I do agree that cheirotoneo has come to take on several different meanings over time. And, that one of those meanings is “to appoint with the approval of an assembly that chooses”. I am not standing alone in this, as I listed in my previous comment others before me have said likewise,

As for Acts 6, where does it say the word “approval” in the text? Bless you brother but that is isogetic.

As we don’t live in the days of the apostles, apostolic appointments are not an option. What we are left with to guide us is their example. Which is exemplified in Acts 6, and in every verse of Scripture where they show this same condescending to the people.

1 Cor 16:3 When I arrive, whomever you may approve, I will send them with letters to carry your gift to Jerusalem;

2 Cor 4:5 ourselves as your bondservants,

2 Cor 8:8 I am not speaking this as a command,

1 Cor 7:6 this I say by way of concession not command,

Phil 1:8,9 Therefore, though I have enough confidence in Christ to order you to do what is proper, yet for love’s sake I rather appeal to you-

1Thes 2:6 nor did we seek glory from men, either from you or from others, even though as apostles of Christ we might have asserted our authority.

It is pride that would say, “We the superior know what is best for you”. Paul was not that sort. Even though it certainly was true of him that he was superior in wisdom and grace (as is also true of godly elders today) yet by respecting the people, letting them choose, he edified them. (I’m not talking self-esteem nonsense) it actualy forced them to mature or to take ownership of their own maturing.

Yes, it is of utmost importance that leadership know how to put their foot down when it’s necessary, but beyond that it is a Biblical principle of leadership, exemplified in the Apostles, that of respecting the people and not lording it over them.

You are obviously quoting from J.I Packer’s article in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (“cheirotoneo” vol. 1, p. 478). Your quote does not do justice to the semantical range that Packer presents: “From this the verb came to mean appoint,” and, “In Acts 14:23 it refers to the appointment by Barnabas and Paul of elders in the Galatian churches; from whence, apparently, it became the standard term for ordination.” The verb’s pro-compound appears in Acts 10:41, and it “signifies God’s appointment of the apostles, prior to Jesus’ resurrection, to be witnesses of that event.” I don’t think God appoints “with the approval of an assembly that chooses” (your quote).

All that is to say that its semantical range is greater than simply “vote” or “appoint by vote” or “show of hands.” As both Bauer and Packer indicate, it can mean a few other things, all dependent on context, not etymology.

In Acts 6, the men were brought before the apostles for approval after the congregation selected them. Regardless, this text does not prescribe how we select elders – the men selected are administrative servants (who may have been the forerunners to deacons), not elders.

Based on what you said, “By involvement, I did not mean democratic involvement. I have no problem with an elders’ team that appoints the leadership so long as the congregation is given oppertunity to scripturally examine the recommended leadership prior to the actual appointment”. I would believe that we are essentially in agreement.

But seriously, if you don’t have a show of hands how do you know if the congregation approves? Or, are you not suggesting that it receive their approval but that it is a mere formality, they intend to impose their elder on the people regardless of their concerns.

In Acts 6 it doesn’t say that the apostles had the final say it merely says the apostles prayed and laid their hands on them (thereby acknowledging the people’s choice).

In Titus 1:5 just because Paul instucted Titus to put elders in place and gave him the information with which to do so, does not have to mean that Titus did this in complete disregard of the people. As Robertson’s, Barnes, Gill, and the People’s New Testament commentaries note.

And for Act 14:23 as you mentioned the semantic range of “cheirotoneo” is broader than simply “appointed by vote”. I would agree it also includes “to appoint with the approval of an assembly that chooses”. (New Testament Word Pictures)

As to voting in the Greek culture, The NIV Theo Dict. for 5936 Cherotoneo -to vote or elect by a show of hands, as was regularly done in the Athenian assembly.

Writing into a Church constitution that the elders appoint elders and that without the agreement of the congregation is a recipe for disaster. It may work wonderfully for some years or even for a few generations in a healthy church like Grace Community but the Biblical recognized understanding that power has a corrupting tendency will eventually be realized.

The current Elders get a mistaken idea into their heads and then only appoint elders who agree with their idea. And thereby hijack the church. Even if the congregtion gets a final say, if the elders never put forward someone who opposes their idea the church is still hijacked. The church should be in on the process from the start and be able to recommed eldership appointees.

Again, ultimately the people will have the say as to who their eldership is. They may have to vote with their feet, and this is not to be looked at as a bad thing if the Church is going apostate. Because of this people often get the leadership they deserve whether good or bad.

Also, Coenen’s article in the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (“Bishop” in vol. 1, esp. p.196) seems to contradict your view of the role of elders in the first century synagogues. His comments on elders’ roles in the ANE, Greco-Roman culture, and the OT are also very telling. I am curious to know from what source you got your background information.

The semantical range of cheirotoneo is broader than simply “appointed by vote” (Bauer, 1083), regardless of how Young translates it.

Sorry to hear your church has had such a hard time with pastors.

Thanks for the reply. I, however, disagree with you. Yes, I do believe the congregation needs to be involved in the selection of deacons and elders. By involvement, I did not mean democratic involvement. I have no problem with an elders’ team that appoints the leadership so long as the congregation is given oppertunity to scripturally examine the recommended leadership prior to the actual appointment.

With regards to Acts 6, the apostles had the final say (v.6), not the congregation. It is interesting that it is not the congregation that appoints in both Titus 1:5 and Acts 14:23.

The democratic process of voting in leadership is not something the Church has taken from the culture, but quite the contrary, our Western culture got it from the Church. The Jewish synagogues from which the NT Church took it’s model was democratic in nature, and the NT model shows in Acts 6:3-5 the democratic process taking place.

Also, the Young’s Literal Translation translates Acts 14;23 and 2 Cor 8:19 as “appointed by vote”. Because he believes that the word ‘cheirotoneo’ means as Strong’s agrees, “to be a hand reacher or voter (by raising the hand)”. Yes, I understand that the etymology of a word does not necessarily determine it’s meaning, but in this case the Greek word is consistent with a Greek culture that practiced voting.

We had for a short time a very challenging pastor who was intent on making the church a Willow Creek associate, was reading Emergent authors and was, through lack of discernment, enabling the Church to fall into the hands of the New Apostolic Reformation proponents. (We’ve seen it all). He also was promoting Strauch’s idea that the elders should be appointed NOT voted. Could you imagine what his appointing elders for our church would have done?

Ultimately of course, whether the sheep get to vote or not, they ARE going to vote! albeit, with their feet.

The congregational/elder-led balance I believe represents the Biblical model. Like so many things in the Christian life (eg. wives submitting to their husbands) the congregational/elder-led balance is going to look a little different in each church (as the degrees and areas of submission does in each home), but it is going to be there if it’s Biblical

Vince
It is NOT a given that women communicate differntly. Perhaps, one could say that ‘usually’ or ‘most’ women communicate different than men. But, I have been fooled myself. Before I learned to consider the author before reading a book, I had read a good portion of a rather lengthy book before deciding to look at the author’s name and recall being quite surprised to find that it was a woman, because I too was sure that I would have immediately recognized a woman author. I too would be less interested in reading a book if I knew the author was female. But, it is for that very reason that I will often sign a comment with an initial in place of my first name, because I don’t want to be written off merely because of my gender. And I have to chuckle when people respond to my comments assuming I am male.

Thanks for the article. I found it helpful. I do see that Scripture gives more authority to elders than to the congregation. Nevertheless, as is usually the case, excesses exist in both camps.

In my opinion, the congregation needs to be involved somehow in (1) selection of elders and deacons, (2) disciplinary issues, and (3) changes to the official doctrinal confession of the church. At the same time, the elders need enough authority and freedom to lead, guard, and oversee the congregation without interferance. How that plays out is up to the local church.

I have a friend whose church recently spent 45 minutes at a business meeting discussing whether or not to install a new telephone line! That is obviously an abuse of congregational involvement.

Thanks for the comment and reply. I read Strauch’s book and he does argue for elder rule though, as you’ve said, he doesn’t really tackle the arguments of congregationalism.

It was helpful to hear you say that voting is an application of congregationalism and not an essential element of the teaching.

Given your final thoughts, you appear to be saying that you believe in elder rule. Thanks for your input. If you want to see a good article that dislodged my thinking at the moment regarding congregationalism, see Kostenberger’s article on church government found here:
http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/?p=129

I, likewise, have been seriously thinking through the same issue, asking the question: where is the final locus of human authority in the local church – the elders or the congregation as a whole?

I have not found one elder-ruled argument that interacts specifically with the congregational model. But, Strauch’s book on elders seems to point in the edler-rule direction. Although, he never does deal with congregationalist arguments.

Nevertheless, having spoken with several congregationalist theologians and having read congregationalist books, I have come to the conclusion that democratic voting in churches is simply an application of congregationalism and not a necessary component of congregationalism. In other words, congregationalism can be applied without voting on issues at business meetings. The Bible never tells us to vote on anything.

That being said, the elders can make the final decision on issues, so long as they bring elder & deacon ordination, serious doctrinal controversies, and disciplinary issues to the congregation so that the congregation can assist in determining the leadership of the Holy Spirit as well as evaluating qualifications of candidates for church leadership. However, after listening to the congregation, the elders (as the overseers) have the responsibility to interpret the lead of the Spirit as they take all things into consideration. Thus, after listening to the congregation, the final call is still with the elders who are charged to guard, protect, and be stewards the Church of God.

Those are my thoughts. If anyone has anything to add, I’d certainly appreciate it.