Churches without elders

[heapshake]

I'm wondering if anyone has any opinions on churches without elders or deacons? The church I grew up in didn't have any and soon I'll be moving back close to it (although there is a church with elders and deacons that will be closer). Would you have a problem attending a church without elders? Our church was led by the men although I never knew exactly how. I do know that they had a preacher leave because he said it was too hard working without elders?

 

[cremi]

In general, I would say, yes, I would have a problem with it. That being said, however, I would rather go to a God-fearing biblically based church without elders than a church that has elders, but poor leadership.

I've been in a good church that didn't have elders, simply because there was no on qualified--too small. Eventually, they did have elders, but went for many years without.

I've also been a part of a congregation that had elders, but the elders were not shephering the flock--not that shepherding the flock is easy! I'm sure glad I don't have to do it, but I think it's important to have godly spiritual men in that role, rather than just sticking someone in there to fill the position.

So it is my preference, but it's not set in concrete. I think God set up and designed the church with elders and deascons for a good purpose. To deviate from that, IMO, is not a wise choice.

 

[SoulFly51]

Churches that don't have elders in our fellowship tend to have a good reason for it.

No, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

 

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

I don't know. Scripture seems clear on the issue of elders. I cannot imagine a church without elders or deacons. It would seem to be without proper leadership. I would not be comfortable with it. I haven't studied out church structure as much as I should have but it still smacks of doing things differently than scripture.

 

[Warrior4ChristAL]

I think that the Body of Christ has been unbalanced with eldership and leadership.

I think we need to have local bodies that line up with the Word of God.

Biblical Eldership had to do with Spiritual Maturity. The "older teaching the younger".

However, the Eldership was not suppose to "control the church". This is where power-hungry ministers believe to dictate to their pastors what they can and cannot teach or preach.

There needs to be accountability and responsibility. I do not believe in submitting to someone that is unwilling to be submissive to others.

I think the church should have what the Bible deems as leadership.

Elders
Bishops
Apostles
Pastors
Prophets
Teachers
Evangelists
Administrations

. . . etc.

I do not believe the way the church is currently structured that it is patterned after the Word of God.

Blessings.

 

[heapshake]

I've been in a good church that didn't have elders, simply because there was no on qualified--too small. Eventually, they did have elders, but went for many years without.

I've also been a part of a congregation that had elders, but the elders were not shephering the flock--not that shepherding the flock is easy! I'm sure glad I don't have to do it, but I think it's important to have godly spiritual men in that role, rather than just sticking someone in there to fill the position.

The church I grew up in has been around for 35 years or so. It is a small church (maybe 35-45 total on Sunday morning), but I've thought that there were qualified people for the job. Most of the people that attend are the same people that attended when it was started (even the first preacher they had has come back) so there are men who have led it for 35 years. I didn't think much of it growing up, but now it seems odd. I guess I don't see much of a difference between just sticking somebody in there and what they are doing now. I mean the church is being "led" by a group and if the people in the group aren't qualified for being an elder then they probably shouldn't be part of the leadership group.

 

[notreligus]

Restoration Movement churches pretty well insist on having elders in leadership. Some of these won't allow the minsiter to be elders. I don't understand that. A minister should have input on the operation of the church, and should also qualify as an elder.

I agree that there should be those with leadership roles in the church. This is a system of checks and balances, I believe, or one of accountability. The Bible does not state this specifically, but personally I like to see churches rotate those in the elder roles every few years or so. We must remember that elders are just human beings with flaws, just like the rest of the membership. They can sometimes get a bit dictatorial if they are put in the office on an open-ended basis. One of my Bible college professors taught that the church's form of government is an oligarchy, or rule by the few. That's fine, but the "few" should not get tenure, but voluntarily rotate with others.

 

[SoulFly51]

I don't know. Scripture seems clear on the issue of elders. I cannot imagine a church without elders or deacons. It would seem to be without proper leadership. I would not be comfortable with it. I haven't studied out church structure as much as I should have but it still smacks of doing things differently than scripture.

I believe all churches should have elders when that's possible, but sometimes its just not.

If you've never been exposed to a situation where its not possible yet, you probably will someday.

 

[cremi]

The church I grew up in has been around for 35 years or so. It is a small church (maybe 35-45 total on Sunday morning), but I've thought that there were qualified people for the job. Most of the people that attend are the same people that attended when it was started (even the first preacher they had has come back) so there are men who have led it for 35 years. I didn't think much of it growing up, but now it seems odd. I guess I don't see much of a difference between just sticking somebody in there and what they are doing now. I mean the church is being "led" by a group and if the people in the group aren't qualified for being an elder then they probably shouldn't be part of the leadership group.

Probably what I would look at, is whether the church is growing or reaching out. If the church is growing, then it might be fine, but if the church is stagnent, then you might want to reconsider joining there again, unless you are qualified to make some of those changes. Does that make sense?

One very small church (35 - 40 members) that we were a part of when we were first married, wanted to make my dh an elder. He was a mere 23 or 24 at the time and we had only been married a few months. He declined of course, but sadly, he was just about the only one who was close to being qualified. We eventually moved and left this church. To my last knowledge, they never did have any elders and had lots of problems. Over the last 18 years, they have not grown at all. I think that is unhealthy.

 

[Waymark]

Our congregation has about 80 in attendance. There are several who are qualified according to the epistles but they are blood related. I don't know if that factors in their declining at this time. My husband does not desire the office. He just prefers to be in the background and not be an overseer. The scriptures say the elder candidate must desire the office.

Sometimes there are issues that a man deals with, such as whether he feels his children are faithful, whether he feels he has what it takes at this point in his walk to be an effective elder. At any rate, congregations ought to move in the direction of having elders, because that is what is pleasing to God, and that is what helps the church spiritually.

 

[Frame1520]

In general, I would say, yes, I would have a problem with it. That being said, however, I would rather go to a God-fearing biblically based church without elders than a church that has elders, but poor leadership.

I've been in a good church that didn't have elders, simply because there was no on qualified--too small. Eventually, they did have elders, but went for many years without.

I've also been a part of a congregation that had elders, but the elders were not shephering the flock--not that shepherding the flock is easy! I'm sure glad I don't have to do it, but I think it's important to have godly spiritual men in that role, rather than just sticking someone in there to fill the position.

So it is my preference, but it's not set in concrete. I think God set up and designed the church with elders and deascons for a good purpose. To deviate from that, IMO, is not a wise choice.

Boy is that right! I firmly believe that you should never, EVER, elect people to the Eldership who are not qualified. It can result in the death of a church. When I first became a christian, the church I joinedwas in its decline because of this reason. The church had eleted elders just to have elders, and now that church is run by a woman and running about 10 people. It was a terrible terrible mistake. I know that if you give an inch, a mile will often be taken.

I am in a similar situation now...We have 3 elders, 2 of which are in in their late 70's and not always doing so well health wise. Some people are urging that we "get a few more in place." However, as I see it, (and as the bible states, to clarify) there are only about 3 people qualified. 1 does not desire the office, one is anti-outreach, and the third is the minister. It makes things tough, but my stand on this has been staunch; we wait for those who are qualified and with a desire, to come into our midst. We give them a time of testing as well to make sure they meet the qualifications, and in the meantime, we continue discipling the younger generations in preperation for them one day assuming those roles...The only way to build strong leadership is to work with younger generations to build those foundations for the future.

 

[ComesoonmyLORD]

It boils down to this. If the congregation does not have men who meet the scriptural qualifications of eldership, then I wouldn't have a problem attending. If there are qualified men present and choose not to serve, then I think they are at least a stagnet congregation and are bound to have many problems.

 

[YoungBerean]

I'm wondering if anyone has any opinions on churches without elders or deacons? The church I grew up in didn't have any and soon I'll be moving back close to it (although there is a church with elders and deacons that will be closer). Would you have a problem attending a church without elders? Our church was led by the men although I never knew exactly how. I do know that they had a preacher leave because he said it was too hard working without elders?

It would seem to me that the book of acts, as well as many of the new testament epistels clearly teach that the early church did indeed have elders serving in a position of leadership.

I suggest making a study of it and see what the bible has to say for yourself.

 

[Daniels]

Churches without elders

School without teachers.

 

[hoadelphos]

Show me a congregation without elders (shepherds of the local flock) and I'll show you a lukewarm or cold congregation.

It is the congregation's responsibility to raise up, train up, potential elders and to appoint those who are qualified. It is like planting a crop, if you don't plant any seed you won't have a crop. The same goes for deacons and all the other necessary functions in the body of Christ.

That being the case, we each need to decide if we are going to work to help solve the problem or become part of the problem.

 

[cremi]

Show me a congregation without elders (shepherds of the local flock) and I'll show you a lukewarm or cold congregation.

It is the congregation's responsibility to raise up, train up, potential elders and to appoint those who are qualified. It is like planting a crop, if you don't plant any seed you won't have a crop. The same goes for deacons and all the other necessary functions in the body of Christ.

That being the case, we each need to decide if we are going to work to help solve the problem or become part of the problem.

Of course, I could also show you many, many churches that are cold or lukewarm and DO have elders.

I think the key is to have elders in place that will indeed 'shepherd" the flock, rather than just elders in place to fill the position.

 

[Frame1520]

I think the key is to have elders in place that will indeed 'shepherd" the flock, rather than just elders in place to fill the position.

Yes indeed. Many who are in the position do not understand that: I think that is where a lot of issues arise within our churches that make them seem cold or lukewarm.

 

[hoadelphos]

Of course, I could also show you many, many churches that are cold or lukewarm and DO have elders.

I think the key is to have elders in place that will indeed 'shepherd" the flock, rather than just elders in place to fill the position.

The burden is still on the people in the congregation to edify young men, who may then later in life become elders. Plant the SEED, nuture the young sprouts, and later some will in fact become qualified to be elders. Being a deacon is a very good training ground for potential elders.

Among the Amish it is a rare husband and father who is not biblically qualilfied to become an elder.

The real problem is the secular attitudes among many elders and the entire congregation. Being an elder is often seen as being on the board of directors of a corporation, each with a job to do...making it difficult for the entire congregation to function as a local body of Christ where each member nutures and enables the other to function properly.

 

[ComesoonmyLORD]

I think the church today, in a lot of cases, has become much like a corporation. I attend a church with a $1M a year budget, roughly 1000 members, to some degree it has to operate like a corporation, but I think our shepherds understand that we are here to spread the good news of the Gospel. We have several areas of mission work, local and abroad, we have leadership programs for our young men to develop them for future service in the church, we have benevolent work, etc., etc. When it boils down to it, I believe our elders understand that they have been called to serve, they accepted that role with the understanding that they must serve. They did not accept that position for the title. Sure it's a job, and a huge one, but they do it with a servants attitude, not for worldly gain or notice.
I simply believe that a congregation without servant attitude elders would have to work very hard.

 

[Randi]

The congregation I attend doesn't have elders right now. We have in the past, when there were qualified men.

The congregation has been meeting and growing in this location for almost 100 years. The gospel is being preached and work is being done...but right now there are no qualified men for the eldership.

It's a scary thing to appoint unqualified men as elders...scary for them as individuals and for the congregation as a whole.

But, we constantly pray that we will soon have elders. And the men are active in training the younger men so that they can eventually be qualified wherever God places them.