February 2003

 

            When we think of Christianity, we often infer part of our culture into our beliefs without realizing that it is foreign to the Scriptures.  This becomes evident when we think of appointing people into places of authority.  Most Christians have come to accept the democratic form of appointing people to places of power- where the people chose who to vote for, each casts their ballot, and the majority vote wins.  It sounds so politically correct, but is it?  When we elect anyone, we do it based on bias.  If we were honest with ourselves, we would conclude that not only does each one of us have a bias, but that our bias is the best bias to be bias with.  For should you disagree, we all know that the reason why your bias should differ from mine is because your bias is not as perfected as my bias is.  Assuming that this is a common thread of all humanity, when we vote we cast our vote based on having similar biases; always preventing people of dissimilar biases from getting in.  This is counter productive to the church as we surround ourselves with similar theology, preventing if not excommunicating those who should challenge us to a more Biblical walk with God then we are comfortable with.

For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.  They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. (2Ti.4:3-4)

When calling a pastor or teacher, we always chose those who will teach a palatable message.  When electing an elder or president, we always chose those of similar bias lest we be challenged beyond our comfort zone.  Instead of aspiring to the will of God in the Bible, we are spiraling downward to the median comfort zone of the majority.  In the end, democracy is no better then what the people of Israel experienced at the end of Judges:

In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit. (Jud.21:25)

You might argue that democracy does not allow everyone to do as they see fit.  However, in democracy we elect people “who we think will do as we see fit.”  A friend who was pastor of a church once asked me, “Why is it that the people nominated as elders are usually too busy to go to the midweek prayer meeting, but those who faithfully attend the midweek prayer meeting are never nominated for an eldership position?”  I answered him by telling the story of Samuel trying to anoint one of Jesse’s sons as king.  He looked at the first son of Jesse and was going to anoint him, when we read:

But the LORD said to Samuel, `Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart." (1Sa.16:7)

When we elect by democratic process, we judge by outward appearances and personal bias; but only God knows the heart.  In the end, we have people affirming that we are the embodiment of truth, but in reality, have achieved nothing more than that of the church of Laodicea:

I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other!  So, because you are lukewarm— neither hot nor cold— I am about to spit you out of my mouth.  You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.  I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see.  Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent.  Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.  To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne.  Rev.3:15-21

The end result of the democratic process is the opinion that since we all agree, then we must be where God desires us to be. Realistically, when really by the due process we have isolated ourselves from Christ himself.  For in the letter to the Laodiceans, Jesus is on the outside of his church asking to come in.  Therefore the democratic process has harmed the church.  Let us consider the Biblical method to place God’s people into leadership positions.

 

            The alternative to the democratic process is to have leadership appoint people to leadership.  However this again limits us to the bias of the leadership as they will only appoint people of like mind.  The only difference between this and democracy is in the former the flow is from the top down while in the later the flow is from the bottom up.  The method is still the same, the only difference is that when the leadership appoints the democracy it is limited by smaller numbers.  The real question is whether man should chose their own leaders?  I have no problem with the head of the church appointing those in leadership position, but who is head of the church?

Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. (1Co.11:3)

The church was never meant to run as a democracy; really, it is supposed to be a theocracy- Christ being the head of the church:

And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church,  which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.  (Eph.4:22-23)

Theocracy is a monarchy based system.  This is clearly evident when we read:

Jason has welcomed them into his house. They are all defying Caesar's decrees, saying that there is another king, one called Jesus." (Ac 17:7)

We have lost the concept of king, as those kings who exist today are mere figure-heads without real power.  In Jesus’ day, the king was supreme in authority, not having to answer to anyone.  King Herod, when he felt his position was being threatened, killed all the male babies who were two years and younger.  Just to appease the Jews, his son, also called Herod, killed the apostle James.  In the same way, kings appointed those who they want without answering to any one.  I believe that our king Jesus needs to be included in the process of appointing leaders in the Church.  The only place in scripture where we find a process of chosing people to leadership is found in Acts 1:

“Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us.  For  one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.  So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas(also known a Justus) and Matthius.  Then they prayed, ‘Lord, you know everyone’s heart.  Show us which  of these two you have chosen to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.’    Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.” (Acts  1:21-26)

Therefore let us consider the lessens that can be learned from the only New Testament example on electing leadership.  These we will break into distinct steps.

 

The first step, there has to be a necessity for the position either by scriptural command, as in the replacing of Judas:

For," said Peter, "it is written in the book of Psalms, "‘May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,’ and, "‘May another take his place of leadership.’  Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men   (Ac.1:20-21)

It could also be because of some practical need as in the case of deacons where there was a need as some widows were being overlooked.  It does not say whether the  method they used was the same method as in Acts 1:

“In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Grecian Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food.   …       Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.” (Acts 6:1,3)

The second step, there always has to be specific criteria on which people are nominated for an office.  Thus in the two previous scriptures the qualifications are italicized.  The Bible gives very specific qualifications for elders and deacons in 1Timothy 3 and Titus 1 (by which men are nominated).  Hence, if the Bible gives and qualification for the office, one must abide within them:

Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not take pride in one man over against another. (1Co.4:6)

The nomination process is not the same as an election process.  Here we are looking at the criteria and proposing those people we feel meet the criteria.  When replacing Judas, only two men were proposed: Joseph called Barsabbas(also known a Justus) and Matthius; but what if there are more then two people nominated?  Or even more importantly, can a person be considered nominated by just one person or are more required?  The Bible teaches us that two witnesses are adequate testimony while three are abundant testimony.

This will be my third visit to you. "Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses." (2Co.13:1)

In order for a nomination to be established, I would recommend abundant testimony of three witnesses, rather then the adequate testimony of two.

 

The third step is to set a time of examination in which those who are nominated are publicly announced.  It is comprised of two parts.  First, one must open the question to the people, “Is there is any reason why one of the nominees should not hold office?”  We find this aspect clearly defined in the criteria for deacons:

They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons. (1Ti.3:10)

The reason for examination is because many people have a public image and a private reality as to who they are.  Most times, very few people are let into this private realm, which if known to the masses sometimes would prevent them from office.  At this stage, the people can come to the committee overseeing the process and bring these matters in strictest confidence before them.  It is also during this time that the nominees examine their hearts to see if they feel called by God to serve in this position.  When the set time for examination is over, the committee then proceeds to the second part: acceptance.  The committee meets with each one nominated to see if they would accept their nomination for that position.  They accept not only authority, but must accept the responsibility for that position.  For this reason, we read concerning elders:

Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. (1Ti.3:1)

You  do not want is someone in an office position who has no heart for the work.  It is here where a person either lets his name stand or else removes it.  However, when the committee meets with a nominee, if any serious concerns were manifested by the examination process, it can be addressed at this meeting.  If at this meeting the nominee declines, or the committee as a whole feels that this person’s character disqualifies them from office, they will not be a candidate.  This decision must be reached with the committee and the nominee and is done in the strictest confidence so that if in either case he does not become a candidate, the public has no knowledge as to whether he declined or whether the committee had serious concerns.  Once the committee has a list of candidates for the positions, it is to be publicly posted.

 

The fourth step is vital throughout the whole process, but is considered a step as it is collectively done for a set time by all the people: prayer.  It was after Joseph called Barsabbas and Matthius were proposed that we read

Then they prayed, ‘Lord, you know everyone’s heart.  Show us which  of these two you have chosen to take over this apostolic ministry,  (Ac.1:24)

Here we begin in an acknowledgment that only God knows the heart with both its motives and attitudes:

For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.  Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight.  Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account. (He.4:12-13)

In prayer, we also acknowledge him as head of the body for which you are seeking leaders:

You do not have, because you do not ask God.  When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures. (Ja.4:2-3)

Finally, we seek direction as to who God wants to hold office, committing the next step of the process to him. 

 

The fifth step is in the casting of the lots where God reveals His will concerning whom He desires to serve in this way.

Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles. (Ac.1:26)

Often people mock me when I suggest the casting of lots because they do not want to relinquish their authority in the church back to God.  The Bible is clear that God speaks through lots:

“The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.” (Pro.16:33)

You want Barsabbas, I want Matthias, and so the politics begin.  However, it is written:

“Casting the lot settles disputes and keeps strong opponents apart.” (Pro.18:18)

Many would argue that we now have the Holy Spirit; we no longer need the casting of lots as in Acts 1.  I disagree, for Jesus gave them the Spirit prior to his ascension:

Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you."  And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. (Jn.20:21-22)

Christ also opened their minds so the apostles could understand scriptural prophecy, which revealed that Judas was to be replaced:

Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. (Lk.24:45)

If anything today convinces me that very few churches are actually controlled by the Spirit, it is the process of deciding leaders.  How is it ,that if there be one Spirit, there can be so many opinions in one church?  But not just opinions; for how can churches split, some fractions refusing to speak to other fractions, both claiming to be controlled by the Holy Spirit?  Is there not “one Spirit”; then why the two opinions?  Is one side wrong or do both sides share the blame?  If there be one Spirit, and we need only one elder, why are four men nominated?  Someone has to be out of touch with God. There is nothing so disruptive in the church as to have an “us” and “them” attitude.  We want only “us” in the eldership and none of “them”; however, which “us” or  “them”, is the Lord’s choice?  The Bible claims that it was the Holy Spirit who controlled the choice of an elder. 

“Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers”(Acts 20:28)

The Holy Spirit made them overseers, which are elders, but what was the process?  Paul wrote Titus saying:

“The reason why I left you on Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.” (Tit.1:5)

The Greek word interpreted as “appoint” is “kathistemi” meaning “to set or appoint to a place of authority”.  We find this word used in describing the duties of a high priest:

“Every high priest is selected from among men and is appointed to represent them in matters related to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins.” (Heb.5:1, note 8:3)

It is important to understand how the high priest was appointed since the same word is used for the appointing of elders:  When a man was caught gathering wood on the Sabbath, Moses had the assembly of Israel stone him.  Korah, Dathan, Abiram and 250 respected men told Moses and Aaron that they had gone too far, and asked them why they had set themselves above the rest of Israel.  God had the ground open and swallow Korah, Dathan and Abiram and all that belonged to them,  as well as fire came from the Lord and burned up their 250 followers.  The very next day the whole Israelite community accused Moses and Aaron of killing the Lord’s people, so God sent a plague that killed 14,700 people.  Then we read:

“The Lord says to Moses, ‘Speak to the Israelites and get twelve staffs from them, one from the leader of each of their ancestral tribes.  Write the name of each man on his staff.  On the staff of Levi write Aaron’s name, for there must be one staff for the head of each ancestral tribe.  Place them in the Tent of Meeting in front of the testimony, where I meet with you.  The staff belonging to the man I choose will sprout, and I will rid myself of this constant grumbling against you by the Israelites.’    As Moses spoke to the Israelites, and their leaders gave him twelve staffs, one for the leader of each of their ancestral tribes, and Aaron’s staff was among them.  Moses placed the staffs before the Lord in the Tent of the Testimony.  The next day Moses entered the Tent of the Testimony and saw Aaron’s staff, which represented the house of Levi, had not only sprouted but had budded, blossomed and produced almonds.  Then Moses brought out all the staffs from the Lord’s presence to all the Israelites.  They looked at them, and each man took his own staff.    The Lord said to Moses, ‘Put back Aaron’s staff in front of the Testimony, to be kept as a sign to the rebellious.  This will put an end to their grumbling against me, so that they will not die.  Moses did just as the Lord  commanded him.  The Israelites said to Moses, ‘We will die!  We are lost, we are all lost!” (Nu.17:1-12)

The main problem that Moses had, just as we have, is to convince the people that this is the person that the Lord has chosen.  That he moves with the authority of God.  Aaron’s family continued to multiply, posed the question of who will serve as high priest?  The answer of which we read:

“With the help of Zadok a descendant of Eleazar and Ahimelech a descendant of Ithamar, David separated them into divisions for their appointed order of ministering.   ...   They divided them impartially by drawing lots, for there were officials of the sanctuary and officials of God among the descendants of both Eleazar and Ithamar.   ...   The first lot fell to Jehoiarib, the second to Jedaiah...    This was their appointed order of ministering when they entered the temple of the Lord, according to the regulations prescribed for them by their forefather Aaron, as the Lord, the God of Israel, had commanded him.  They also cast lots, just as their brothers the descendants of Aaron did, in the presence of King David and of Zadok, Ahimelech, and the heads of families of the priests and of the Levites. The families of the oldest brother were treated the same as those of the youngest. (1 Chr.24:3,5,7,19&31)

In the appointing of high priests, they had to have the criteria of being of the priestly lineage.  In the appointing of Judas’ replacement, the men had to meet the criteria of being with Jesus from John’s baptism through the resurrection.  In the appointing of deacons, they had to meet the criteria of being full of the Spirit and wisdom.  In the previous scripture, in the appointing of elders, a man must meet the criteria of an elder as found in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, having the gift of pastor.  The men had to meet the criteria for their position before they could draw the lot, but it was God who appointed them through the casting of a lot. One of the duties that a priest was to perform was the burning of incense:

“Aaron must burn fragrant incense on the altar every morning when he tends the lamps.  He must burn incense again when he lights the lamps at twilight so incense will burn regularly before the Lord for the generations to come.  Do not offer on this altar any other incense or any burnt offering or grain offering, and do not pour a drink offering on it.” (Ex.30:7-9)

Only the  appointed high priest(He.5:1)  was to burn incense on the altar. The verse uses the same word as in Titus to appoint elders, yet how were they appointed? 

“Once when Zechariah’s division was on duty and he was serving as priest before God, he was chosen by lot, according to the custom of the priesthood, to go into the temple of the Lord and burn incense.  And when the time for the burning of incense came, all the assembled worshippers were praying outside.  Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing on the right side of the altar of incense.  When Zechariah saw him, he was startled and was gripped with fear.” (Lk.1:8-12)

The “appointing” of a priest to burn incense on the altar of incense, and Titus’ “appointing” of elders is the same Greek word.  Historically the lot was the Biblical method for appointing people to positions of power.  I believe the correct way to do this is by lot in a “Yes” or “No” method similar to the Urim and the Thummim.  One method is to have two stones in a pouch that are similar in size and physical appearance, one white and the other black.  The nominee draws one stone out: white means yes while black means no.  In this way, if all nominees draw a black stone, then God is saying that, as with Samuel, we are looking at external appearances and we need to consider the heart.  On the other hand, if we need only three elders, yet four draw white stones, God is telling us that in the future we will need the extra elder.  However, if you have multiple people for one position such as president, then I would use a method similar to drawing straw where say you have three candidates for one position.  Take four Bibles and place a slip of paper in one Bible, the man who draws the Bible with the slip has been chosen by God.  If no one chooses the Bible with the slip, then like Samuel you have overlooked the one God has called in the nominating process.  Therefore, the lot places the appointing back into the hands of God and out of the hands of men with their political agendas, no matter how good they appear.

 

The sixth step is the actual installing of a person in a position of authority.  Those who are in authority place their hands on the ones coming in, granting them the authority of office.  We read of this first with Moses and Joshua:

So the LORD said to Moses, "Take Joshua son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay your hand on him.  Have him stand before Eleazar the priest and the entire assembly and commission him in their presence.Give him some of your authority so the whole Israelite community will obey him.  …       Then he laid his hands on him and commissioned him, as the LORD instructed through Moses. (Nu.27:18-20&23)

When the seven men were chosen as deacons, the apostles laid their hands on them granting them the authority of office.

This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism.  They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them. (Ac.6:5-6)

Therefore, the final step in the process is completed in the laying on of hands by which the person then has all the authority of office.

 

            The greatest fear that prevents churches from implementing this change is that God might chose someone of differing bias then us, which will affect our church.  However, if we do not break the trend that the democratic process has started in the churches, then we will continue in the downward degradation of the church.  For as the church becomes more liberal, more liberal people join the church.  Having more liberal people in the church, they are able to out vote people holding a more Biblical position, causing a more liberal agenda being promoted in the church.  This attracts more liberal people into the church who vote liberal people into positions of power.  These empower more liberal people as teachers and pastors which attract more liberal people into the church.  …….                   Is there any wonder how homosexuals were allowed to preach in the pulpit?  Therefore, let us return the church back to God’s rule, by nominating men according to Biblical criteria, going through both the examination and acceptance process, setting aside a time of prayer for divine guidance, then finally letting God appoint his men according to the casting of lots.