How Does the Eternal Govern Through Humans?

What If We Disagree?

Part 6 Preview: (Part 1?) This is the most exhaustive study on “Church” Government that you will ever find. I was surfing for an article that was both “death” on the word “church” as well as Biblically thoro on the subject of “Church Government”. This covers the latter, and I happen to know the writer. If you have questions about the role (or lack of it) of the ministry in your life there will be Biblical answers here! You can quit reading this as soon as you stop finding exceedingly uncommon truths that the churches don’t want you to know about (you won’t )! A major bonus of this “booklet” is the definition of “ordination”. Bet you don’t know what it really means, but you really need to know!

If some of the responses [from Part 5?] appear to be a little “resigned” to letting the problems happen, we need to look and see how the Eternal works in general. He does not force most people or nations to “be good”, He often lets them learn by experience. The history of the world is largely the history of nations not being forced to “be good” and creating evil for others. More specifically, when Moses and Aaron were faced with a massive rebellion, they fell on their faces to the Eternal in sadness (Num 14:1-7). Later in the same chapter, when the Israelites fought and tried to conquer the land against the words from Moses, Moses didn’t try to stop them—he let them learn their own lesson by losing the battle. Moses knew his authority was from the Eternal; he did not have to assert himself over the people to prove it. There are several cases in the New Testament where the members are found departing from the truth (2 Cor 11:4; Gal 1:6; 3:1; Eph 4:14; Jude 3; 2 Jn 7; Rev 2:1-7), yet the writers did not always name the “troublemakers” and tell others to avoid them.

Notice the results of a meeting on the question of circumcision: “Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, ‘You must be circumcised and keep the law’—to whom we gave no such commandment” (Acts 15:24). What follows is not an attack on those who left, but an explanation of the issues and what the people should do. We find similar instruction repeated in John 2:19: “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.” Again, these verses are followed by an explanation of the false doctrine being taught. There is a trust in these scriptures that mature brethren will be able to recognize and avoid false teaching.

It should be obvious from all of the different Christian sects and their doctrinal statements that the Eternal does not try to stamp out every group that only teaches some truth of the Bible and some error. Christ specifically taught his followers not to stop other groups from teaching in His name:

Now John answered Him, saying, “Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us.” But Jesus said, “Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me. For he who is not against us is on our side. For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink in My name, because you belong to Christ, assuredly, I say to you, he will be no means lose his reward” (Mark 9:38-41).

Similarly Paul refused to stop people from “preaching Christ” even for a wrong motivation. “Some indeed preach Christ even from envy and strife, and some also from good will: The former preach Christ from selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my chains; but the latter out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; and in this I rejoice, yes, and will rejoice” (Phil 1:15-18).

But sometimes, those with serious disagreements will not leave of their own. We have already seen from Matthew 18 that people who refuse to abide by a decision made by the entire congregation should be treated “like a heathen and a tax collector”. They should no longer be permitted to attend services. We find that all places in Scripture where people are “put out” of the congregation, it is done in a public setting. It was not to be done quietly at the decision of a few individuals and quietly covered up. If a problem is serious enough that someone must be put out of the congregation, then everyone should know about it and be able to understand it. (When congregations allow a member to be dismissed upon the decision of one or a few leaders, the potential for abuse is high—members may sometimes be dismissed secretly for unbiblical reasons.)

When a man was practicing sexual immorality, Paul instructed the congregation to put him out. “In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (1 Cor 5:4-5). Paul did not write a private letter to “put out” the man or instruct only the leaders to do it; it was addressed to the entire congregation. We see this confirmed in Paul’s later instructions to re-admit the man in 2 Corinthians 2:6 “This punishment which was inflicted by the majority is sufficient for such a man.” The purpose of this punishment is not to “get back at” someone who hurt the leaders or the congregation, but “that his spirit may be saved”—to teach a lesson that he might ultimately be saved.

Paul used a similar expression for putting out a man in 1 Timothy 1:16: “Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.” We can learn from verse 3 of this chapter that Paul had just left Ephesus and wrote this letter to Timothy who was still there. Paul certainly would have followed the principle of Matthew 18:15-17 and brought the heresy of these two before the congregation. These men were certainly still trying to draw others after themselves and Timothy had to continue to “wage the good warfare” against them (1 Tim 1:18).

John also found it necessary to be physically present to put someone out of the congregation: “I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them, does not receive us. Therefore, if I come, I will call to mind his deeds which he does, prating against us with malicious words. And not content with that, he himself does not receive the brethren, and forbids those who wish to, putting them out of the church” (3 Jn 9-10). Diotrephes, who was recognized as a “church leader,” certainly needed to be removed from the true Church. One of his sins was putting out the true brethren—probably on his own authority. Yet it seems he was clever enough that the local people could not show from the Scripture how he was wrong. John promised to take action “if I come”. He would have been able to show Diotrephes’ false teaching to be false from the Scriptures and the people would have put him out. The practice of writing a letter to “put out” a member is not found in the New Testament.

When a majority of a congregation has accepted a false teacher or an unacceptable doctrine, the only thing converted people can do is withdraw from the wayward organization:

If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing, but is obsessed with disputes and arguments over words, from which come envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions, useless wranglings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. From such withdraw yourself (1 Tim 6:3-5).

The phrase “does not consent to wholesome words” is very important. It shows that these people will not listen to the truth—there is no longer hope of correcting their error. We find similar instructions to the Thessalonians. The entire second chapter of 2 Thessalonians is about a great “falling away” and the “man of sin”. In chapter 3 verse 6 it says, “But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us.” When evil forces take over, departure is the only real solution. Certainly physical assets and friends will be left behind, but these things we must be prepared to forsake for His kingdom (Matt 19:29).

Again, the idea of withdrawing is repeated in Romans 16:17, “Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them.” The KJV reads “mark them” nstead of “note those”. The Greek Skopeo means to “look at” or “take notice of”. It does not indicate some kind of public declaration of disagreement as some church organizations may teach. The avoidance approach is repeated again when the apostle John was condemning those who claimed that Christ had not really come in the flesh. “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds” (2 Jn 10-11).

If Church Organizations Are Unbiblical, How Do They Have Good Works?

The largest complaint some may have against this paper is: “How can all of these traditionally-run church organizations be wrong, yet accomplish so much?” We must first realize that the Eternal is capable of accomplishing His righteous purpose with imperfect individuals. [Even an ass —Numbers 22:22-32] The Pharisees taught and maintained the Scriptures even though they did not always live by them. The kings of ancient Israel did many good works (especially David) even though the Eternal did not originally want Israel to have kings (1 Sam 8:6-7). King Solomon stands out an example of someone who did both much good and much evil. He built the temple of the Eternal, wrote some of the Bible, yet he turned away from the Eternal in his latter days (1 Kngs 11:9-11).

But what about the New Testament? Does the Eternal sometimes work through people who do not have all of the truth? Notice again:

Now John answered Him, saying, “Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us.” But Jesus said, “Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me. For he who is not against us is on our side” (Mark 9:38-40).

Some indeed preach Christ even from envy and strife, and some also from good will: The former preach Christ from selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my chains; but the latter out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; and in this I rejoice, yes, and will rejoice (Phil 1:15-18).

Christ and Paul both taught believers not to try to stop others who were claiming to do a work of God. Christ did say that some of them who claimed to be doing His work really were not (Matt 12:30; Matt 7:21-23). He told us to be careful of which leaders we follow and with whom we fellowship, but He did not tell us to try to stop others who were doing work in His name. Why? Probably because Christ is quite capable of stopping works that He really does not want, and that even very imperfect works can sometimes accomplish good. As Paul said, he rejoiced that Christ was preached—even out of contention. The Holy Spirit is a powerful teacher. A person sincerely seeking to obey Christ can eventually learn the truth even though his teacher may have taught much error and/or had the wrong motives.

Many groups today that perform “ordinations” and build a central church organization do it because that is what they think God wants them to do—or because they think everyone needs to be taught the same “truth”. They are not doing it out of rebellion. Others may read the Bible and realize that hierarchy is wrong, but do not know what should be done, so they stop thinking about it. Yes, there are probably other groups that know what the Bible says, but are afraid they will not have enough money if they change, so they do not. Once organizations have been established for a long time, they usually continue to do what they have always done—no matter what the Bible says.

Since nearly all church organizations use the Bible to some degree, understand the “golden rule”, and try to do good in some way, we should not be surprised that they are doing some good. If many in the organization are seeking God, a lot of good may be done.

From another aspect, organizations are composed of people with greatly varying individual commitment to Christ. That can make a big difference. Recent discoveries have shown that individuals within the Catholic church worked with Nazis during the second world war to hide money and help war criminals escape. Yet some Catholic hospitals offered treatment to wounded people escaping the Nazis—at great risk to their own lives. This should be clear to you on a personal level: if you have been in a “church group” for a long time, you know that everyone is not righteous just because they have joined that group.

We do not need to be judges of organizations or the individuals in them—we are not responsible for their eternal judgment. We may, as this paper does, show where the teaching of others is in error. But it is a mistake to say “they cannot be brethren since they do not see this doctrine as I do.” On the other hand, we should not accept any given doctrine from a group simply because we have “been a member of that group” or because they have a large building or a large, impressive organization. If a teacher does not write the biblical or historical reasons for why he believes what he believes, we have no way to know if a teaching was based on a thorough study of the Scripture, a revelation of some kind, or a quick answer given with a moment’s thought. Ultimately, every person is responsible to his Father for what he or she believes and does.

If nothing else, read the letters to the seven churches in Revelation 2 and 3. Here, you may see that the genuine churches of the Eternal are a mixture of good and bad. He tells them all to continue the good, and repent of the bad.

Do Church Leaders Have Authority Like Moses?

Some people will say that the Eternal has always done His work through “one man”, and will hold Moses up as an example for church leadership today. While the Old Testament examples are for our learning today (1 Cor 10:11), New Testament instructions and examples never specifically compare a church leader to Moses or tell us to imitate his example. Christ is compared to Moses (Acts 7:37). Nevertheless, we will consider the Moses example and show that the Eternal did not instruct Him to establish a hierarchical government.

When Moses was overworked by judging the people, his father in law, a priest of Midian, suggested he set up a system of rulers of tens, fifties, hundreds, and thousands. (Ex 18:13-26). The first thing we must realize is that these captains were only judges—not part of a governmental apparatus legislating laws, collecting tithes (or taxes), assigning jobs, telling people how to run their personal lives, etc. They judged between people who brought disputes to them. If we read the parallel account of this Deuteronomy 1, we see that Moses asked the Israelites to choose the people they wanted as judges—those who were already leaders among the people and not respecters of persons (Deut 1:13-17). Moses was also involved in the choosing—though it is unlikely that he could have personally chose the tens of thousands of men who became “captains of tens” (Ex 18:25). If this were a classic hierarchy, Moses would have appointed the top leaders, and they would have appointed the next level, etc. However, Deuteronomy says the people chose these judges.

Furthermore, many people overlook the fact that the Eternal says nothing good or bad about this system of 10s, 50s, 100s and 1000s. Captains of hundreds and thousands are found later on in the Bible, but they are always related to the military, not to civilian judges as Moses appointed. Israel’s later command to appoint judges and officers on a geographical basis: “You shall appoint judges and officers in all your gates, which the Lord your God gives you, according to your tribes, and they shall judge the people with just judgment”(Deut 16:18). Who were the people commanded to appoint judges and officers? The same people who were commanded to give offerings in Deut 16:16—all the men in Israel! Finally, the Eternal gave Moses a plan for the “top leadership” of the nation. He asked Moses to find 70 men already accepted as leaders by the people. (Num 11:16-17, quoted page ). He placed His spirit in these men so they could govern in righteousness.

If there is something we can learn from this for today, it is that the Eternal involved the people as well as gave His specific will through a leader recognized as his representative. People need to learn to think, and be responsible to follow those people whom they have chosen, as well as obey those leaders whom the Eternal has obviously chosen.

A few chapters later, in Numbers 16, we find the story of Korah’s rebellion. Those believing in hierarchical government often use this scripture in an effort to show that anyone who defies the Eternal’s chosen leaders deserves death. But we need to ask the question: “Why were Korah and his followers killed by the Eternal?” Did they sincerely believe that Moses departed from the Eternal and was no longer led by Him? Did they believe Moses was disqualified because of some ongoing sin? Did they plead with Moses and try to get him to change what they thought was wrong? No! They never brought up any truthful complaint against Moses! Korah’s group was rebelling simply because they saw the power that Moses had and they wanted a little of it (Num 16:3). Ultimately, they were rebelling against what the Eternal is doing. Rebellions for personal gain are never justified against any leaders that the Eternal sets up.

Do Church Leaders Have Authority Like Old Testament Kings Over Israel?

Another popular method of supporting hierarchical church government, is to compare church leaders to the Kings of Israel—showing how much authority they had. This writer believes the comparison is valid, but only when we realize that the Eternal wanted to be the King of Israel, rather than have human kings. “Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah, and said to him, ‘Look, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now make for us a king to judge us like all the nations’” (1 Sam 8:4-5). Samuel was a prophet, not a king. He had a relationship with God, and people could come to him for teaching or for judging—to resolve disputes with each other. But Samuel did not have a fancy headquarters, a band, an army, a harem, or any of the others things that kings typically have. No one walked around proclaiming: “great is Samuel of the Israelites”. The Israelites should have praised an invisible God as their Leader.

Some believers say essentially the same thing today: “We do not want to be part of little congregations meeting in homes doing only a local work. If a worldwide work has to be done, one man has to be in charge of it. We want to be a part of a big organization that other people can see. We want nice buildings that others will admire. We want a trained ministry with professional degrees. We want to support a suave, dynamic evangelist whom everyone will admire. We want to rally around a human leader that will do the work!”

In order to have the unity and status, people are often willing to give great power to the head of their group. In ancient Israel, the Eternal never gave any leader (prophet or king) the power to execute anyone who disobeyed him. Yet, even before Israel had a king, the people gave this life or death authority to their leaders! “Whoever rebels against your command and does not heed your words, in all that you command him, shall be put to death” (Josh 1:18). In church organizations, people often give great authority to the leader—authority never given by the Eternal.

So what did the Eternal say when the people asked for a king? “And the Lord said to Samuel, ‘Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them’” (1 Sam 8:7). Many “church organizations” have claimed in their sermons and printed literature that “a work” would be disorganized and ineffective unless it is totally under the control of one man. Do these statements deny the power of Christ, the True Leader? Can He manage thousands of “local ministries” and hundreds of “regional ministries”. He needs to, or does He require a man to be in charge of that for Him?

Originally, ancient Israel was not told to have a standing army. “Five of you shall chase a hundred, and a hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight” (Lev 26:8). The people would do the work, but their success would be beyond what is humanly possible. Paul often compared the preaching of the gospel to war. The New Testament evangelists similarly relied on the Eternal for power to preach the gospel. They did not obtain a squadron of horses, chariots, and/or ships so they could maximize the missionary outreach. They did not hire bands or entertainers to gain attention. They did not build hospitals or child-care centers to attract potential converts. There is not even one single record of plans to build a “church building”. The New Testament Church relied on miracles or the simple power of Christ to attract people to hear their message. But most church groups seem to want to concentrate money in one place first, and then ask the Eternal to use them to preach the Gospel. So what did God say when the people asked for a king?

“Now therefore, heed their voice. However, you shall solemnly forewarn them, and show them the behavior of the king who will reign over them” ... “He will take your sons and appoint them for his own [list of purposes].... He will take your daughters to be perfumers, cooks, and bakers. And He will take a tenth of your grain and your vintage, and give it to his officers and servants. And he will take your menservants and your maidservants and your finest young men and your donkeys and put them to his work. And will take a tenth of your sheep. And you will be his servants. And you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, and the Lord will not hear you in that day.”Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, “No, but we will have a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles” (1 Sam 8:9-20).

The scenario has been repeated hundreds of times in church groups throughout history. People seek out religious organizations—they feel comfortable there because they are a part a group “with whom God is working”. The leader of the organization may or may not be successful in “doing a work”, but he will certainly collect money from the people, put them to work on service projects, and judge the people their own way. Sometimes, members begin to see injustice and waste in the organization and wonder if it is right. They may begin to study their Bibles and find disagreements with their organization’s doctrine. People who talk about or attempt to resolve sins and problems within the organization may be “put out” of the organization. They often lose nearly all of their friends and often their livelihood. Before the 1800s quite a few of those who rebelled against established religion lost their lives. Many other people remain in their church organization (seeing that some good is still being done) and they cry out to their Father to save it—but He often does not hear. Did Samuel give the answer in the scripture above?

We should not be surprised if some church organizations turn out to be mostly bad—most of the kings of Israel were mostly bad. As Israel had some good kings that led the people in righteousness, so some church organizations have had leaders that led the people in righteousness. Also, both Israel and church organizations have had leaders that were partly good and partly bad. Even with this variety of good and bad kings, the Eternal told Israel that he would continue to work with them under the “king” system, and things would still go well if they obeyed Him: (1 Sam 12).

... you said to me, “No, but a king shall reign over us,”when the Lord your God was your king. Now therefore, here is the king whom you have chosen and whom you have desired. And take note, the Lord has set a king over you. If you fear the Lord and serve Him and obey His voice, and do not rebel against the commandment of the Lord, then both you and the king who reigns over you will continue following the Lord your God. However, if you do not obey the voice of the Lord, but rebel against the commandment of the Lord, then the hand of the Lord will be against you, as it was against your fathers (1 Sam 12:12-15).

Similarly, Christ still works with people that are in church organizations, and sometimes much good is accomplished—it all depends on how well the leaders and the people follow their heavenly Master. But if we want a full relationship with Christ, should we not seek to be governed by Him directly? A strong human leader can always enforce a certain kind of “unity”. Problems and the people associated with them can always be “put out” of a church organization. But there is no guarantee that he will lead in the truth. If individuals let the Eternal be their king, they will have real unity and He will always lead in the truth. This freedom has its price: if people willingly stray from the truth, no man will be there to force them back. But with this freedom, everyone can be all that Christ wants him/her to be.

Let us now consider the Example of King David, fleeing from King Saul. David knew that he was prophesied to be the next king, yet he did not kill Saul, even though he had two opportunities (1 Sam16:1,13; 24:6; 26:9). Some might conclude, by analogy, that this means we must obey a church leader no matter how “bad” he appears to be. But if we read the Scripture in detail, we find that what David’s actions were very similar to the New Testament instruction for dealing with bad teachers: he did not try to eliminate Saul, but neither did he cooperate with him.

David knew that the Eternal still reserved the right to choose the king, so he did not depose him himself (Deut 17:15). David often inquired of the Eternal (1 Sam 23:2,4; 30:8, etc.) and knew that He would tell him when it was time for him to be King (2Sam 2:1). He knew that the Eternal planned to take care of Saul himself (1 Sam 26:10). However, did David and other righteous people obey Saul instead of the law of the Eternal? No! We see that David (1 Sam26:21; 28:1-2 ), Jonathan (1 Sam 19:1-2), Michal (1 Sam 19:11-13), the Priests (1Sam 22:13) and Saul’s own servants (1 Sam 22:17) all did what they understood to be right rather than follow Saul!

Only two generations later, the nation of Israel faced a similar, yet different decision. The Eternal intentionally divided the kingdom into Israel and Judah (2 Chr 11:2-4). However, when Jeroboam, the man the Eternal put in the office of King, introduced false doctrine and refused to let the priests do their rightful work, the Eternal allowed faithful men to leave Jeroboam’s corrupt government and join the more righteous government in Judah (2 Chr 11:13-17; 15:9). When two national governments were available, the Eternal let the people move to be under the best one. If the Eternal is working through several church groups today, will not He similarly honor the desires of His people to serve in the best one?

Other Misunderstood Scriptures

Romans 10:14 “How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?” This scripture is misused to claim that people cannot meet together for a service unless they have a preacher (often wrongly extended to mean “ordained minister”). The context here is evangelism, teaching the truth to new people, not the meeting of converted people. When mature brethren were facing false teachers, the apostle John told them: “ But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him”(1 John 2:27).

Acts 8:30-31 “So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah, and said, ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’ And he said, ‘How can I, unless someone guides me?’ And he asked Philip to come up and sit with him.” This scripture has been used to “prove” that men need other men to guide them in their study of the Bible. Before conversion (and in the absence of some divine revelation), nearly everyone needed teaching. The man whom Philip was teaching did not have the Holy Spirit to guide him, nor did the Eternal choose to reveal Himself directly as He did with Cornelius in Acts 10. Most people learned the gospel through the preaching of men (Rom 10:13-16) The Ethiopian eunuch had a good knowledge of the law, and with the new understanding about Christ, he was ready for baptism. He was probably “on his own” spiritually after he returned to Ethiopia—there were few other converts there. Philip did not tell him to quit his job so he could move nearer to a local congregation!

Acts 15:1-35 Some church organizations teach that this was the first “ministerial conference” or “convention”—an example of how the ministry and leaders of the church group should get together at their headquarters to make doctrinal and procedural decisions for the whole group. The Bible gives a completely different picture. The meeting was initiated by those in Antioch—the only ones who came to Jerusalem were Paul, Barnabas and others from Antioch (Acts 14:26; 15:2). There is no mention of anyone from the other areas either being invited or attending the meeting. The only mentioned topics of the meeting were the great work being done among Gentiles, and instructions to them. The statement produced at the end of the meeting was addressed only to Antioch and the nearby regions of Syria and Cilicia where the dispute about circumcision surfaced. Nothing is said about informing the other Gentile congregations that Paul taught: Perga, Iconium, Lystra or Derbe. Nor is there a mention of anyone from Samaria, Galilee, or any other nearby place. It was only a one-time meeting between brethren of Antioch and Judea because it was brethren from Judea (Acts 15:1) who were causing trouble for Gentile believers in Antioch.

1 Corinthians 1:10 “Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.“ Some religious leaders use this Scripture as “proof” that all brethren must follow one human leader. They read the words “same thing“ and envision a doctrinal statement, or “inspired decisions” by their group’s leader. But the Greek text implies no single uniform statement or source of information. The words “same thing” in this verse are translated from the Greek autos which is a pronoun (it substitutes for another noun) meaning “the same”. Usually, one must look elsewhere in the sentence or paragraph to find the antecedent (the word the pronoun substitutes for). However, autos is sometimes used just to give the idea of sameness, without a specific antecedent. If there is an antecedent in this verse, it is probably Jesus Christ—we should all be in agreement with Him.

By reading the entire chapter of 1 Corinthians 1, it is certain that Paul is not telling them to follow one human leader so they can speak from a unified doctrinal statement. The chapter specifically tell the brethren not to align themselves with one human leader. Furthermore, there are no punishments or condemnations given for someone who might disagree. Later in Paul’s letter, he teaches that some division may be necessary for the Eternal’s purpose: “For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you” (1 Cor 11:18-19). Paul clearly wanted them to agree with each other in their teaching through consideration for each other and love of the truth. He did not assign some local person to be “over all teaching” to enforce unity. (Paul never does this in any of his letters.)

Paul taught them to follow Christ rather than a man. Certainly, there will be areas of disagreement. Christ did not teach Paul about every possible problem that would come up (1 Cor 7:25). He taught them that there were some issues where brethren might disagree and that they should respect each other’s opinions (1 Cor 14). Unity comes by agreeing on those basic truths taught by Christ, and then by refusing to divide ourselves by following those who claim that their understanding is better than another teacher‘s understanding.

Titus 1:5-6 When Paul told Titus to appoint elders in every city, does this prove that there are three levels of hierarchy in the New Testament Church? (Was Paul “over” Titus and Titus over the elders and the elders over the people?) The Greek word for appoint here is kathistemi, the same word that was used to “appoint” the seven men who served the widows in Acts 6:3. The men in Acts 6 were originally selected by the people, then “appointed” by the apostles. It is almost certain that a similar method was followed by Titus. The next few verses give the qualifications for those whom Titus should appoint. Most of the qualifications relate to personal life-style, something known only by the people in each of the cities Titus visited.

Furthermore, there is no scriptural support at all for the idea that one person must be “over” another in authority if he lays hands upon him or appoints him. Paul and Barnabas had hands laid upon them by Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen (Acts 13:1-3). They were not “over Paul” in authority. Furthermore, it does not make sense that all of these men would “report to“ Titus in the future as he did not continue to live there. Paul told him to leave the Island of Crete and come to him in Nicopolis. (Tit 3:12). A couple of years later, Titus was in Dalmatia, even further from the Island of Crete (2 Tim 4:10). Mail and travel were much slower then. Titus could not be some kind of “archbishop of Crete” if he left the Island and spent most of his time in other places. Paul told Titus to “set in order the things that are lacking” so they could run their congregations themselves as both Titus and Paul would not be there.

Titus 1:9: When Paul told Titus to find overseers who “hold fast the faithful word as he has been taught“, did he mean that truth is always dispensed from the “top down” and local teachers must teach only what their leaders teach them? If this were so, it would be in conflict with the Scriptures on page . The apostles were taught directly by Christ and were not confused. Before the New Testament books were available, the only sources for truth were Old Testament, the apostles, and the Holy Spirit. While the Holy Spirit is an excellent source of truth, false apostles found they could teach lies if they claimed the source was the Holy Spirit—they deceived many. This is why any revelation from the Holy Spirit must be compared with Scripture.

Today, each person has his or her own copy of the Scriptures. We no longer have living apostles to follow. There is no reason why a teacher should “teach what he has been taught” from a “high ranking“ leader when they both claim the Scriptures as their authority and it can be easily shown that the leader is in error. The entire effort of the New Testament writers was to keep truth in the Church, the body of believers—not establish a perpetual group in charge of doctrines. This does not mean that any member of the congregation should teach whatever he wants. It is a great sin to be a false teacher. Those who depart from the teachings of long-time leaders must thoroughly know the Scriptural basis for their actions.

John 21:15-17 & Acts 20:28: These Scriptures contain instructions to Peter to “feed and tend My sheep”, and a group of elders to “shepherd the church of God”. Some will claim that these verses set the leadership in authority over the people as a shepherd is in authority over his animals. They forget that our Savior is the chief Shepherd (1 Pet 5:4) and that believers are all His sheep (1 Cor 3:23). We can easily demonstrate the relationship from a brief parable:

A prince hired a shepherd to tend and feed his sheep. He started the shepherd with 100 sheep, and told him he would be sending him 100 more each week for the next four weeks. The shepherd asked if he had complete authority over the sheep, and the prince said, “Yes, I am entrusting them to you.”

At the end of four weeks, the shepherd gave this report: “Things are going well; the sheep are learning to obey. I have been feeding most of them, except the independent ones that try to eat where I cannot see them easily—them I put in a pen where they will not influence the others. They are getting thin and some of them have died—that is teaching the others that disobeying does not pay. We had a wolf come in once, but fortunately I woke up before he killed very many. Some sheep were so scared and stupid they got in a big pile and suffocated! A few of the old rams were fighting off the wolf, but I threw them out of the pasture for that—they should not be doing my job. I have not had time to mend the fence so we have had many run-a-ways. I catch the run-a-ways that I can find easily and punish them, but will not waste time on the ones that stray far—we do not want sheep like that here! Another thing that is working well: I have had a lot of nice lamb dinners and been able to stay warm with the skins when it is cold. I think we have nearly 200 sheep out there so just keep sending them every week and this flock will keep growing! Any chance of me getting a raise?”

The above story is about a bad shepherd. The Eternal sends him sheep (members), and he pretends to be a shepherd, but he hurts more than he helps, and the flock is destroyed and scattered. Our Savior gave the analogy of a shepherd tending sheep to His Church so they would understand the principle of taking care of others even when “the sheep” are hurting the shepherd or themselves. Shepherds have limited authority from the owner to help the sheep, not to use them for personal gain. “The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep” (John 10:11).

What Can Brethren Do When the Eternal’s Will Is Not Clear?

Sometimes brethren may have major decisions to make in a congregation, but may not be able to determine the will of the Eternal in the matter. One example of such a decision is whether a congregation should build, lease, or rent a place to meet. Another might be participation in one of several possible evangelism projects. Yet another example is which of two similarly gifted people should fulfill a certain function within the congregation. In traditional church congregations, the leader or board in charge simply makes the decision, and it is done—good or bad. But in a group looking for direct leadership from Christ, the brethren may sometimes discuss, pray and fast together, but still not be able to reach a conclusion. They may not be comfortable with simply voting if their group is largely divided on the issue, or if a significant portion of the brethren simply do not feel that they have a firm understanding of what the Eternal would want them to do. Is there any biblical way that the group can make such decisions and confidently go forward together?

Consider this example: “And they proposed two: Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and said, ‘You, O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen to take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.’ And they cast their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with the eleven apostles” (Acts 1:23-26). They had defined some qualifications for an apostle, but did not know which man to choose. They asked the Eternal to choose for them by casting lots. Can we “cast lots” today? How can we do it?

History and archeology show that the method used for casting lots was the writing of each person’s name on a small stone or wood fragment, putting all the “lots” in a narrow necked jar, shaking it up, and letting one fall out. The question we must ask: was this something that was done only this one time, or was it an established principle that continued to be used in the New Testament? That is not clear, as the New Testament neither definitely confirms or denies the practice. When the evil Simon the Sorcerer attempted to buy his way into a position in the Church, Peter told him “Thou has neither part not lot in this matter” (Acts 8:21, KJV). The Greek kleros is used here, the same word used in Acts 1:26 and in Matthew 27:35 where they cast lots for the Christ’s clothing. It is possible that Peter was telling Simon that he would not even be considered in any future casting of lots for church leaders, or this may be just an expression meaning he would have no part in the church at all.

The Eternal instructed Joshua to use lots to determine who was responsible for the sin that had caused Israel to be defeated in battle (Josh 7:10-20). The Eternal could have told Joshua exactly who did it, but instead He told him to cast lots the next day. The expression “was taken” found in verses 16 through 18 refers to taking a lot from a jar. They first put in the names of all the tribes, then the sub-tribes, then the families, until they found it was Achan.

The casting of lots was included in some of the temple services (Lev 16:8), and to divide the Israelite’s inheritance (Num 26:52-56). Joshua chapters 14 through 23 are a very detailed explanation of how it was done. This method prevented favoritism on the part of the leaders in dividing land—they could not give favorable land (with streams and trees) to their friends and the rocky hillsides to people that they did not like as much. As Proverbs 18:18 says, “Casting lots causes contentions to cease, and keeps the mighty apart.” Furthermore, the Eternal has not ceased to work through this method. The land of Israel will be divided again in the Millennium—by the casting of lots! (Ezk 45:1; 47:21-22; 48:29.)

As the physical inheritance was selected by lot, the principle of the spiritual inheritance being chosen “by lot” (the Eternal’s decision) is in the New Testament. “Giving thanks to the Father who has qualified us to be partakers of the inheritance [lots, Greek kleros] of the saints in the light” (Col 1:12). The same usage is found in Acts 26:18 and 1 Peter 5:3. The Eternal even uses the expression “cast the lot” to describe some of His own decisions (Isa 34:16). This last expression is probably figurative, and some of the others may be as well. Nevertheless, “casting lots” was obviously a familiar concept to New Testament writers.

There is no specific New Testament command to stop, nor to continue the practice of casting lots. The principle stated in Proverbs 18, above, and other Scriptures below show that men cast lots without any specific command from the Eternal to do it. When the men on Jonah’s ship did not know who was responsible for the massive storm that was about to kill them, they prayed and cast lots. The Eternal answered them (Jonah 1:6-7). Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, was selected by lot to burn incense when the angel appeared to him—there was no Old Testament command to do this, but certainly the Eternal was behind that selection (Luke 1:5-11).

“The lot is cast into the lap, but the disposing thereof is of the Lord” (Prv 16:33). If brethren are agreed that they want the Eternal’s will in a matter, but cannot agree on a specific decision, casting lots can be used to make the decision. The example quoted above contains all the essential elements to properly cast lots:

(1) Do what you know to do first. The apostles remembered what Christ said about the qualifications of an apostle—that he should have been with Christ from the beginning. They found two men who met those qualifications. They would have been negligent in their duties if they would have simply made a lot for everybody who “might be interested”. Casting lots should not be a short-cut to Bible study. If two people read the Bible and are convicted of different opinions, they should not try to “settle it” by casting lots. Experience has shown us that the Eternal does not reveal all doctrinal truth to all of those who serve him—we can find no group of believers who have had the same doctrines for 2000 years. He wants us to continue to study his word both for correction and continual learning. If he has not given us a clear understanding of a doctrine, maybe He wants us to continue to study, pray, and meditate about it until He does.

(2) Make sure those involved are willing to accept whatever lot is cast. If someone says, “Yes, I’m willing to cast lots for our choir director, but if Jones is chosen, I’m quitting the choir”, that person either does not have faith that God will choose, or does not want to obey God. Casting lots, in this case will not “cause contentions to cease”.

(3) Pray for the Eternal’s guidance. If this part is left out, decisions may simply be left to chance. In their prayer, the disciples acknowledged that it is the Eternal who knows the hearts of men. Without going into an extensive study of prayer, we realize that the Eternal may or may not hear our prayers based on how we live our lives (Isa 1:18; Acts 10:31; 1 Pet 3:7). If men are pursuing evil or their own selfish interests, the Eternal may not answer the prayer for a decision by lot, just as He may not answer other prayers. This should not make this method any less desirable. If our goal is to live a righteous life and we get distracted doing the “wrong thing”, the “wrong thing” is more likely to fail if based on random decisions (what happens if the Eternal does not influence our casting of lots). The sooner we fail at a “wrong thing” the sooner we will recognize our mistake and get back on the track.

(4) Do not dispute the decision. There may be debate about which names are “placed in the hat”, but once lots have been finalized, the prayer has been said and a lot is cast, it should not be disputed. To dispute such a decision is an admission that either one does not believe that the Eternal was in the process to begin with or to say we know better than the Eternal.

There is no biblical indication of specific material or method needed to “cast lots”. Writing names on equal sized pieces of paper or cardboard or pulling one out of a hat without looking seem equally valid. As long as people seek the Eternal’s will, and the method is random (there is no easy way for anyone to cheat.)

The biggest problem with casting lots to make a decision is that many people do not believe that the Eternal can really answer in this way. Unless you ask for some kind of miracle in addition to asking the Eternal for the right lot, you cannot prove to anyone that the Eternal made the choice for you. To rephrase point 2, if you cannot accept any lot that might be cast, do not cast lots!

Apology to People Hurt in the Past

This writer [Norm Edwards] once worked for church organizations that wielded much control over its members. While much truth was taught and much good was done by the organization, most of the membership became utterly reliant on the organization—not on Christ. At times, the members were abused—commanded to do things by their leaders that they would never do themselves (Matt 23:4). This writer was not directly in the “ministerial hierarchy”, he did work at the organization headquarters and did help that hierarchy to be more effective in its deeds (both good and evil). This writer would like to publicly acknowledge that he had a part in unbiblical government, apologize to anyone hurt by such government, and let these people know that he has prayed for their healing in this matter.

It is important to realize that the mistakes made by church organizations do not nullify the truth that they teach the good works that they do or the fruit that they bear. On the other hand, the good works do not nullify the error that was taught or remove the hurt from those who suffered wrongfully. Nor do the good works produce a faith and trust in Christ that the organizations normally took to themselves.

This “booklet” was adopted from Servant’s News:

Permission is granted to reproduce any article from servantsnews.com in its entirety.