The notion that the congregation should have any input when it comes to choosing their leaders is a completely foreign concept among the COGs, as well as many other Christian denominations that have adopted a strict hierarchical organizational structure. Any suggestion of those within the hierarchy being held accountable by the congregation in any way will naturally be met with strong resistance, and the "authority" of those in leadership positions will be hammered. Those who disagree or question the status quo are viewed as causing division or undermining the authority of those "God" has placed over them.
Exodus 18:13-26 is often freely quoted to back up the idea of this strict hierarchical structure, as well as certain selective passages within the New Testament, such as Paul telling Titus to "appoint elders in every town..." Titus 1:5.
The problem with only going to the above scriptures, however, is that they don't present a complete picture of how leaders or those given certain responsibilities within the congregation were chosen and "appointed" either by Moses in the Old Testament, or among the New Testament congregations. For example, to have a complete picture of how Moses went about the job of appointing leaders among the Israelites, we need to read Deuteronomy 1:9-18.
In carefully reading this passage we see that Moses actually instructed the people to “Choose for yourselves wise, understanding, and respected men from each of your tribes, and I will appoint them as your leaders." (vs.13) We further see that the people openly agreed to having their disputes handled in this way. (vs.14) So, though there was a structure put in place, the people had input in who should be placed within that structure.
We can see the above process echoed in Acts 6:1-7 when the seven were chosen to care for the Greek widows within the congregation in Jerusalem. In reading this passage, we see that all the disciples in the area were gathered to discuss the issue at hand, (vs.2) and they were instructed by the apostles to choose the seven, with the apostles laying out specific qualities they should keep in mind when making their choices. "Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business..." (vs.3) We also see that the people were happy with this proposal. (vs.5)
As a side note, we also can see from reading further in Acts that those who were chosen to serve in the above capacity were not limited to only serving in that way, with some notably going on to perform miracles and preach the gospel, and Stephen even taking on the Sanhedrin (The Jewish equivalent to a Council of Elders), and unfortunately becoming a martyr as a result. These men served in the ways and capacities they were led by God to serve through the Holy Spirit. This might have ruffled some feathers, but the apostles clearly didn't have any issue with them overstepping their bounds or undermining their "authority." Nor does it say anywhere that the apostles questioned or overruled the choices made by the congregation. The congregation chose the men, and the apostles appointed those who had been chosen, as did Moses.
We could also cite Acts 15: 22-28, where we see that the “whole church” (ekklesia; congregation, assembly) was involved in selecting those who would accompany Paul and Barnabas to Antioch.
“Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to select men from among them to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas called Barsabbas and Silas, two leaders among the brothers…” (vs.22)
As far as the current issue with Dave Meyers post is concerned, I was able to read some of the comments before the post was deleted, as well as some of the comments made on the page of the couple who were put out.
Some of the comments drew attention to the fact that the COGs, in general, do not follow the Biblical procedure as outlined in Matthew 18: 15-17, when handling disputes within the church. Others pointed out passages such as Proverbs 18:17, where we see that it is important to hear both sides of a matter when making a judgment.
The complaint was made that ministers routinely put people out for trivial issues or differences of opinion, rather than for grievous sins, and much of the time these people just disappear with no explanation whatsoever being given to the rest of the congregation, or they are “marked” and the congregation is expected to shun them with no further reasons being given by the ministry, other than they left or were put out, and were “causing division.”
These were no doubt the types of comments Mr. Meyers didn’t like, and why he ended up deleting his original post.
In reading Matthew 18:15-17, we can see that Jesus outlined a specific procedure for handling disputes among brethren within the ekklesia.
1. Go to the person privately and discuss the matter. (vs.15) 2. If that doesn’t resolve the issue, take one or two others along. (vs.16) 3. If that doesn’t work, take it to the church. (ekklesia, or ecclesia)
The problem here is that we have been told that when Jesus says to “take it to the church” He meant to “take it to the minister” and that is how these verses are applied, if they are applied at all. However, if that had truly been what Jesus meant to say, He would have used other words, such as “take it to the presbyteros” (elders) or “take it to the diakonos” (rendered deacon, servant, minister). Instead, He specifically said, “take it to the ekklesia” which is the word He used to delineate the called-out believers who would follow Him, and would include those in leadership positions, but not to the exclusion of the rest of the congregation or body of believers.
It is interesting to note that in ancient culture the term ekklesia didn’t always carry an overtly religious meaning. For instance, the citizens of ancient Greek city-states were called together to form an ekklesia, and this general assembly of citizens performed certain responsibilities within that society.
“The Ekklesia of ancient Athens is particularly well-known. It was the popular assembly, open to all male citizens as soon as they qualified for citizenship.[1] In 594 BC, Solon allowed all Athenian citizens to participate, regardless of class. The assembly was responsible for declaring war, military strategy and electing the strategoi and other officials. It was responsible for nominating and electing magistrates (árchontes), thus indirectly electing the members of the Areopagus. It had the final say on legislation and the right to call magistrates to account after their year of office…” Ecclesia (ancient Greece)
We could surmise then, that the Greeks as well as the Jewish establishment of Jesus’ day would have been familiar with this term in a different context, and Jesus would have no doubt known this when He specifically used this term to describe the “ekklesia” He would build. (Matthew 16:18), or when He outlined the procedure for handling issues that would arise within His body of believers.
Cherry-picking scriptures to the exclusion of others on this issue or imposing a meaning that is foreign to the text itself in order to maintain the status quo, has resulted in an imbalance of governance within the COGs, and has led to an abuse of authority within these groups, as well as others. While we see that there is organization and structure within the body of believers, we can also see that it isn’t without certain checks and balances, when all the scriptures are considered.
Concerned Sister
