Democratic Nonsense

Acts 14: 23 is the key text for those who believe that assemblies can choose their own elders: “And having chosen them elders in each assembly”. The Greek is: ceirotonhsanteV de (“and having chosen”) autoiV (“them”) presbuterouV (“elders”) kat ekklhsian (“in every assembly”). Unfortunately, the AV translates ceirotonhsanteV (“having chosen”) as “ordained”, but this is unwarranted. That the word means no more than choose is clear from the only other occurrence of the word in the NT: “we have sent with him the brother … chosen” (ceirotonhqteV) “by the assemblies as our fellow-traveller” (2 Cor. 8: 18, 19). It would be ludicrous to suggest that Luke (for it is generally supposed to be him that was chosen) needed ecclesiastical ordination to go on a journey!

   The choosing in Acts 14: 23 is by the apostles: “and having chosen them elders”. The context makes clear that it was Paul and Barnabas that chose (see vs. 19, 20), and the pronoun autoiV (“them”) clearly shows that they chose for the assembly. There are absolutely no grounds for introducing a democratic principle, as if the assemblies chose their own elders. Some make much of the meaning of ceirotonhsanteV (“having chosen”) as referring originally to a show of hands but that is an irrelevant side-track. Certainly, ceirotonhsanteV may literally mean to stretch out the hand (especially in voting), but words constantly evolve, and by Paul’s day it had long been used simply to express choice or appointment. Even if any did vote by stretching out their hands, such action would be limited to the apostles—ceirotonhsanteV refers to the voter himself, and never means choosing by the votes of others. To argue that the apostles acted as moderators for an election (or collected the votes) is a perversion of the plain sense of the text. The apostles chose elders for the assembly (or the apostles voted—it makes no difference); the assembly did not choose (or vote for) the elders. The selection was entirely by the apostles—and there are no grounds for supposing that the assembly even influenced the choice.

   What the assembly is responsible to do (particularly now that the apostolic authority to appoint has gone), is to “know those who labour among you, and take the lead among you in [the] Lord, and admonish you, and to regard them exceedingly in love on account of their work” (1 Thess. 5: 12, 13, my emphasis). This is said to an assembly in which there is no record of elders ever being officially appointed (and nor can the passage be confined to elders). However, it is clear that the Thessalonians were to recognise moral qualification for leadership where they saw it and to let such get on with their vital work. This has nothing to do with appointing individuals to official roles, but simply acknowledging the distinct qualities that may exist by the Holy Spirit in a fellow-believer. Seeing those qualities ought to impact my relationship with him—not in a servile way, but as subjecting oneself to what another has been given by God. Those who insist on the use of the ballot box to appoint elders have forgotten that it is the Holy Spirit that sets elders in the assembly (see Acts 20: 28). Clearly, resorting to unspiritual means is unlikely to have a good outcome. Of course, some will say that their voting is merely the expression of what they have come to spiritually, but such claims to spirituality fall away when the Word of God is added to in this way.

   Finally, (and from another perspective) there may be one who himself “aspires to exercise oversight” (1 Tim. 3: 1). As the apostle says, “he desires a good work”—a work, not a title. That work can still be done in a quiet, unassuming way today, even if there now be none to confer the title officially.