Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 7
The speaker raises the uncomfortable question of whether leaders are appointed rather than elected (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5), then says the congregation still must have confidence in whoever is chosen; what would have to change in your instincts about authority, trust, and control to accept appointment without sliding into either authoritarianism or congregational politics?
Another way to ask: If leaders are appointed instead of elected, what would need to change in how you think about authority, trust, and control so you don’t fall into either harsh leadership or church politics?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
Based on the speaker’s teaching, accepting appointment would require trusting biblically guided leadership while also insisting on broad congregational confidence, so the process avoids power-grabbing on one side and popularity contests on the other.
- He cites Acts 14:23: Paul and Barnabas “appointed elders in every church,” explicitly saying they “were not voted in by the congregation.”
- He cites Titus 1:5: Titus was told to “appoint elders in every city,” framing it as an apostolic pattern.
- He notes the qualifications in Timothy/Titus are written to Timothy and Titus (the ones who would ordain), not as instructions to congregations on how to vote.
- He admits their local church “has not come to a decision… on appointing or electing deacons,” showing humility and openness.
- He safeguards against authoritarianism: “whoever is selected… needs to be someone who has the approval of the congregation,” so they don’t choose men who “don’t have the confidence of the congregation.”
- He quotes Ignatius: deacons should “be pleasing to all,” reinforcing the “confidence” principle.