A recent review of my book Independent Eldership raised a question about a point I made. Specifically, it questioned how I could argue that churches existed before elders were appointed. It went on to insist that no churches were called churches before there were elders.
I did actually address that in the book. But I have also addressed the question in the attached article below. I think there are four planks to the case:
- In Acts 14, we’re told that in Lystra, Iconium and Antioch, ‘Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church’ (v23). These are called ‘churches’ even though there are as yet no elders in them. Therefore, the bible recognises some churches as churches without elders.
- The Reformers typically recognised churches as places where there was right teaching of the Word and right administration of the ordinances. The priesthood of all believers doesn’t preclude members from doing these things and, therefore, a church might exist without elders.
- By similar logic, if one accepts the premises of congregationalism, for an elder to be considered a legitimate elder, they have to be appointed by the church members. If, however, there are no members because there is not a church, how can any elder be considered legitimate? It necessitates members of a church to exist before elders can be legitimately appointed otherwise who has appointed the elders, what have they been appointed to serve in and how are they legitimate?
- A church that once had elders, but now doesn’t, yet continues to teach the word and administer the ordinances would not typically qualify as no longer a church. Most would recognise this is a church that is in need of elders, not a church that has now ceased to exist.
Rather than reinvent the wheel and flesh all this out again, you can read the article below to see a more fulsome case.