Views: 11<\/p>
[Note: <\/strong>This MS is available in larger font on our Manuscripts<\/strong> page.]<\/span><\/p>\n Introduction<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The following note was in a printed worship announcement program of a local congregation of the Lord’s church earlier this year:<\/span><\/p>\n ELDER AFFIRMATION. As part of our service this morning, our five current elders will be re-confirmed [sic] and Brother ____________________ will be re-appointed [sic] as an elder. This is as a result of the overwhelming response of the congregation to the recently distributed Elder Recommendation Forms.1<\/sup>\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n A brother who champions the “reaffirmation” of elders based upon periodic “reevaluation” of them began a manuscript on the subject as follows: “The reaffirmation of elders is new ground for most congregations. It is an uncharted course\u2014a path not traveled. Few congregations have had any experience with reaffirmation.\u201d2<\/sup> \u00a0While (as noted above) this practice is generally of recent vintage among us, it has been observable in the denominational world for many years.3<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n This writer\u2019s first exposure to the practice of appointing elders by a \u201creaffirmation\u201d process in a church of Christ was in about 1987 when the Richland Hills Church of Christ in Fort Worth, Texas, announced in its bulletin that it follows such a process for both its elders and deacons. Due to its history of leadership in all things liberal for many years, this was not at all surprising. However, the next time I heard of such a practice was both surprising and disappointing. The Brown Trail Congregation, Bedford, Texas, generally known through the years for its Scriptural soundness, used the reevaluation\/reaffirmation process in 1990 to restructure its eldership, which included selection of one new elder.4<\/sup> Although there are doubtless many others, in our research for this chapter, we only have documentation of the employment of this practice by the following congregations, including the two mentioned immediately above:<\/span><\/p>\n Definitions<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n In order to understand the practice under discussion we need to understand the definition and application of the principal terms used by its advocates:<\/span><\/p>\n Applications\u2014Some Case Studies<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n In a sermon manuscript on this subject, John Cannon asserted the existence of two\u00a0<\/span>general parts to the application of the reaffirmation process:<\/span><\/p>\n First, each elder as an individual should reaffirm his desire to continue to serve. Self- examination requires an elder to ask, \u201cDo I still have my heart set on serving the Lord\u2019s church as an elder?\u201d (1 Tim. 3:1). If the answer is \u201cno,\u201d he should be willing to resign or retire with dignity. If the answer is \u201cyes,\u201d then he should be concerned about the congregation\u2019s attitude toward him. Second, the congregation\u2019s attitude should be determined. The congregation can reaffirm its desire to have any or all of the present elders to continue to serve. They can reaffirm their commitment to follow the leadership of the elders as individual men and as a group or body of elders\u2014the eldership. In the event an elder is not reaffirmed by the congregation, he is given the opportunity to retire with dignity. If reaffirmation is positive, the elders resume their leadership role in the congregation with a vote of confidence.7 <\/sup><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Cannon\u2019s purpose is to argue the case for the concept and process. Therefore, he does not set forth the details of how either the reevaluation or reaffirmation is to be executed, although he later advocates \u201cfrequent evaluation of leaders,\u201d \u201cperiodic evaluation,\u201d and that elders should undergo \u201ccongregational evaluation periodically,\u201d8<\/sup> While we have confirmation\u00a0<\/span>that the congregation where Cannon preaches (Pleasant Ridge, Arlington, Texas) uses this approach, we do not have documentation of the specifics of it.<\/span><\/p>\n The Richland Hills Congregation combines a specifically structured tenure plan with its approach to the reevaluation, reaffirmation, and selection process for both elders and deacons, as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n The Crestview Congregation, Waco, Texas, patterned its process after the plan of the 11th and Willis Congregation, Abilene, Texas (as mentioned above), notwithstanding its claim to be following \u201ca model patterned after that revealed in the book of Acts.\u201d A summary of this plan is as follows:10<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n The specifics of the reevaluation\/reaffirmation\/selection blueprint implemented at Brown Trail, although not as intricately detailed, have many similarities to the above. The document in which they set forth their plan is reproduced in full below:<\/span><\/p>\n All of the plans above, while differing in some details have numerous things in common, including the following:<\/span><\/p>\n Having seen the nature of the process, we turn now to consider the attempts to justify\u00a0<\/span>and defend it on the basis of Scriptures.<\/span><\/p>\n Justifications Offered by Advocates<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Those congregations that have adopted a reevaluation\/reaffirmation approach to elder and\/or deacon appointment (such as the ones described) indicate varied attitudes toward justification of same. These range from no justification attempt to the setting forth of an alleged Scriptural basis.<\/span><\/p>\n John Cannon observes that the New Testament says little about the appointment of elders. Just as it says nothing of elder tenure, resignation, retirement, leave of absence, or sabbatical, \u201cLikewise, the reaffirmation of elders, either individually or congregationally, is not addressed in the text.\u201d He concludes that reaffirmation is in the realm of \u201ccongregational judgment.\u201d17\u00a0<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n The documents from the 11th and Willis Congregation (Abilene, TX) offer no justification for their plan, however, the \u201cCrestview Plan\u201d (Waco, TX) (which is based entirely upon that of the Abilene Church) attempts to do so. This is likely explained by the fact that the Abilene Congregation had been using their plan so long that they assumed that none of its members would question it. On the other hand, this was all new and novel to Crestview, and its implementers seemed to have anticipated objections to it on Scriptural grounds. For whatever reason, the Crestview Administrative Committee offered the following in the opening paragraph of its \u201cProcedure\u201d explanation: \u201cWe are choosing to follow a model patterned after that revealed in the book of Acts in which the Church [sic] sought to determine its leaders.\u201d We suppose that the passage referred to above is the same as that mentioned in a later statement made orally to the congregation by Norman Murphy, Chairman of the Administrative Committee:<\/span><\/p>\n The purpose of this process is simply for this congregation to recognize the shepherds\/elders among us whom God has already chosen. Notice how Matthias was chosen as the apostle to replace Judas. Acts 1:24 says: \u201cAnd they prayed and said, \u2018Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen… [RSV, DM]. Not even the apostles sought to impose their will on the church.18<\/sup><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The Brown Trail (Bedford, TX) Elder Selection Screening Committee went to much greater pains than those previously cited in its attempt to provide Scriptural justification for employing its elder reevaluation process. This would be expected for at least two reasons: (1) The Brown Trail Church has had a long history of seeking to do only what the Scriptures authorize (admirably so), and the other congregations involved in this work have not exactly distinguished themselves in this pursuit. (2) Both the Brown Trail elders and the committee of its preachers and instructors surely anticipated that its adoption of this process would identify them with generally-recognized liberal congregations in the minds of many sound brethren and that they would therefore receive criticism because of this fact.19\u00a0<\/sup>Due to the committee\u2019s concerns about such matters it issued the following lengthy (by comparison) \u201cRationale\u201d for the program they adopted:<\/span><\/p>\n Let us summarize the assertions offered in justification of the concept of reevaluation and reaffirmation of elders from all of the foregoing sources:<\/span><\/p>\n Responses to the Justifications<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The initial response that needs to be made in reference to the proffered justifications is to observe the following: All of the justifications have linked (whether wittingly or unwittingly) selection and appointment of elders with reevaluation and reappointment of elders as if they were inseparable and without distinction. The basic argument of the reevaluation advocates may thus be stated as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n The first premise above is true. Assuredly, the Scriptures authorize the selection and appointment of elders\/bishops\/pastors in every congregation in which two or more men can be found who are Scripturally qualified (Acts 14:23; 15:4ff; 16:4; 20:17; 1 Tim. 3:1-7; 5:17- 20; Tit. 1:5-9). Moreover, the specifics of how these are to be done are not provided either by example or precept in the New Testament. Such matters are therefore left to the exercise of human wisdom that works in harmony with the overall context of Scriptural principles.<\/span><\/p>\n The problem arises with the second premise above: It assumes that which requires proof and evidence, which are not offered. It should be obvious to all that programs of \u201creevaluation\u201d and \u201creaffirmation\u201d (or \u201cdeaffirmation\u201d) (such as those described above) of previously selected and appointed elders are not the same as mere selection and appointment procedures. The plans referenced above use separate and different forms for evaluating present elders and nominating new elders\u2014a tacit admission that reevaluation and initial selection are separate processes even in their <\/strong>minds. Moreover (as noted above), the Brown Trail plan stipulates: \u201cPresent elders must receive 75% support of those submitting forms.\u201d No such stipulation was applied to those who had not previously served. Since the second premise is false, the third premise (conclusion) is necessarily false. The reevaluation, reaffirmation, deaffirmation process concerning elders is a separate issue from the mere selection and appointment of elders and thus must be separately tested in light of the Scriptures. There is both implicit and explicit authority for the latter. There is neither for the former.<\/span><\/p>\n What about the use of Acts 1:24 as justification, per the Crestview documents? This writer must admit that he has never before seen this passage used in any connection with the selection or appointment of elders, and, we think, with good reason. The setting here is the meeting of the 120 disciples, including the eleven apostles, in Jerusalem between the ascension of the Lord and the Day of Pentecost. In the process of selecting a replacement for Judas, the group prayed (apparently led by Peter, v. 15):<\/span><\/p>\n Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show of these two the one whom thou hast chosen, to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas fell away (vv. 24\u201325).21<\/sup>\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n It is argued that the apostles did not \u201cimpose their will on the church.\u201d This would hardly have been possible since the church had not yet been established! But granting that this was after the church was established, it hardly helps the argument unless those making the argument are willing to cast lots and rely upon same as the means by which God signals His choice of elders. The fact that this was a selection involving the miraculous element invalidates it as a precedent for any generation of the church since the cessation of miracles. True, this incident shows that the apostles did not independently or arbitrarily make the choice of Matthias, but this has little to do with the question before us. The \u201cchurch\u201d did not make the selection, either. God did! The argument seems to be that because the apostles did not choose Matthias, we therefore have Scriptural authority for reevaluating and reaffirming or \u201cdeaffirming\u201d elders. This is a very large stretch\u2014even for a Texas church!<\/span><\/p>\n We turn our attention now to the \u201cBiblical Rationale\u201d statement (hereafter referred to as the \u201cRationale\u201d) issued by Brown Trail (see above). Since it is by far the longest attempt at a Biblical justification, it will require a longer response than the other attempts. While realizing that the Bible need teach a thing only once for it to be the will of God, it is still noteworthy that the four paragraphs of the \u201cRationale\u201d are not all that \u201cBiblical.\u201d That is, only two passages are cited (not even quoted) and little application of them is made. Had there been more Scripture in their favor they surely would have used it. We intend to demonstrate that neither of these passages justifies what these brethren purport to see in them.<\/span><\/p>\n The first passage cited is Acts 6:3. What, if anything, does it have to say about the issue before us? The only point the \u201cRationale\u201d drew from it was that \u201cThe members select elders to begin with (Acts 6:3).\u201d The context of this passage is the response of the apostles to the complaint from the Grecian Jews that \u201ctheir widows were being neglected in the daily ministration\u201d (v. 1). The apostles called the church together and told them, \u201cLook ye out therefore, brethren, from among you seven men of good report, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business\u201d (v. 3). While admitting in his sermon cited earlier that the seven men selected were not elders (in his opinion they were deacons),22<\/sup> Dave Miller concludes: \u201cLet\u2019s simply note that here is an inspired selection process given by the inspired apostles.\u201d We have no problem with this conclusion. In fact, we believe it is a correct use of the passage and have so used it for many years. However, we ask how this justifies the reevaluation, reaffirmation, deaffirmation program? All this passage does is furnish the principle that the whole congregation is to be involved in the selection of elders (and deacons), not in some intricate reevaluation process of men who were already selected, appointed, and serving.<\/span><\/p>\n Next, the \u201cRationale\u201d states: \u201cSince the complexion of congregational membership changes over the years, an eldership may conceivably no longer consist of the same individuals whom the present membership would select.\u201d Our initial reaction to this statement was registered immediately after the Brown Trail program was implemented and it remains the same:<\/span><\/p>\n Just because the \u201ccomplexion\u201d of a congregation changes over the years (as all do) says nothing to justify the practice (i.e., of reevaluation\/reaffirmation). When saints come to place membership with a congregation, they are under the same directive to submit themselves to the elders of that congregation, just as every other member is (Acts 20:28; Heb. 13:17). If said members cannot follow the leadership and work under the oversight of those elders, why should they want to place membership?…<\/span><\/p>\n I see certain harmful consequences that may accrue from this practice: (1) The congregation is \u201cup for grabs\u201d with the change of congregational \u201ccomplexion.\u201d Any group of errorists of any sort (antis, premillennialists, Crossroaders, Kingites, whatever) could move into a congregation over a period of months and so change the \u201ccomplexion\u201d of a church as to demand their own chosen elders. Of course, this has been done as a power move in more than one place, but the \u201creevaluation\u201d program invites and encourages it. (2) This \u201creevaluation\/reconfirmation\/ deconfirmation\u201d concept removes the oversight of the congregation from the elders (Acts 20:28) and gives it to 25% of the congregation. Majority rule in the absence of elders has its drawbacks at times but allowing a mere 25% to determine who will or will not serve as elders, and that, perhaps based on personal likes and\/or dislikes rather than on Scriptural qualifications, is absurd. Moreover, the 25% apparently relates to the number of forms received by the…screening committee, rather than 25% of the actual membership (75% support of those submitting forms,\u201d \u201cProcedure…\u201d statement [emp. DM]). Depending on how many forms were submitted, the 25% could represent a much smaller percentage of the entire membership. Talk about \u201cminority rule\u201d!23<\/sup>\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Garland Elkins registered a similar response to the \u201cchange of complexion\u201d idea:<\/span><\/p>\n Those who contend for \u201creconfirmation\u201d argue that many of the present members were not there when the present elders were appointed, and if they were given the opportunity at present they would not be in favor of appointing the present elders. That may be true, but remember that they agreed to work under the oversight of the present elders when they placed their membership with a given congregation.24\u00a0<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n W. Terry Varner reacted to the \u201cchange of complexion\u201d statement as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n