Accountability of Elders and Deacons

[blhowes]

Tit 1:5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:

Paul told Titus to ordain elders in the cities of Crete who met the qualifications described in verses 6 and following.

When he left one city to go establish a church in another city, what do you think was the relationship between the elders (ie, the church and the elders) he left behind and Titus. Were they accountable to Titus, or were they independent when Titus left and only accountable to Jesus?

As the churches grew, I'm sure there was a need for deacons, who I presume were ordained by the elders. What's the difference (if any) between the accountability expected between the deacons and the elders and what was expected between the elders and Titus?

Any thoughts?

 

[Dan....]

Bob,

Titus was an evangelist.

In Ephesians 4:11 the Apostle lists the teaching offices of the church:
Apostles
Prophets
Evangelist
Pastors and Teachers

The scriptures explicitly show Timothy (2 Tim 4:5) and Philip (Acts 21:8) to hold this office.

When we consider Paul's letters to Timothy with Paul's letter to Titus, we deduce that Titus must have held a similar office as did Timothy (Compare 1 Tim 1:3 to Titus 1:5).

John Owen, in his Works, aptly examines the relationship between the offices of the church.

I now refer you to a previous thread concerning the office of evangelist (and highly recommend reading Owen on the issue, Volume IV).....

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=1011#pid11513

[Edited on 16-10-2004 by Dan....]

 

[blhowes]

Dan,
Thanks for your response and the link.

I don't have Owen's writings about Ephesians 4, but assuming he's correct about the office of the evangelist ending after the apostolic times, it prompts another question.

I'm trying to see the authority structure in the scriptures and how that compares to the church structure(s) today. Let's assume that the churches that were established by Titus were indeed accountable to Titus and the apostles and were not set up as independent churches, accountable only to Jesus. Since the offices of apostle and evangelist ended after the apostolic times, who would those appointed elders be accountable to after the apostles and evangelists died?

[Edited on 16-10-2004 by blhowes]

 

[JohnV]

Bob:
When the Apostles did anything it seems that they did it together with the elders, and even the people. There seems to be a mutuality involved in these matters which does not undermine the positions of authority, but rather upholds them. For example the appointing of the twelfth apostle was an action of the entire assembly, and not a unilateral action by the apostles themselves. Same with the Jerusalem Council; they sought the approval of the people, but the decisions were made by the whole of the eldership, and not just the apostles. And this is one occasion when we would think that Paul and Peter, with their Christ-given and representative office would dictate the Biblical answer that they already had, both of them. Here we would think that they would speak with Christ's authority on the matter.

I think that this mutuality is very important. Even the least of our brethren's input should be considered carefully. We should not judge people by the character that we know them for. Each one has a real relationship with Christ, and each one carries the gifts that Christ has given. Rulership by those who are "in the know" is a very dangerous business. But so is membership by rote confession. The key is that we must be more carefull to understand what the characteristics of true spirituality are.

I would think that the relationship of the elders to Timothy and Titus was of the same sort as we see in the Jerusalem Council and at the Upper Room, one of respecting the individual relationships with Christ, as well as respecting the the positions of leadership established by Christ. Titus and Timothy would not see themselves as more than servants in their capacities, and the authority given them would be more humbling than that of being the next generation apostolic office. Even the first generation did not exert that kind of authority that lorded it over those whom Christ also called His own.

 

[blhowes]

Originally posted by JohnV
I would think that the relationship of the elders to Timothy and Titus was of the same sort as we see in the Jerusalem Council and at the Upper Room, one of respecting the individual relationships with Christ, as well as respecting the positions of leadership established by Christ.

John,
Excellent thoughts (as always). I think what interests me most is focusing on the last thing you wrote in the above quote - "the positions of leadership established by Christ". While there is to be an attitude of love and mutual respect among all Christians, there's also an established authority structure. What authority structure did Christ establish for His church? Where does each individual church fit into that overall structure?

Often we hear of missionaries "planting churches". Using the plant analogy, when a new church is planted, should they be considered to be new plants that grow separately, or would it be better to consider them as new branches attached to the main trunk.

As you know, I come from a Baptist background, where one of their distinctives is the autonomy and independence of the local church, expressed as follows (borrowed from http://www.firstbaptistchurchoc.org/beliefs.htm):

AUTONOMY AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE LOCAL CHURCH
A Baptist Church is independent and governs, itself...A New Testament Church is independent of all popes, bishops, councils, conventions, associations, synods, conferences, or civil governments and its agencies that would seek to exert control over its operations and functions. Baptist Churches seek to conduct their affairs as the Lord directs through the Holy Spirit because Christ alone is the Head of the Church. Acts 15:1-30, Matt. 18:15-17

In thinking about the relationship that exists between Baptist churches and the rest of the body of Christ, vs that of Presbyterian churches and the rest of the body, I'm looking to the relationship between Titus and the elders to try and see which church model makes the most sense biblically. Did Titus appoint elders in the churches, make sure the churches were strong enough to "live on their own", and then expect them to live and function as an independent church when they were ready?

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by JohnV
I would think that the relationship of the elders to Timothy and Titus was of the same sort as we see in the Jerusalem Council and at the Upper Room, one of respecting the individual relationships with Christ, as well as respecting the the positions of leadership established by Christ. Titus and Timothy would not see themselves as more than servants in their capacities, and the authority given them would be more humbling than that of being the next generation apostolic office. Even the first generation did not exert that kind of authority that lorded it over those whom Christ also called His own.

John,
I agree with this assessment. The relationship of Titus and Tim can be comfortably reconciled through the scaffolding errected here, and in the book af Acts. From what I have read, churches never functioned autonomously. There was always someone to answer to officially

My 1 cent.

[Edited on 10-17-2004 by Scott Bushey]

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

If there is no official office, then you have a problem surrounding authority. Authority, with "elected" officials becomes voluntary. It takes God's ordained authority out of the picture.

 

[JohnV]

Scott:

I agree with what you said about accountability. Just because the Apostles were the chief authority, the very ones ordained by Christ Himself, and with whom the Pentecost outouring was original, that doesn't mean that they did not see themselves as being under some kind of mutual oversight, and of the appointed elders, and even of the people of the new church.

Bob:

AUTONOMY AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE LOCAL CHURCH
A Baptist Church is independent and governs, itself...A New Testament Church is independent of all popes, bishops, councils, conventions, associations, synods, conferences, or civil governments and its agencies that would seek to exert control over its operations and functions. Baptist Churches seek to conduct their affairs as the Lord directs through the Holy Spirit because Christ alone is the Head of the Church. Acts 15:1-30, Matt. 18:15-17

I am not familiar with the Baptist view of authority, except from what I read here on the Board. I wouldn't think that a renegade church would go without some kind of warning or action from fellow Baptist churches. Even if it is just a cessation of relationship, whether formal or informal, that is some kind of action.

As far as self-government is concerned, Presbyterians do the same thing. It is not that Presbytery rules or governs a local church; the elders of that church do that. But Presbytery does have jurisdiction to rule in cases of dispute or in cases of failure in the eldership to rule according to God's Word. From your description this part is missing from the Baptist system of government in the formal sense.

As you can see, I am being careful about this. I don't want to say that Baptists don't practice accountability, for that is to say that they all do what is right in their own eyes. Because we all know faithful Baptists, we have to acknowledge also that somehow Christ is accounted for in their leadership. Though the system may be incomplete, in the eyes of the Presbyterian, yet there must be some kind of accountability there, even if its informal. If there is even one church that has remained faithful up to the next generation, there has been accountability there in one form or another, even if its not in the formal system of government. So I am not going to say that there is no accountability, for there must be some. The question I would have is why it is not regulated within the sytem of government as it is in the Presbyterian system?

The Baptist churches cannot have broader ecclesiastical bodies if they do not recognize that there is at least some authority resident in it. It seems to me that the quote you gave is to be understood as being a statement against formal sacerdotalism, like the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches. If they see that the Presbyterian system is like these then it is a misunderstanding of the system, and they don't see the necessary partial presbyterial system they themselves have, even if its unofficial.

Otherwise we are left with the authority of the pastor being just the very thing that the above quote rejects. If he has no authority over himself but himself, then he himself is the very incarnation of the authority that the system will have nothing to do with. Some churches have a board of elders, and some a board of deacons, but whatever they are called, if they have oversight of the pastor, then that authority which the system rejects is in them. Without accountability of some kind there is only sacerdotalism of the dictatorial kind. And if the elders or deacons are willing to submit to accountability to the congregation, and they know of other Baptist churches in the area, then they actually have an informal Presbyterial system, in part.

But, as you know, I also know of the Presbyterian system being abused. This is not a flaw in the system, though. Rather it is a flaw in the practice of it. In my case the system is being abused to excuse certain activities. The conventional use of the system has allowed things to go little by little until is becomes convention to do some variant things. So when it goes over the line few really notice. In my case it was a very little church in which the doctrines of man were being imposed on the membership, namely me, since I was the only one that didn't agree with those notions. They wanted to form the church after their views of secondary issues.

So the sytsem is being tried right now to see what kind of authority has rulership. I have no qualms about my own state before my Maker, and I have no reservations about standing against the imposition or equating of the doctrines of man to the Confessional Standards. Three membership testimonials of my family have been lost, vanishing into thin air; we were verbally pushed out of fellowship, and we have been denied the basic rights of membership. But the system thinks that a ruling by the GA that some views are not contrary to the Confessions is the same as saying that the Confessions teach them, if the preacher thinks it does.

It is here where the Presbyerian system is tried. Does a minister have the authority to teach as he sees fit? Or does he have to stay within the Confessional norms?

Though I think that the Baptist system, as you stated above, is not right, I also know that the Presbyterian system has fallen on hard times. Just know this, that it is not the system that has failed in my case, but rather it is the failure to abide by it that has caused the problems.

Although I don't know the Baptist churches, is the kind of thing that is happening to me occurring frequently in the Baptist churches? If not, then there must be some kind of accountability. And if there is some kind, then there ought to be rules and regulations concerning that accountability; and if there are none, then it is by convention rather than by formal government that oversight is practiced. But the practice of it must be somewhere if heavy-handed authority is not a big problem in the Baptist system. But whatever is done, it ought to be done regulatively, and not willy-nilly.

[Edited on 17-10-2004 by JohnV]

 

[blhowes]

Originally posted by JohnV
As you can see, I am being careful about this. I don't want to say that Baptists don't practice accountability, for that is to say that they all do what is right in their own eyes. Because we all know faithful Baptists, we have to acknowledge also that somehow Christ is accounted for in their leadership. Though the system may be incomplete, in the eyes of the Presbyterian, yet there must be some kind of accountability there, even if its informal.

Just like the Presbyterian system, the Baptist system seems to work fine as long as you have godly men in the leadership positions who are prayerfully seeking God and his will for the local church. I've never seen an abuse of the system by the leaders of the churches I've attended, so its difficult to say how well the system works when there are "accountability issues".

Over the years, I've seen the church take disciplinary action against some and the people were basically kicked out of the church until they repented of their sins. In all of the cases, as far as I know, the allegations were valid and the actions taken scriptural. I don't know what recourse somebody who has been wrongly accused and kicked out of a baptist church has, other than to go back to the pastor/elders/deacons and restate their case. If I understand it correctly, a person in the Presbyterian system can appeal the decision to another "governing body" outside of the church.

Originally posted by JohnV
It seems to me that the quote you gave is to be understood as being a statement against formal sacerdotalism, like the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches. If they see that the Presbyterian system is like these then it is a misunderstanding of the system, and they don't see the necessary partial presbyterial system they themselves have, even if its unofficial.

As I've said before, the puritanboard is a wonderful place to learn and you guys must be great with crossword puzzles. ...After looking up the word 'sacerdotalism', I'd have to say that, from my experience, that's not how the Presbyterian system is viewed by Baptists. However, those who don't go beyond what they hear may come to that conclusion (though I don't know of anybody who did) because of "guilt by association" when Presbyterians are linked to catholics via infant baptism.

Lately, I've been interested in learning more about the Presbyterian system of government to understand how it works and how its supported by the scriptures. As time allows...

[Edited on 18-10-2004 by blhowes]