Agree completely. And will also add that any elder that is recognized as so by the elders wouldn't surprise anyone in the local gathering either. The people will know the guy has been doing the work of an elder for a while already.

I spent many years in a church almost exactly like you have specified here. We did not have membership, but knew who the committed members were.

While there was rule by the elders, our "autonomous" locale was in fact connected to a larger organization which exercised considerable influence upon the membership.

Jim, how did that work? Just wanna get some info on the dynamics is all.

Thanks, David. We are doing it this way in our church.

When I asked about ecclesiology I was speaking of polity, and this answer was good enough for me. Elder rule is the scriptural model, I believe...

Now, about teaching and ruling elders, is there a real difference, or the same office, or what?

If elders are only chosen by other elders, who chooses the first elder(s)? Do we not see some congregational input (Acts 6; Matthew 18)? I am not calling for Congregational Government as seen in most churches (Republic). I would agree with Elder Rule in the sense that the Elders are to lead the church, but Congregational input (purchasing land; building projects) as well as Congregational vote (choosing of leaders; adding of members; removing from membership) seems biblical on a few issues.

And will also add that any elder that is recognized as so by the elders wouldn't surprise anyone in the local gathering either. The people will know the guy has been doing the work of an elder for a while already.

That’s a good point. The elders invest in training younger men for the ministry, and everyone knows it.

Now, about teaching and ruling elders, is there a real difference, or the same office, or what?

Among the qualifications for elders is that they be "able to teach." That is the only qualification for elders not listed for deacons. The office of deacon was created so elders could be free to teach. Now, I suppose it's reasonable that some elders' ministries might be more narrowly focused on teaching, while others tend to other pastoral ministries. Some, such as John MacArthur, use the title "pastor/teacher." So I would say that all elders are teachers, but the actual division of responsibilities might vary from church to church.

If elders are only chosen by other elders, who chooses the first elder(s)? Do we not see some congregational input (Acts 6; Matthew 18)?

The first elders were the Apostles and men taught by the Apostles, weren’t they? I have thought of that question, though, concerning new churches. In the case of new church plants, I suppose the planting church would get it started. But what if someone finds themselves in a place without a church, and wants to start one? By what authority could they do that? That’s a question of interest to me, as we are presently driving to the next town for church.

Acts 6 does indeed show the congregation choosing deacons, with the Apostles approving and ordaining them. Matthew 18 puts excommunication in the hands of the whole body. So there definitely is congregational involvement.

I don’t see the authority of elders extending to minutia such as the color of the carpet. I see it as covering only the real business of the church, matters of faith and practice.

David,

Thanks for answering my questions. I agree with you. My question about choosing elders does refer directly to new churches. This does lead us down another path of questioning autonomy and denominational leadership. Who gives authority for a man or a group of men (elders) to start a new church? Where is the oversight? Where is the affirmation of God's call? Is there to be connections (authority) between churches? This might be answered best with another post.

Good questions, Don. I may address them in another post, but I'm afraid I'll be short on answers.

Good stuff, Bro.