A Church Without Elders

Recently I was talking to someone about a small local congregation of about 20-30 members. They have no elders because “none of the men are qualified to be elders” as I was told. However, this same congregation holds regular men’s meetings to direct the affairs of the church. Correct me if I’m wrong, but when a men’s meeting is held to direct the affairs of the church aren’t these men in essence doing the work of a shepherd without having that title? Of course I understand that a shepherd does more than direct the affairs of the church (e.g. shepherding the flock, caring for lost souls, etc.). What I don’t understand is how a man can be unqualified to serve as a shepherd, but at the same time be qualified to make decisions for a congregation in a men’s meeting.

This has lead me to ask the question, “Can a congregation scripturally exist without elders?” During Paul’s first missionary journey he and Barnabas appointed elders in every congregation they established (Acts 14:23). At one point, Paul left Titus in Crete to appoint elders in every city (Titus 1:5). He went on to provide Titus with a list of qualifications to guide in these appointments (Titus 1:6-9). Paul provided Timothy with a similar list so he too could appoint elders when needed (1 Timothy 3:1-7). From these scriptures it is apparent that God intended for elders to oversee every congregation.

Obviously each of these congregations went through a period when they had no elders or else there would be no need to appoint any elders. If Paul had appointed elders in each congregation when he established it then he would not need Titus to finish the work. So a congregation can exist without elders but for how long? Obviously an infant congregation should be training its men to be elders (hopefully under the tutelage of a missionary or supporting congregation). Notice that Paul did not want new converts to serve as elders (1 Timothy 3:6) so a newly established congregation may have to wait for its men to mature in Christ before they are qualified to fill this position (of course the time at which a person is no longer considered a new convert could be debated but we’ll skip that one for now).

But what about an older congregation whose numbers have dwindled to the point that no qualified men are left? Should a dwindling congregation join another congregation once it has no elders? I personally believe that a dwindling congregation with no elders should join a congregation which has elders. Everett Ferguson in The Church of Christ: A Biblical Ecclessiology for Today identifies some of the duties of shepherds as: “manager, administrator, or supervisor,” as well as “someone who [takes] care of the property of another,” “care for the well-being” of and “protect and provide” for the flock. Also note that in Acts 20:28 Paul told the Ephesian elders that the Holy Spirit made them overseers of God’s flock in order to watch out for them. A congregation without elders has no one to fulfill these God-ordained roles and if we choose to maintain congregations without elders then to some degree we are choosing to ignore God’s design for the church. As I stated at the beginning of this paragraph, this is my personal opinion, you can take it as you wish.

The Age of Accountability

From where did the concept of the “Age of Accountability” come? The term is absent in the Scriptures but it is adhered to by the Churches of Christ as if Christ said it himself. In case you are unfamiliar with the phrase let me give you my definition of it. The Age of Accountability refers to the age at which a child leaves the realm of spiritual innocence and becomes responsible for his or her sins. It is typically regarded as the age at which a child understands the difference between right and wrong and therefore can recognize sin. This means that once a child reaches the Age of Accountability he or she must be baptized for the forgiveness of sins (If you are unfamiliar with the theology of the Churches of Christ look here).

Typically children are forcefed baptism when they turn 10 or 11 years old and by the time they are 14 they are expected to be baptized. It is during this age range that people believe children enter this mysterious phase called the Age of Accountability (check out Age of Accountability in this article). As a youth minister I struggle to understand why we push adolescents to make a lifelong commitment to Christ before they are even able to drive a car. No parent would let their child get married when they’re 12 years old because teenagers don’t understand commitment, but when it comes to baptism adults push for these same kids to make a commitment of greater significance than even marriage. How can we expect middle school kids to grasp lifelong commitment to God when they’re going through the most hormonal stage of their lives?

Think about this, by pushing kids to commit to God around the age of 12 we are basically saying that this commitment is less important than driving a car (age 16), graduating high school (age 17), voting for the President or serving in the military (age 18), selecting a college along with an area of study or starting a career (age 18+), receiving auto insurance discounts (age 25), or getting married (the average age of marriage is between 25-27).

I believe that the Age of Accountability developed several decades ago (maybe even several centuries ago) when the age of 13 or 14 years old was considered adulthood. But since the 40s or 50s we’ve developed this thing called adolescence and by doing so we have “dumbified” our children. Adolescence actually allows children to stay immature longer and by creating a prolonged immature atmosphere we have caused our children to delay growing up. Ultimately our culture changed the age of adulthood but the age for baptism never changed with it. Maybe instead of looking for middle schoolers to be baptized we should be looking at high school and college students between the ages of 16-21. If you think about it, this is the age range that a person discovers themselves and begins choosing a direction for life and both of these are factors in becoming a Christian.

Although I disagree with the Age of Acountability and the whole “they should get baptized when the know the difference between right and wrong,” I do believe there is a gauge by which we know when someone can understand the decision to be baptized. This occurs when a person understands 3 concepts: FAITH (i.e. belief put into action; Hebrews 11:1, 6; Ephesians 2:8), REPENTANCE (i.e. giving up your sin; Acts 17:30, 2 Corinthians 7:10), and COMMITMENT (i.e. lifelong faithfulness; Revelation 2:10b). If one can understand these concepts then he or she can truly grasp the significance of their decision to be baptized.

Necessities vs. Conveniences

“Why does no one fast anymore?” About 3 weeks ago a teen in my youth group asked this question and it resulted in a unique challenge. Several members of my youth group took a challenge with me to fast from something for one week. The teens fasted from cell phones, the Internet, sweets, soft drinks, Hollister clothing, talking to boys, listening to music, etc. I wanted them to truly grasp the idea of giving up something important and so for one week I gave up my car. Yes, my car. For one week I forced myself to walk or catch a ride every where I went. I live only a mile and a half from the church building so walking to the office was not difficult, and throughout the week I managed to catch a ride to worship services, to visit the hospital, and to attend a student’s musical. Fasting from my car proved to be easier than I imagined.

What I learned during my fast is the difference between necessity and convenience. There are so many things we view as a necessity for daily living that really are just conveniences. I’ve always viewed my vehicle as a necessity but after surviving an entire week of walking and catching rides without a problem, I’ve come to realize that its really just a convenience. This made me start thinking – what would life be like if we lived just one week on actual necessities with no conveniences? Then I wondered – is it actually possible to survive on necessities alone in urban America or are we too engulfed in conveniences? Compare our environment to that of a third world country and you’ll realize that almost every aspect of our daily lives consists of conveniences. Our showers, toilets, faucets, and all forms of running water are conveniences. Our kitchen appliances and laundry appliances are conveniences. Electricity and all things connected to it are conveniences. Our clothing is a convnience because we didn’t make it. Even the food we have in our kitchens is a convenience because it wasn’t grown, picked, and packaged by us. Let’s take a moment to recognize how blessed we are because we don’t live on necessities but on conveniences.

On a side note, I encourage everyone to consider fasting from something for at least a short time period. The goal of fasting is not prove that your capable of surviving without. Instead, it is to show that you do not need whatever item you give up in order to survive; you only need God to sustain you. Remember, what Jesus said when Satan tempted Him to turn stones into bread – “Man shall not live by bread alone.” Just insert your own noun in place of “bread” and challenge yourself to survive on God alone.

My next fast – eyesight!