"OBEY YOUR LEADERS": HEBREWS 13 AND LEADERSHIP IN THE CHURCH

TIMOTHY M. WILLIS
Pepperdine University In a paper read a few years ago at David Lipscomb University, I surveyed some of the major ideas on the authority of elders that have been voiced among writers in the Church of Christ since 1950.1 Two easily discernible poles emerged in that investigation. The views of one side may be designated "the pro-authority camp," while those holding the opposing view are termed "anti-authoritarians." These designations were carefully chosen, because they reflect the ways the respective groups nuance their viewpoints. Those in the pro-authority camp accuse their opponents of wanting to strip elders of their biblically-ordained authority (a charge which the latter deny); these individuals emphasize the need for church members to acknowledge the authority of their elders. The anti-authoritarians accuse their opponents of standing for authoritarian rule by elders (a charge denied by the first group); thus they emphasize that elders should maintain a non-authoritarian attitude. To some degree, this is a semantic debate. Neither side wishes to deny authority to elders. At the same time, neither side wishes to promote authoritarian rule by elders. Why, then, the debate? Frankly, much of the debate has emerged as a result of power struggles between elders and ministers or other persons of influence in a congregation. If a view is being professed (particularly by a minister or teacher) and the elders object to it, they might appeal to their authority as elders as a way of preventing the propagation of that view among the membership. In response, the person(s) holding that view might accuse the elders of authoritarianism and of stifling the life of the congregation. Conversely, if a view is propagated after the elders have voiced their objection to it, the party involved can be accused of rejecting the elders' God-given authority, thereby threatening the proper functioning of the whole body. It will probably always be this way.2

1 'The Office of Elder in Church of Christ Publications, 1950-1980," presented at the Christian Scholars Conference, David Lipscomb University, July 20,1991. 2 Besides these power struggles, there have also been questions raised about the extent of elders' authority, viz., their authority over extracongregational works such as orphans' homes and television ministries.

WILLIS, TIMOTHY/HEBREWS 13 AND LEADERSHIP

317

But whatever the cause for the debate, this investigation suggests that a more informed understanding of Christian leadership, as it is presented in the NT, might alleviate some of the problem and provide a healthier church environment overall. It seems that a limited understanding of sociopolitical structures has unnecessarily exacerbated this unavoidable problem. The model for church polity most often invoked in this discussion is that of the monarchy.3 It can be outlined in these terms: The king (God) has handed down his laws to his spokesmen (the apostles), who have in turn communicated those laws to the king's subjects (Christians). Duly-appointed officers (elders) within each community have now been assigned the responsibility of governing their community according to the laws of the king.4 They wield authority, because they represent the king; yet they cannot be authoritarian, because they also are his subjects. It is the appropriateness of this model of church polity which I wish to question.

Types of Authority
In order to expand the field of possible models, it is helpful to turn to the schematization of authority types outlined by Max Weber.5 Weber delineates three basic types of authority-charismatic, traditional, and legalrational. The first is authority attributed to someone solely on the basis of personal qualities (called "charisma," e.g., the judges of ancient Israel). There

3 O. L. Winborn, "Need for and Work of Elders," Gospel Advocate 92 (1950) 103; H. Leo Boles, "Church Government-All Alike," Gospel Advocate 92 (1950) 586; Homer Putnam Reeves, "The Eldership," Firm Foundation 72 (1955) 231; B. C. Goodpasture, "He . . . Called the Elders of the Church," Gospel Advocate 98 (1956) 858-59; G. C. Brewer, The Model Church (Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 1957) 11-25; Frank L. Cox, "Church Government," Gospel Advocate 99 (1957) 161,171; A. H. Maner, "Monarchy and Democracy in Church Government," Gospel Advocate 99 (1957) 257, 266; Everett Ferguson, "The Plurality of Elders in the Early Church," Firm Foundation 79 (1962) 579; Roy Deaver, "The Authority of Elders," Gospel Advocate 108 (1966) 261-62, 294-95, 372-73, 538-39; Vernon Morris, "Elders Must Defend the Faith," Firm Foundation 83 (1966) 727, 729, 743, 746; H. E. Phillips, Scriptural Elders and Deacons (2nd ed.; Marion, IN: Cogdill Foundations Publications, 1974) 3-17; Charles Hodge, "Elders in the Church," Firm Foundation 92 (1975) 264, 267; Batsell Barrett Baxter, "Authority in the Church," Gospel Advocate 118 (1976) 171-72; Robert R. Taylor, Jr., The Elder and His Work (Shreveport, LA: Lambert Book House, 1978) 5-11. 4 One of the major points of contention in this debate has been over the designation of elders (and deacons) as "officers." Conflicting interpretations of in 1 Tim 3:1 have been at the center of this discussion. This label was assumed for many years, but has recently been abandoned by a large majority of commentators. More generally, many of the comments on elders (and deacons) betray a predilection for constitutionalism. For example, in speaking of the "qualifications" of elders, we have invariably made analogies with the qualifications of elected officials in our government; so elders tend to be thought of in some ways as senators or representatives. 5 Max Weber on Charisma and Institution Building, Selected Papers (ed. S. . Eisenstadt; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968) 46-47.

318

RESTORATION QUARTERLY

is an immediate situation which demands that a particular role be filled by a person with particular abilities. If that ("charismatic") person emerges, that one fills the role. Once the situation has ended, the leader's authority evaporates and this individual returns to "normal" life. People follow this leader because of who the individual is, not because of any office held. They follow the charismatic leader because that person "has a gift" to do what is needed at the moment. If the need becomes chronic and the role is "routinized" (i.e., to the point of being a permanent role in the society, spanning multiple generations), then the authority of the person(s) fulfilling that role is termed "traditional." Here, there is authority vested in a particular function. There is a (usually) smooth passing of the responsibility from one generation to the next, often within a particular family; but allegiance/loyalty to the actual persons who carry out that function is still necessary. The notion of "charisma" (which is virtually the sole prerequisite for this authority) is still attributed in some degree to those with traditional authority. They are recognized by the community at large as "the right persons for the job." "Legal-rational" authority, on the other hand, is authority assigned strictly to an office by law. In this type of authority, whoever holds a particular officewhether revered personally (i.e., possessing "charisma") or not-must be obeyed, simply because of the office held. The office carries authority, and the officers do, too, but only because they hold that office. Further, the persons who hold the office are either appointed by a higher authority or through a process overseen by that higher authority (e.g., voting). Here, then, is a major problem among Churches of Christ in the discussion of the authority of elders: The monarchic model usually invoked for understanding church polity automatically assumes a "legal-rational" understanding of authority for elders; but elders, in secular communities which are led by elders, have "traditional" authority In the monarchic model, the authority of God has been channeled through the apostles into the laws (NT writings). As executors of those laws, the elders are thought to hold an office which gives them authority. Also they attain the office because they meet the qualifications spelled out in those laws. In contrast, the things said about elders in the NT again and again reflect the notion of traditional authority, the sort of authority wielded by elders in secular communities led by elders. In such communities, the role of elder is filled by individuals with

6 The designation "secular" might be misleading. In communities led by elders, those elders do not oversee merely "secular" matters. They oversee every aspect of community lifepolitical, social, religious, legal, ceremonial.

WILLIS, TIMOTHY/HEBREWS 13 AND LEADERSHIP

319

certain personal characteristics (not qualifications) which are seen as natural prerequisites for carrying out the needed function.7 But does this demand that we look to the model of "secular" elder-led communities as the model for understanding the polity of the early church? Not in and of itself. However, there are other clues which support such a notion.

Elders as Bearers of Traditional Authority

One clue that suggests that we should understand Christian elders in the light of elders from secular communities is the strong parallel between the characteristics of typical secular elders and the elders of the NT. In a previous study I have argued that the so-called "qualifications" of NT elders (1 Tim 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9) would better be termed "characteristics." The personal qualities mentioned in those passages are the types of personal qualities one finds in elders of secular communities throughout the world, differing only in the particular Christian standards which church elders are to uphold. The particular needs of the Christian community make those characteristics necessary prerequisites to fulfilling the role of Christian elder. Since secular elders normally possess traditional authority, the traditional nature of elders' authority in the church is to be expected. Another good indication that Christian elders possess traditional (not legal-rational) authority comes from Heb 13:17. Careful consideration of the author's reference to "leaders" in this verse, as well as earlier in the chapter (v.7), reveals a mind-set about authority in the church which is patently traditional in nature. Admittedly, the author does not specify the "leaders" as being "elders" in this passage, and they probably are not the only individuals intended here; but elders must have been part of this group called "leaders." Surely we are not to assume that the author intends to include all Christian "leaders" except elders in his remarks.9

7 An important observation in support of this is provided through the careful research of Jack Lewis. He points out that no term for "authority" is ever applied to the discharge of the functions of elders in the NT. Jack P. Lewis, Leadership Questions Confronting the Church (Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 1985) 9-12. 8 "Elders in the Old Testament Community," Leaven 2 (1992) 8-12. 9 "Little can be inferred from the term itself about the precise status and function of the leaders in question. They are certainly unlikely to have been monarchical bishops, and some sort of presbyterial group is probably involved." Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989) 391. See also Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews* Vol. 2 (trans. Thomas L. Kingsbury; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans [1952]) 378; Lewis, Leadership Questions, 33; James Burton Coffman (Commentary on Hebrews; Austin: Firm Foundation [1971] 347) believes that "noble elders and ministers" are implied by the term in v. 7, but only elders in v. 17.

320

RESTORATION QUARTERLY

Unfortunately, the traditional authority envisioned in Heb 13:17 is, in my opinion, effectively denied in many modern translations and by many commentators. The RSV, NRSV, and NASB, e.g., read, "Obey your leaders and submit to them. . . ." The NIV goes even further, reading, "Obey your leaders and submit to their authority . . . " The older translations, like the KJV, read, "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves." The leaders10 are to be obeyed and submitted to. To the Western mind such translations suggest a legal-rational understanding of elders' authority. This legal-rational understanding of the text is echoed among many commentators. For example, Harold Attridge sees here a "concern for proper subordination to ecclesiastical authorities [which] is characteristic of some works of the late first century."11 Neil Lightfoot cites the "solemn responsibility" attributed to the work of the church's leaders in this passage as a strong reason for members to submit to their authority.12 Some qualify this with the commonsense recognition that leaders can be wrong and should not be obeyed blindly; nevertheless, as long as they are not in conflict with the teachings of God in Scripture, they should be obeyed in every respect.13 Similarly, several have tried to qualify their call for respect of elders' authority with a call for those elders to be nonauthoritarian.14 Even with this qualification, the understanding of authority is patently legal-rational.

There are those who hold that only elders are implied here, because only elders are thought to be held responsible for those they lead (see the rest of v. 17). See Robert Milligan, Epistle to the Hebrews (Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 1955 [1885]) 380; R. H. Boll, Lessons on Hebrews (Louisville: Word and Work, 1947) 208-209; Coffman, Commentary on Hebrews, 353. It seems likely, however, that ministers and/or teachers might also be included here (see 1 Tim 4:16; 2 Tim 2:14-15; Jas 3:1). 10 The older translation, "them that have the rule over you," is generally recognized as too strong. The word for "leaders" ( is a participle, literally meaning "those that lead." It is a rather generic word, applied to virtually any type of leader. 11 Attridge, Hebrews, 402; Milligan, 380-81, says: "The obligations of the Church and of her officers are mutually binding. If it is the duty of the Elders to teach, it is also manifestly the duty of the other members of the Church to receive their lawful instructions; and if it is the duty of the former to rule, it is equally the duty of the latter to submit to all their acts of discipline which are not in violation of the law of Christ." For a comparable understanding of obedience as a duty, see William Barclay, The Letter to the Hebrews (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1957) 22829; Johannes Schneider, The Letter to the Hebrews (trans. W. A. Mller; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans [1957]) 132,135. Neil Lightfoot, Jesus Christ Today: A Commentary on the Book of Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976) 253; cf. Schneider, The Letter to the Hebrews, 132; Donald A. Hagner, Hebrews (New International Biblical Commentary; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1990) 247. 13 Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament, Explanatory and Practical: Hebrews (3d ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1955 [1872]) 323-24; Milligan, Epistle to the Hebrews, 380-81; Lightfoot, Jesus Christ Today, 253. 14 Winborn, Need for and Work of Elders, 104; Brewer, Model Church, 36-39; Charles Hodge, "Elders Are Pastors," Gospel Advocate 121 (1979) 81, 87; Guy N. Woods, "Neither . . .

WILLIS, TIMOTHY/HEBREWS 13 AND LEADERSHIP

321

I would argue, however, that this is an inappropriate translation/ 15 interpretation of the verbs used in this verse. The second verb in the pair () is used only here in the NT. However, it and a related term () are found in extrabiblical texts, bearing the basic meaning "submit, yield to." This is not very helpful in specifying the type of authority assumed here, 16 though, because it does not explain why one should "yield." It could be because of the higher status of the one to whom the people are yielding, but it could also be for some other reason. Such a reason is implied by the first verb in the verse (). The most common meaning of the verb is "to persuade or convince," when it is used in the active voice. For example, Paul is repeatedly reported to have spoken to people, trying to "persuade" them to accept the gospel (Acts 13:43; 18:4; 19:8,26; 26:28; 28:23). The verb connotes the use of verbal argumentation to sway personal opinion. In the middle/passive voice, the sense most commonly intended is "to be persuaded or convinced, to trust, to be sure of." Again in the book of Acts, converts to Christianity are said to be "persuaded" by what Paul and others tell them about the kingdom (Acts 17:4; 28:24; cf. 21:14; 23:21; 27:11). There are some forty other occurrences of this root in the NT, and the same basic sense is understood in almost every case. In spite of the preponderance of this understanding of the root , in both the active and passive voices, there are three instances in the NT where this term is used in the passive voice and translators prefer the word "obey" when translating it (Gal 5:7; Heb 13:17; Jas 3:3).i? The most certain of these three is in Jas 3:3. Here, James mentions how people use bridles on horses "to make them obey us" ( ). Certainly, arideris not using the bridle to talk the horse into going in a particular direction. Still, it is possible to understand the notion of "persuasion" in this context. A horse could be said to be "persuaded" (figuratively speaking) by the bridle to follow the rider's lead. Another instance in which the translation "obey" is said to be preferred is in Gal 5:7. Paul rhetorically asks his readers, "Who prevented you from

Lords over God's Heritage," Gospel Advocate 122 (1980) 519, 530, 532. 15 I am not arguing that these terms should never be translated "obey" and "submit." There are several extrabiblical occurrences where those translations are to be preferred (e.g., 4 Mace. 10:13; 15:10; 18:1). 16 Lenski claims that "one obeys when one agrees with what he is told to do, is persuaded by its correctness and profitableness; one yields, gives up, when he has a contrary opinion." R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1966) 490. As appealing as this distinction may sound, I see no warrant for it in the text. 17 See esp. R. Bultmann, "," TDNT, VI, 5-6; O. Becker, "Faith" (), NIDNT, I, 591.

322

RESTORATION QUARTERLY

obeying the truth ( )?" This translation masks the particular nuance Paul is giving to this statement. 'The truth" is something that is communicated orally; so why not translate this more literally: "Who hindered you from being persuaded by the truth"? Such a translation also makes better sense with the following sentence: "Such a persuasion ( ^) does not come from the one who called you." Paul is not saying that someone has been physically hindering his readers from doing what "the truth" commands. Instead, someone has swayed them with a set of arguments ("persuasion" ) to choose another set of (false) teachings over what is taught in "the truth." The same sense should be understood in Heb 13:17, the third instance in the NT where is commonly rendered "obey." One should read instead: "Be persuaded (by your leaders)." Perhaps inadvertently, the more traditional rendering suggests a stance of commanding by the leaders, while the latter suggests discussion and swaying of opinions. Several pieces of evidence from the context of Hebrews 13 support the latter understanding. Most immediately, the rationale given for "yielding" to the leaders is their responsibility toward God, not any authority that they wield over the church membership (Heb 13:17a,b). In fact, throughout this section, the author never uses any office(s) held by the church "leaders" as a reason to show them respect.18 Slightly less directly, the readers' attitude toward their present leaders is compared to their attitude toward their past leaders in the church. Those past leaders are mentioned earlier in v. 7. 19 The readers are reminded there of those earlier leaders' "way of life" () and their "faith." It is the person-not the office-of those leaders which is emphasized.20 Moreover, the primary focus is what those leaders taught. They are identified as "those who spoke the word of God to you"; the "outcome" of their lives and their "faith" was a reflection of what they taught.21 The intervening verses (vv. 8-16) expand on this, bridging past and present.22 Since "Jesus

18 'This respect [for leaders] is due to their function rather than their office (cf. 1 Thess 5:12; 1 Cor 16:15f.; Luke 22:26)," James Thompson, The Letter to the Hebrews (Living Word Commentaries: Austin: Sweet, 1971) 182. 19 All the commentators agree that v.7 refers to past leaders (they "spoke the word of God"; also note the phrase "the outcome of their life," which implies their death), while v. 17 refers to present leaders. 20 Barclay, Letter to the Hebrews, 222-23. 21 Attridge, Hebrews, 392. 22 While there are diverse opinions about how to divide this chapter into topical sections, several have argued that the references to "leaders" in w . 7 and 17 mark the boundaries of one block of material in the author's mind. So Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 390-91; Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 701-02; Charles R. Erdman, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Philadelphia:

WILLIS, TIMOTHY/HEBREWS 13 AND LEADERSHIP

323

Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever" (v. 8), this second generation of Christians-leaders and led alike-should have just as much reason to live a life of faith in Christ as their previous leaders had. This allsufficiency of Christ (a major theme of the entire book) is recapitulated in verses 10-14, culminating in verses 15-16 in a call for a life of service. This is contrasted to certain "strange teachings" (v. 9), which do not "benefit" their adherents as the teachings of the church's leaders do. What this implies about the present church leaders, even before they are mentioned, is that they, too, must earn the respect of their church members because of their "way of life" and their "faith." Similarly, if the emphasis is placed on what the earlier leaders faithfully taught, we should expect that the major concern for the present leaders is what they teach. So the leaders earn the respect of their congregations by persuading them of the truthfulness of what they teach. The writer obviously gives his full support for them in that regard, and so he tells his readers to "be persuaded by your leaders [in what they teach] and yield yourselves [to them, because you have been persuaded by what they teach]." The main concern of the writer is the possibility of apostasy; and the primary means by which the leaders can combat the apostate teachers is not any appeal to authority which they derive from their office(s), but their power of persuasion.23

The Power of Persuasion among Secular Leaders

The oratorical skill of elders in elder-led communities is often described as most significant for determining their effectiveness as elders. (See above on how church elders are understood to be among the "leaders" about whom the author of Hebrews writes.) For example, among various Arab communities of the Middle East and North Africa, the most important characteristic of local elders (and shaykhs) is their skill of persuasion. Every elder needs this to reconcile disputes, to represent his people well to outside authorities, and to perpetuate his community's history and traditions to succeeding generations.24 Similarly, the most respected leaders among the

Westminster, 1934) 130-34; Lenski, Interpretation, 474ff. 23 Others have reached the same conclusion. See George Buchanan, To the Hebrews (AB; Garden City: Doubleday, 1972) 238; Delitzsch, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 39495; David Desha, "Elders and Authority," Firm Foundation 94 (1977) 725, 732; Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977) 585-87; Robert Jewett, Letter to Pilgrims: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (New York: Pilgrim, 1981) 231-32, 237-38; T. C. Smith, "An Exegesis of Hebrews 13:1-17," Faith and Mission 7 (Fall 1989) 70-78; Thompson, Letter to the Hebrews, 182; Kenneth S. Wuest, Hebrews in the Greek New Testament for the English Reader (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1947) 235,240. 24 Donald P. Cole, Nomads of the Nomads: The Al-Murrah of the Empty Quarter

324

RESTORATION QUARTERLY

Samburu of East Africa are those with the best oratorical skills.25 An elder among the Bantu people of East Africa is said to be esteemed more and more highly, according to his ability to persuade disputing factions to listen to him.26 Numerous other examples of this characteristic from community elders around the world could be cited.27 The same notion of the importance of verbal skills for elders is reflected in materials from the OT. Job provides an excellent example of this. He describes himself as one respected in the gate, which was the place of elders in that world. When he spoke, others fell silent so that they could listen to what he had to say (Job 29:7-11). His was always the final word (Job 29:2122). A concrete example of Israel's elders as persuaders is found in the law of levirate marriage (Deut 25:5-10). When a brother-in-law failed to fulfill his obligations to his dead brother's wife, the elders could only "speak to him" (v. 8) in attempting to provoke him to responsible action. Any "sanctions" imposed on any member of their community were upheld only insofar as the community could be persuaded to go along with those sanctions. In sum, in times of interpersonal disputes, elders move to persuade the opposing parties of the wisdom of reconciliation. In times of need, they work for a spirit of cooperation among various factions in their community in order to meet the need at hand. If a member of the community has been neglecting those who depend on him, the elders will speak to him to convince him of the importance of having all of the citizens fulfill their responsibilities. They lead successfully according to the degree to which they are respected-and,

(Chicago: Aldine, 1975) 96; Harvey Goldberg, "From Shaikh to Mazkir: Structural Continuity and Organizational Change in the Leadership of a Tripolitanian Jewish Community," in Jewish Societies in the Middle East: Community, Cultural, and Authority (ed. S. Deshen and W. P. Zenner; Washington, DC: University Press of America, 1982) 142-46. 25 P. Spencer, The Samburu: A Study of Gerontocracy in a Nomadic Tribe (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1965) 179. Cf. Maurice Bloch, "Decision-Making in Councils among the Merina of Madagascar," in Councils in Action (ed. Audrey Richards and Adam Kuper; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, [1971]) 46-54. 26 G. Wagner, "The Political Organization of the Bantu of Kavirondo," in African Political Systems (ed. Meyer Fortes and E. E. Evans-Pritchard; London: Oxford University Press [1940]) 220-21. 27 Robert Fernea, Shaykh and Effendi (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1970) 146-47; Michele Teitelbaum, "Old Age, Widwifery, and Good Talk: Paths to Power in a West African Gerontocracy," in Aging and Cultural Diversity: New Directions and Annotated Bibliography (ed. Heather Strange and Michele Teitelbaum; South Hadley, MA: Bergin and Garvey [1987]) 50-51; G. I. Jones, "Councils among the Central Ibo," in Councils in Action, 6571; E. E. Evans-Pritchard, The Nuer: A Description of the Modes of Livelihood and Political Institutions of a Nilotic People (Oxford: Clarendon, 1951), 173-76; J. B. Townsend, "The Autonomous Village and the Development of Chiefdoms," in Development and Decline: The Development of Sociopolitical Organizations (ed. H. J. M. Claessen, and others; South Hadley, MA: Bergin and Garvey, 1985) 151-52.

WILLIS, TIMOTHY/HEBREWS 13 AND LEADERSHIP

325

therefore, able to persuade-in their community. The fact that persuasion (or more broadly, speech skills) is often cited as the most important characteristic of elders in these non-church communities, along with the fact that oratorical skills like persuasion are highlighted in regard to the elders in the early church, lends additional weight to our proposal that these sociopolitical structures be used as the model for interpreting church polity.28

Conclusions and Areas for Further Inquiry

In conclusion, the remarks of Heb 13 regarding the "leaders" of the church suggest that those leaders (who would have included elders) wielded traditional authority. A primary proof of this is the appeal by the author of Hebrews that his readers "be persuaded by (their) leaders and yield [to them]." This implies that those leaders must rely on their oratorical skills and personal example (see v. 7) to generate a following among their congregations. Further, I have shown that this mode of authority is "traditional" in type. This is characteristic of other, secular/non-church communities in which elders normally serve as leaders. Since the usual model for interpreting the teachings on Christian elders assumes a "legal-rational" type of authority for those elders, it can lead to some inappropriate conclusions about the workings of those elders. Therefore, I am proposing that we turn to typical elder-led communities for the model for interpreting the NT teachings on church elders. There are some implications of this realization which are obvious. For example, as with any leaders with traditional authority, Christian elders must earn the respect of their members in order to carry out their functions as envisioned in the NT. In addition, they must be able to persuade rather than command. As many have expressed, good elders lead "by example, not by command."29 Nevertheless, it seems that this is compromised by the lingering persistence of viewing church structure according to monarchic/constitutional principles.

One should also note the many characteristics of elders listed in 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1 which concern a man's oratorical/teaching skills. These include: "temperate . . . , an apt teacher..., not quarrelsome"; also "not quick-tempered . . . , self-controlled . . . , and he must hold firm to the sure word as taught." 29 Boll, Lessons on Hebrews, 209; Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 586-87; John G. Young, "Elders Must Work," Firm Foundation 70 (1953) 4; M. Norvel Young, "Are Elders Dictators?" Firm Foundation 82 (1965) 424; E. Claude Gardner, "Good Example of Elders," Gospel Advocate 109 (1967) 633-34; J. M. Powell, "Work of Elders," Gospel Advocate 112 (1970) 1, 22; William Kay Moser, "Elders Are Leaders," Firm Foundation 92 (1975) 521; Lewis, Leadership Questions, 40-41.

28

326

RESTORATION QUARTERLY

But this raises some new questions. For example, how can one acquire a clear understanding of this alternative model in America today? This model has not existed in the Western world for several centuries (other than among less politically complex peoples, like Native Americans). This fact probably explains why it is not naturally considered by those thinking about church polity. But if it is so "foreign" in the West, how can it be understood and appreciated? More basically, if it is so foreign to us, why should we feel obligated to retain it in our churches? Is there something inherent in this type of polity which is crucial to the proper functioning of the church? Is it necessary to retain it in order to be the kind of church that God wants? One possible way to wrestle with these questions is through more careful study of polities and political theory in the world of the first century. How common and/or how well known were elder-led communities? If it was not a commonly used polity, then its use in the church might suggest a certain countercultural component there which was very significant (cf. Mark 10:4245; Luke 22:24-27). Was this the polity of the synagogue? If so, then that might suggest a more logical and (purely?) natural explanation for its adoption in the church. Even if that were the case, is there something inherent in the traditional authority of elder-led communities which is crucial to being the kind of church God desires? If so, then it would seem crucial for us to become familiar with that and to strive to incorporate that into our ideas of what it means to be a true church of Christ. Finally, this study is dedicated to Dr. Thomas H. Olbricht. His broad knowledge and wisdom are surpassed only by the unassuming spirit with which he lovingly and sincerely tries to persuade and convince others about what God has taught in Scripture. I will always remember him as one who has taught me the word of God and one whose faith I daily strive to imitate (Heb 13:7).

^ s
Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.