Hebrew Christians acknowledges that only those “called by God” would take upon themselves the position of high priest [HEBREWS 5:4].

God “calls to Himself” whomever He wills to be saved [ACTS 2:39; ROMANS 1:7].

God calls His people in holiness [1 THESSALONIANS 4:7] and calls them to be holy [see 1 PETER 1:15].

It is obvious that the use of “call” as an expression of God’s effective work in the life of His people is not common in the New Testament.

Another word is more commonly employed in English translations of the Bible when speaking of God’s provision of those who will serve in various capacities among the churches—it is the word “appoint.”

Consider several instances of the use of the word when speaking of setting apart to service.

First off, consider the text for today’s message.

“When [the missionaries] had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed” [ACTS 14:23].

The word translated “appointed” in the text is the Greek term cheirotonèō.

As used in this instance, the word speaks of formal appointment to a particular task.

[2] It would be very difficult if not impossible to find a scholar who imagines that the word speaks of one’s personal sense of calling.

If there is knowledge of a call, the churches have that knowledge.

In another passage of the Word, we read of the Master’s appointment of the seventy-two who were to precede Him as He moved through Judea.

Here is the passage: “The Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them on ahead of him, two by two, into every town and place where he himself was about to go” [LUKE 10:1].

The Greek word, anadeíknumi, means to commission to a position or to assign a task.

[3] The activity is initiated by the one doing the appointment; it is objective, not subjective.

In one startling statement, Jesus must surely have stunned His disciples.

Jesus testified, “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you” [JOHN 15:16].

The Greek term, tìthemi, speaks of appointing someone to a position.

[4], [5]

Another word is frequently found in the New Testament which speaks of the divine provision of those giving oversight to the churches.

Writing Titus, for instance, Paul states, “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” [TITUS 1:5].

The Greek word employed is kathìstemi, which conveys the idea of authorising or appointing.

[6] The concept implies that designation for the task lies outside of the one who is being designated.

In fact, the concept is identical to that employed when the Apostles appointed men to the diaconate.

“Brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty” [ACTS 6:3].

A couple of other words that are found in the New Testament merit our consideration.

We read in Mark’s Gospel of the choosing of the Twelve.

“[Jesus] appointed twelve (whom he also named apostles) so that they might be with him and he might send them out to preach and have authority to cast out demons.

He appointed the twelve” [MARK 3:14-16].

The Greek term, poièō, conveys the “to cause someone to assume a particular type of function—‘to assign to a task, to cause people to assume responsibilities for a task.’