Yesterday, I spoke about a particularly niche question concerning elders. Can a church exist legitimately as a church without elders? The answer (according to me at least) is yes. It isn’t healthy to be a church without elders but the Bible recognises that churches did exist without elders. Having elders is not what defines a church.

Nevertheless, it is God’s design for local churches to have multiple elders appointed in them by the church membership. The church are ultimately responsible for who belong to the church, what is taught and who leads. The church are to appoint qualified people to lead and – once appointed – are called to submit to their leadership unless and until an elder disqualifies himself through character failure or departs from orthodoxy.

One issue that is frequently misunderstood in congregational polity is that the congregation are not given the authority by Jesus to vote on everything. They are given very specific areas of responsibility (again: who belongs, what is taught and who leads). Anything outside these specific areas of responsibility is not a matter that the church must vote on. These are areas on which the elders are appointed to lead.

Members are then called to follow and submit to the authority of the elders they have appointed. Unless an elder has disqualified himself through character failure or has veered off into false teaching (particularly as concerns the gospel) or else is insisting that you must do what would lead you into sin (a sub-category of false teaching in effect), the Bible is very clear that you are to submit to his authority. There is no ambiguity in the scriptures on these issues. If your leaders are not leading you into sin, spreading false doctrine and have not fallen foul of the character criteria that qualified them to their role, they are the elders gifted to your church for your good to whom you are called to submit.

Indeed, even where we think some of these things might be at play, these are matters that belong to the church as a whole. It is not the case that if one person think an elder is failing to teach orthodoxy or is not living up to the eldership qualifications, they are necessarily to be opposed. This authority lies with the church as a whole, not individual members. If a majority of the church do not agree, then the church as a whole has determined you ought to continue to submit to their authority. If you really feel you can’t because it is a matter of sin (as you judge it), your only recourse is to find some elders to whose authority who can submit. But before you do that, you should think carefully about why you, and you alone, seem to view this one way whilst the rest of your church disagree. The stakes are high because if you get it wrong, you may just find such problems follow you as you discover the problem is with you and not your leader or the church that doesn’t agree with you.

Let me be categorical then what this means in practice. If an elder starts peddling a false gospel or it turns out they are a habitual liar who has been stringing the church along for decades, this is a man to be removed from office. It should be taken to the church, the church should remove him and he should be removed from the church altogether if he refuses to repent. If a majority of the church do not agree, you must reconsider the matter and ask seriously whether it is you who have misunderstood the situation. If you are adamant you have not and the church are not fulfilling their responsibilities, you can only plead with them to do so or move to another place where they will take such matters seriously. However, such circumstances are reasonably rare. That is not to say they never happen, but they are not the regular and almost weekly occurrence some seem to think they are. Not everything is a matter of principle!

By contrast, this means you have no grounds to oppose your elders if they simply do things that you do not like. There is no biblical case for seeking to remove and elder or leave a church because they change service times; they do different forms of evangelism/discipleship to the ones you prefer; they stop certain meetings and/or start new ones; they move chairs around; they don’t seem to have the same investment in the ministry you are part of as you think they should; they spend money on the mission of the church in ways you would operate differently; they ask you to do things (or stop doing things) that you didn’t want to do; they call you to faithfulness; they judge your abilities differently to you; they do/don’t think you are cut out for certain ministry roles and functions; etc, etc. I could go on and on with all the petty and unbiblical reasons I have heard and witnessed for people leaving churches or seeking to suggest their elders are disqualified, unbiblical, abusive and any other number of spurious criticisms.

The Bible is very clear on these things. You are in sin if you do not submit to the authority of your elders except in cases where they are biblically disqualified by the character criteria and should be removed, are teaching false doctrine or are calling you to sin. Assuming – because you were probably involved in putting them there – they aren’t disqualified biblically (and that is not a live issue with whatever they have said/done to feel your ire) and they are not peddling false doctrine that undermines the gospel, we are really only asking one question: is this elder doing or asking you to do something that will lead you to sin? If the answer is no, you are in sin if you will not submit to them. The Bible is extremely clear about this.

I am convinced the vast majority of unrest towards church elders is not a matter of sin. At least, not sin on the part of the elders nor them trying to force somebody else into sin. The overwhelming majority of it is discontent and unrest that somebody asked me to do something I didn’t want to do or didn’t lead in the way I have decided is most appropriate. All such refusal to submit to godly elders who are not calling you into sin is itself sin. I think many more of us would do well to reckon with this the next time we are prone to get annoyed at our elders for whatever we judge to be their latest misdemeanour. If they aren’t asking you to sin, but are just doing things you don’t like, it is you who is in sin if you do not submit to them.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with raising concerns. There is nothing wrong with even telling them your preferences. But if you are going to approach an elder with such things, you need to be clear that is what they are. They are possible concerns. They are preferences. These are not sin issues or matters of principle. Your elders may or may not agree. I’m sure, if they’re godly, they will listen to you. But we shouldn’t consider them giving us counter-reasons or deciding – despite whatever case you have made – to do something different as them not listening. Perhaps they have listened and simply don’t agree and, as those appointed specifically to lead the church, have come to a different conclusion and enacted it. It might not be what you would prefer to happen, but in the end, if it isn’t sin on your part to go along with it and it isn’t a matter of peddling a false gospel, we must simply submit to those we have appointed to authority over us. To not do so is to sin ourselves.

So, ask yourself: is this sinful? Is this causing me to sin? Is this just a preference I have? These things may well help you approach your elders much more helpfully or, as the case may be, not even approach them at all!