INTRODUCTION by Pat Kilpatrick

Recently there has been much speculation among preachers and writers concerning the question, “What’s wrong with the church?” Brotherhood attention became focused on the subject when B. B. Baxter suggested in a Firm Foundation article (“The Crisis We Face”) that things were not well within the Church of Christ and that we are faced with a “crisis.” This was not a new revelation since certain brethren had been voicing the same concern for some time. But the fact that it was spoken by a well-known figure cast the matter into a much more serious perspective. Preachers, writers, and editors took up the pen in search of the CAUSE of such crisis. Only the vain thinker felt that he had the ultimate solution to the problem, that the faults he recognized constituted the underlying cause of all our church ills and that the correction of them would surely restore the New Testament church.

When all the faults which were set forth are gathered together, we find that they constitute only those “common” faults which characterize any and all “membership” organizations, whether it be religious, social, or fraternal--lack of commitment, dedication, love, etc.--which means that we have dealt only with peripheral matters surrounding the real cause.

It remained for Norman L. Parks, in “Restoration and Models of the Church,” to cut through the peripheral and center upon the more fundamental cause, which is the “organizational structure” upon which our twentieth century Church of Christ depends. Bro. Parks is to be commended for his boldness in setting forth these thought provoking propositions. They will not be well received by those who “love their seats” in the present organization. But the lover of truth will give them the consideration, prayer, and study that they deserve. --R. L. Kilpatrick, Editor, Ensign Fair

Restoration and Models of the Church

Though Alexander Campbell generally spoke of the religious movement that he spearheaded in America as a “reformation,” others boldly proclaimed it to be a “restoration.” The historians sealed the development by naming it the “Restoration Movement.” Now, four generation later, prodded by its own ugly divisions and by the hermeneutics of theologians like Krister Stendahl, writers within the movement have been reexamining the concept of “restoration” within recent years.

From the “Mainline” Church of Christ side, the reexamination has not been productive of new insights, better hermeneutics, or a passion for the unity, which must flow from restoration. Indeed, out of this reexamination has grown a renewed rationalization for and justification of division and exclusivism. As one such apologist put it, “Division is always preceded by digression . . . .” [1] Since charismatics, premillennialists, and “liberals” are “digressives,” logically they must be cut off. It is small wonder that some who have been offended by division and exclusion have come to question the restoration principle, while others in examining the spotted actuality find that it is not applied.

That restoration is the very heart of the gospel is the burden of all of the Pauline writings. Jesus is the restorer. His mission was to undo the consequences of the Fall, to rescue man from the Adamic age, to reveal to them the Father, to create anew the family of God and to call together a united people. It follows that restoration has to do with people, not with institutional structure. The liberated human spirit, seeking, inquiring, and growing, cannot flourish within the confines of rigid structure and control. As Jesus put it, man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath for man.

It is at this point, I think, that the whole American Restoration Movement--including Disciples. Independent Christians, and Church of Christ--has gone astray, for its thrust has grown increasingly institutional. Out of this thrust have emerged models of the church that are foreign to the restoration principle. I bypass the Disciples and the Independent Christians by noting only the elaborate “Restructure” system of the former and the dominant pastoral system of the latter. In the Church of Christ I find a model that is shockingly hierarchical, authoritarian, exclusive and suppressive rather than liberative. It puts pattern ahead of people, structure above Spirit, conformity over community, and law over love. Its basic hermeneutic of “command, example, and necessary inference” has produced a legalistic mentality that is hostile to diversity and a body of law that demands uniformity. Therefore, a hierarchical model of the church, structured on the power principle, with command and decision centered in the hands of a few at the top, was an inevitable out-growth of this approach to restoration.

This hierarchical model, which may be described as a model of office and status, is best represented as a pyramid, with control extending from the top to the bottom and submission from bottom to the top. It is frankly a power structure derived from the secular world and is based on a low regard for the worth and dignity of man. It is best seen when set in stark contrast to the Biblical model of the ecclesia, which may be described as a communitarian model of interaction and is most effectively represented as a sphere. This egalitarian model in the Scriptures provides no basis for power exercised by men, but portrays a koinonia of equality, voluntary interdependence, and full participation and full responsibility.

The pyramidal model has a broad base only with respect to numbers and financial support. The many are at the nadir, the few at the apex. In contrast, the spherical model has neither a base nor an apex, but rather depicts a living organism functioning. The pyramid is an “attendance” model, the sphere a participatory model. The former emphasizes submission and passivity. The other emphasizes mutuality and activity. The one views the church as an institutional structure, the other views it as the body of Christ living as a community.

THE HIERARCHICAL MODEL

The defense of the prevailing model may be stated as follows: responsibility can be only hierarchical. The world about us teaches us that control must be vested in the few as the only alternative to anarchy. Power and decision-making must belong to the few and authority exercised from the top down so that all can be done “in decency and order.” Hence the “eldership” must rule, like the corporate board runs the corporation and manages the employees, who correspond to the ordinary church members. For reasons of specialization, the value of which capitalism has demonstrated, the office of “minister” has been developed and put at the apex of the pyramid. Through him as their proxy, the elders discharge their teaching function. As Campbell once wrote, he has “shut up everybody’s mouth” except his own, and his he will not open unless he is paid for it. Pay is also found for the song leader and the church secretary, but not for the librarian, the keeper of the nursery, those who prepare the communion service, or the Sunday school teachers, though logically they also should be regarded as employees in the productive enterprise.

The minister does most of the planning, originates most of the proposals, writes the letters, plays a key role in funding and in expanding the plant (he is almost always the one with the shovel when a cornerstone is laid), and substitutes for the elders in hospitality, overseeing, and counseling. He wields extensive blacklisting power against other churches and other preachers. However, he is hired exclusively by the elders and serves at their pleasure. These men control the church property, and the treasury is exclusively at their disposal. Their decisions are not to be questioned, but meekly accepted, and are not subject to review or reversal by the church. As a self-perpetuating body, they also choose the deacons and set the program of the church. Though members may he permitted to propose, theirs is the exclusive duty to dispose. As authoritarian guardians of the church, they determine who may participate, who may be tolerated if kept silent, and who is to be excommunicated. They are the final judge of truth, which may vary from “eldership” to “eldership,” but within a given congregation, it is a settled matter. For practical reasons a member may be permitted to hold a contrary truth provided he does not vocalize his belief.

Deacons are held to be junior officers, well above the mass of laymen in honor and responsibility. They are generally chosen on the basis of their pliability. Promotion to the inner sanctum of power is ultimately open to the most cooperative and biddable deacons. There are no deaconesses and no place of responsibility for women. The pyramidal model is strictly a male enterprise.

The only alternatives open to ordinary members are to stay or leave. This is well illustrated by a split in a Murfreesboro church recently. More than a decade ago a preacher had organized his own church and, in order to erect the building, had chartered the institution under a board of trustees and had sold bonds. For eleven years the preacher as chief trustee had handled the church funds, wrote all of the checks, and got along without elders, though the members had grown up within the Church of Christ. When the remaining trustees charged the preacher with mishandling church funds and called for his resignation, elders were speedily chosen, including the preacher, and the challenging trustees were excommunicated. The trustees took their case to court, but the members had only to decide whether to stay or leave, and apparently about half of them chose to leave.

The Eldership . . .

Interaction of language and model is a phenomenon of any culture. This is well illustrated in the growth of the unbiblical hierarchical model in the church within the Restoration Movement. The shaping of the corporate life of Christians into a close-knit community of love projected in the New Testament is being almost fatally handicapped by the existence of the institution called “the eldership” among the people denominated “Church of Christ.”

The term “eldership,” which is actually nonsensical “Americanese” and has not made its way into any of the better English dictionaries, is a part of the peculiar vocabulary of the Church of Christ, which has helped us move along sectarian by-paths. Such a vocabulary has been inspired by -- and in turn has supported--the actualization of a full-fledged power model among us. Let us examine this doctrinal construct. Nobody uses such expressions as “the deaconship met and decided to paint the church” or “the secretaryship decided to omit the birthday announcements from the church bulletin.” Not only would they be regarded as ungrammatical, but also in conflict with the fact that deacons and secretaries decide nothing. Around me coined term “eldership” there has collected a galaxy of power concepts. They include “rule,” “authority,” “decision- making,” “control,” “withdrawal of fellowship” (excommunication), and “unaccountability.” So far has this process developed that “the eldership” is frequently held to mean “the church.” When the late Batsell Baxter’s interpretation of the instruction by Jesus in Matt. 18:17 on settling a dispute with a brother was challenged, he repeated, “No, that does not mean to ‘tell it to the church,’ it means to take it to the elders.” Also important in the development of this cultural institution is the understanding that “the eldership” is an en camera body, acting only in its collegiate capacity. An elder does nothing ex cathedra, the “eldership” does everything.

“Under the Over” . . .

A doctrine of magical import, which has grown up in recent decades is “under the oversight,” spun largely from Paul’s farewell to the elders of the Ephesian church “among whom the Holy Spirit made you shepherds.” E. G. Sewell, one of the early editors of the Gospel Advocate, viewed with alarm the gradual emerging of a power “eldership” and pointed out that the King James translation -- “over which the Holy Spirit hath made you overseers” -- carried an erroneous connotation of power. Elders are “among” and not “over,” Sewell insisted, and under no circumstance do they have authority or power. Yet the fact remains that the moving appeal of Paul, couched in the language of submission and tender, loving care, has been reshaped into the foundation for driving, authoritarian rule in many churches and made to extend to every aspect of the corporate life of the congregation. Now everything must be “under the over” -- be it a television broadcast, a missionary in Japan, a senior citizens home, a campus evangelism program, a children’s home, a home study group, a retreat for worship and fellowship, a youth meeting. So long as an activity is “under the over,” it is held to be sound and safe. In one case an “eldership” undertook to pass on all books donated for use to the Hong Kong churches. Since they had not read the books, and their preacher had not read them either, they had him to undertake the job of weeding out all “unsound” works.

If the Pauline view of elders is that of gentle, concerned souls who inspire and lead by personal example and who, out of their long experience and pious meditation on God’s word, teach, admonish, and counsel brethren in spiritual matters, the present view is that of a corporate board of directors running the affairs of the church by fiat. Though the New Testament presents their chief function as teaching and counseling, few elders today have ever stood before the flock in a teaching role or sat down with a troubled member in a counseling session.

“Under the over” connotes hierarchy, a concept which Jesus flatly rejected. The modern dogma has been fed by theories of administration derived from the business culture and the effort to adjust the doctrine of congregational autonomy to modern wide scale approaches to social and religious action. Spelled out, the “under the over” doctrine has come to mean a hierarchical system of administration from the top down in which no religious activity can take place involving groups of members without permission and supervision of the authoritative “eldership.” On every committee there must be an elder ex officio, even the flower committee composed otherwise of women. Such inherent worthiness of the “office” may put on the library committee an elder who has not read five religious books in his whole life.

The dominance of the administrative role as distinct from the spiritual role of the “eldership” is revealed in two pervasive standards of the church. Once constituted, this body is above responsibility to the congregation, enjoying something of the status of divine-right monarchy and is self-perpetuating. Responsibility is seen as a one-way affair, that of the members to the ruling body. Boldly interpreted as an office in the political or business sense -- a claim strenuously denied by Dand Lipscomb and other pioneer writers [2] -- its primary rule is seen to be managerial on the grounds that “the business of the church is like any other business.”

The Spotted Actuality . . .

The evils flowing from the policing and control of authoritarian “elderships” are evident on every hand. One church member has been denied any participation in any church activity of a Tennessee church for 17 years because he does not believe that elders have the authority to rule the church. One writer for Integrity received a cease-and-desist order under threat of excommunication. One group meeting during the week in Borger for worship and edification were told that they had to stop unless the program was approved in advance and an elder present at the meeting. In Murfreesboro impromptu singing was stopped by the order that nobody could start a song except the official song-leader. In another church folk songs were banned by the order that only songs in the songbook could be sung. In still another church girls were told that they could not vocalize prayers in prayer circles in private homes. Only officially approved literature may be displayed in the library or reading shelf. Sunday school teachers may be advised not to call on certain members for class participation. Voluntaryism may be totally squelched and spontaneity banned, though both seemed to be major features of first century worship.

In Midland the address of a distinguished archaeologist of Bible lands was cancelled when the elders learned that he wrote for Integrity. In Atlanta prospective vacation Bible schoolteachers had to score 100 on a written examination designed to establish their orthodoxy. In Wakefield three men installed as “the eldership” on Sunday morning took action Sunday night against a member whom they accused of “insubordination” because he admitted under questioning that, though he had no intention of resisting them, he did not believe they met the Bible standard for elders. As a result, almost half of the congregation found the atmosphere too inhospitable for them and sorrowfully moved out. Further inquiry into the Wakefield story makes clear, I believe, the impact of model upon church life. Two of the elders brought with them from the South the institutional image of the church topped by an authoritative “eldership.” Wakefield was radically different, its dynamism residing in an enthusiastic, participatory body who sought to win people to Christ rather than to an institution, who addressed themselves resourcefully to a predominantly Catholic community, many of whose youth had become alienated from formal ritual and institutionalized religion, and who baptized new converts with their own hands. Their joyous religion found expression in a delightful sheet filled with poems, essays, and personal testimony to the Good News. Feeling the need for greater maturation, they employed the services of an inspiring teacher, paying his livelihood out of their own pockets without touching the church budget. The new “eldership” moved quickly to monopolize all decision-making, asserted its power to rule, discontinued the publication, fired the teacher, and laid down an ultimatum to the membership to “shape up or ship out.”

This list could be expanded a hundred-fold by almost any informed reader. The point is not that there is no elder on the Pauline model and no church that has escaped authoritarian subjection. There are unquestionably congregations that are open and free. But the fact remains that the cultural institution called “the eldership” is pervasive among the churches and is the apex of the church model that has materialized out of our history. Moreover, it is diametrically opposed to the model that emerges from the pages of Holy Writ. If the church is enervated, if the members have been largely reduced from participants to attendants, if the teaching function has drifted into The hands of a professional clergy, if the religious institution has replaced the religious community, if administration has become more important than spiritual example and leadership, if knowledge of the Bible is shallow and spotted, if doctrinal orthodoxy counts for more than spiritual living, if passivity and alienation are visible phenomena, the chief cause is to be found in the hierarchical, authoritarian model.

THE COMMUNITARIAN MODEL

In contrast to the pyramidal model of authoritarian rule of the church stands the spherical, organic model revealed in the pages of the New Testament It is a participatory model, providing simultaneously the maximum of interdependence and the maximum of individualization. In this model the sole authority is Christ, who long ago claimed all authority and never delegated any of it to any man Its chief feature is the absence of power, which Christ rejected in the great Temptation incident. All are members of a body, all are equal, and all belong to the royal priesthood. In it there is neither superordination nor subordination; only voluntary submission one to another.

The sphere represents the total organism, with all members functioning and participating. The older members (presbuteros and presbuteras) by virtue of their growth in Christ and by means of example, teaching, and encouragement lead the younger ones, who follow out of love for their elders and respect for the superior lives they live.

In this model each member functions as aptitude and taste direct, but within the framework of freedom and love. The freedom that pervades it, in contrast to imposed control from above, inspires growth and productivity. Many rather than the few are involved in teaching, all rather than a selected few lift voices in thanksgiving and invocation, and all help formulate the corporate decisions, since the decision-making process is a growth process. Exploring the possibilities of creative service, each member is a deacon or deaconess. There are not any officers, but many involved in many roles. Attendants and spectators — pew occupants — are replaced by participants. The fields of service are so numerous and varied as to find employment for any kind of talent either limited or rich. It is a model of mutual ministry, mutual encouragement, mutual effort--the very body of Christ living, thriving, loving. The restraints are the restraints of love--the discipline for the saving and not the punishment of the dissident.

It is not to be assumed that problems will not arise within this model. The difference lies in the fact that the problems will be faced openly and courageously by the totality. Readers of Paul’s letters are aware that never did he call upon an elite group of church officers to deal with issues arising at Corinth or in Galatia. In most instances he does not even mention elders, much less an “eldership.” He called upon the whole church. It is significant that in the greatest doctrinal crisis to face the early church, the leaders at Jerusalem involved the whole membership. The history of the American Restoration Movement reveals very successful churches functioning on the communitarian model, leaving one to wonder why the rejection of this model in the present century.

The Test of Worship . . .

The nature of the hierarchical and communitarian models of the church reveals contrasting tendencies in the manner in which God is worshipped and fellowship shared. They are:

HIERARCHICAL MODEL

1. non-participatory
2. clerical
3. formal
4. rigid
5. traditional
6. non-learning environment
7. collection of saved saints
8. liturgical

COMMUNITARIAN MODEL

1. participatory
2. non-clerical
3. informal
4. responsive
5. creative
6. learning environment
7. “members one of another”
8. spontaneous

1. Participation. The significance of the members as members and high priests is illustrated either by the participation or lack of participation in the worship. The hierarchical model requires that no one but those selected in advance and approved by the “authorities” may participate in the “worship service.” The communitarian model more precisely parallels one of the few passages in the New Testament which describes corporate worship — 1 Cor. 14:26. Each member is free to join in the worship to God.

2. Clerical. The pyramidal model depends on the paid minister around whom the entire service revolves. All activities prior to his performance are preliminary and all following are anti-climactic. The clergyman not only drains the financial resources of the church community, but discourages the growth of teaching and leading talent among the members. The communitarian model does the opposite. It supplants the one with the many.

3. Formality. The communitarian model is based on the needs of its members, and requires no specific format, although centered upon the Lord’s Supper and the will of the Lord. The hierarchical model requires a known and accepted format, and deviation is held as dangerous because “nobody will know what is going on” and may cause someone to “criticize the church.”

4. Responsiveness. The hierarchical model allows no responsive activity to occur, under the guise of maintaining “decency and order.” This ban carries over into all matters of the church; one must conform to rigidly established programs if he seeks to “work for the Lord.” The communitarian approach is to respond to the needs of the members as they personally articulate them and to allow each member to select the mode of worship most expressive of his love of God. Acknowledging the worth of the individual, and allowing him freedom of expression, maintains decency. This extends over to the whole spiritual life, with each member given the opportunity to pursue those activities into which he feels God is leading him.

5. Learning environment. The spherical model attempts to create an effective learning environment by interchange and dialogue with each other as they explore the “unsearchable riches of God’s word.” Instead of being passive listeners, they are active participants. The communication system of the pyramidal model places the body in a passive listening posture, unable to question the speaker or request clarification of ideas. The result is a minimal learning situation.

6. Nature of the body. The authoritarian model tends to make the church a collection of saints who watch performances and activities as they unfold. The architecture of the building is in conformity with the model. The members cannot see each other, viewing only the backs of heads. Christian empathy in such a physical environment is out of the question. In such an impersonal setting, it is small wonder that saints are not greatly moved when berated to “forsake not the assembling of yourselves together.” The mutual ministry model reaches out toward the goal of being “members one of another.” It revolves around the indispensable ideal of building one another up, of ministering to each person’s needs, and, on the whole, of developing an intensely personal relationship among the body of believers.

7. Ritual. The communitarian model is devoid of planned ritual and depends to a large extent on the movement of the Spirit to lead the body in worship. As such it acknowledges only the authority of Christ as Lord. The authoritarian model suppresses all spontaneity and therefore weakens vitality.

When religion becomes institutionalized, dogmatized, ritualized, and professionalized, it ceases to be a shaping influence in the world. The American Restoration Movement in its beginning rejected each of these aspects and raised the hopes of many. The communitarian model of the church is a call back to the true path of restoration.

SOME QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Q) Are not elders to “rule” the church, as the Bible says?

A) No, Jesus specifically prohibited ruling or lording it over the elect by saying that “it shall not be so among you.” The expression about ruling was forced into the King James version by a divine-right king who declared, “No bishop, no king.” The real meaning is that elders are to be “out front” in example, service, humility, and dedication.

Q) Then who are to make the decisions for the church?

A) Obviously, decisions should be made by those who are affected by them.

Q) Why is decision-making by the whole church important?

A) For the same reason why it is important for the individual to make decisions. It is a growth process, a maturing process, a responsibility-developing process. The involvement of all members makes a strong body, whether the human body or the body of Christ.

Q) Why do churches split?

A) Because under the authoritarian model of the church they have never learned to be a community. It is through the continuous interpersonal relations of its members that a community develops. Decision-making and group responsibilities are essential to the making of a community. Under the elitist model of the church, the members have only the alternative of leaving or staying if a challenging problem arises. The pyramidal model makes the church an organization to which individuals belong. The communitarian model makes the church a community, and that is exactly what the Biblical term ecclesia means.

Q) Are not elders told to feed the flock?

A) Does this not mean to perform the role of shepherds and decide for the flock? Feeding the flock simply means providing spiritual food by teaching. Elders are primarily teachers. One cannot teach by proxy any more than one can be an example by proxy.

Q) Cannot elders meet the teaching qualification by teaching privately, while they devote most of their time to running the church?

A) No. Very little private teaching is actually done by elders. But feeding the flock implies a clear relationship between the elder and the whole congregation publicly.

Q) In projecting the communitarian model, have you not been impractical by describing the ideal church, when actually it is difficult to get very many members to do anything except attend services?

A) The only kind of church the Bible sets forth as the model is the ideal church. Would you want a lesser model?

Q) Would you eliminate elders from decision-making?

A) Elders are a part of the community. Why should a community of five hundred have only five elders? Should not every Christian as he matures grow into an elder? But whatever the number, they should lead the whole community into making the decision rather than supplant the whole in the decision-making process.

Endnotes

* The author owes a particular debt of gratitude to Prof. Curry Peacock of Middle Tennessee State University in the shaping of this article. His inputs were many, making him in a real sense a co-author.

1. Jimmy Jividen, “Is the Restoration Principle to Be Rejected?” Mission, Sept., 1975.

2. See my series of articles under the title, “It Shall Not Be So Among You,” Mission Jan., Feb., April, 1975.

Please feel free to send feedback concerning this article. Also, please include the title of this article in your feedback. Thank you for visiting Central Truth Ministries.