The Selecting of the Seven

[Donnie Gillum]

Here is a topic for discussion that may be of interest of all members of the Network: The Selecting of the Seven (in Acts 6). This topic has piqued my curiosity for several years, and has offered plenty of food for thought…and raised many questions concerning leadership of the early church. While I do have some ideas of my own, I would love to see how my Network Brethren think, feel and analyze this subject…as each of us bring to attention particular points for consideration.

Here’s a background summary of Acts 6:1-8:
The early church’s efforts to meet the needs of the widows among them were leaving particular ones overlooked somehow. The apostles called the large congregation of disciples together and instructed them to look out seven men from among them to take care of this task. The apostles gave the disciples specific qualifications to look for. The disciples presented the required seven men…the apostles gave their approval by the laying on of hands and prayer…and the church grew.

Beginning questions:
Why choose men?
Why didn’t the apostles just handpick the seven men themselves?

[David Huston]

Everything that happened in the Jerusalem church established the pattern for future church plants: established by apostles, deacons appointed, then elders appointed, then the apostles move on. I believe the seven of Acts 6 serve as the protypes for the deacons (literally servers, ministers). Philippians 1:1 and 1 Timothy 3:8-13 indicate that deacons were a recogized and appointed place of service in the local assemblies. They were men because they were not the only servers in the assembly, they were heading up the work of service and all church leaders must be men. I believe the reason the apostles asked the people to nominate men for this work is because it was vitally important that these men had credibility with the people. They had to be trusted. Since the number seven is symbolic of perfection, I believe the protype teaches us that each assembly needs however many deacons it takes to get the job done perfectly (fully), whether that be two or twenty.

[Donnie Gillum]

Quote: I believe the reason the apostles asked the people to nominate men for this work is because it was vitally important that these men had credibility with the people. They had to be trusted.

Brother Huston, I appreciate that you brought this up, especially since your are active in Elder leadership. I think you nailed it right on the head (your other comments show that you've done your homework also. LOL!) To me, since they were to be selected from among themselves (and not have a “foreigner to reign over them”), no one knew better than the people (not even the apostles), who the qualified men were (and which ones were not). To me, this showed not only wisdom on the apostles’ part, but mutual trust between them and the ones that vouched for these men.

There have been people put into position that many knew were definitely not qualified…therefore did NOT trust them…and were set leery of, or uneasy with the pastor! And the pastor could have certainly found out before hand had followed this procedure.

This leads to one of the problems I have seen with the one-man pastoring system. They say it takes about five years for a new pastor (traditional setting) and congregation to fully blend, or be accepted of each other. (I have found this to be pretty close even in changing assemblies, in my case.) The problem is, when a pastor leaves or passes away, that congregation is often asked to vote on someone they don't even know (I've been there). And if that pastor "doesn't work out", the process is repeated...a very insecure feeling. So the extended “five year period” wastes that much more valuable time while pastor and congregation are “feeling each other out”. I see where Elder leadership is much better in just this regard alone.

I like your comments concerning masculine leadership also.

-Donnie

[David Huston]

This is from my article Adavantages of Pastoral Elderships (found on the Apostolic Free Library at www.GloriousChurch.com): Under the traditional patterns, if the single leader falls into sin, resigns, retires, or dies, the local church must either search out or be assigned a new leader. Often a man comes in who is virtually unknown to the congregation and who is unfamiliar with the specific needs of the people and the overall spirit and ministry of the church. In this kind of situation, much time is often wasted while the new leader gets situated. And it is not uncommon for the members of an assembly to be very disappointed six months after the new leader takes over.

Furthermore, no assembly in the Bible ever chose by election its own leader or governing body. The Holy Spirit equipped certain men to serve as overseers and the apostles appointed them as elders. In the Bible, the selection and appointment of shepherds is never entrusted to an election of the sheep.

[Donnie Gillum]

Very interesting! Thank you for sharing that. And I can verify from experience that the excerpt from your article is correct. I'll have to check into the resources you've mentioned.

To say you’ve done more research into this than I have would be a real understatement. Actually, I have not been forced to study it, but happened to along the way occasionally notice things that were not lining up with the church of today. I was surprised (and happy) to find an apostolic group (Carlisle assembly) already practicing Elder leadership. I am grateful for your commitment, generosity and willingness to help others to learn what you’ve accomplished.

Though I did not know the solution to the selection of leaders in the traditional method, being involved in it in my local assembly twice, and observing it in other assemblies, I knew something was inherently wrong, very wrong – namely, I felt there was a lack of actual leading of the Spirit involved in it somehow.

-Donnie

[Donnie Gillum]

Continuing:
It seems the twelve called possibly the whole Jerusalem congregation of disciples together. If women and children were present, the twelve only addressed the men (unless this was a collective term for men, women and children).

The reading tells us what was accomplished, but not how. At least this much we do know:
It was the twelve apostles (not just James, or Peter) who called them together
They called the multitude of the disciples unto them
They instructed the brethren (the men)
To look for men
among themselves to appoint over this business
The twelve gave the men a specific number to come up with
And gave them specific qualifications to look for
These instructions pleased the whole multitude of disciples
And “they” choose…

Ponderings:
Wonder how many brethren may have been instructed – a few or the whole multitude?

Any comments about how "they" may have found, and selected, the seven?

[David Huston]

I don't know that there is any way of knowing how many people were involved in the selection. It certainly could have been hundreds if not thousands. I figure that when the Bible does not tell us exactly how the early church did something, it is indicating that we have a lot of latitude in how we do it. Of course, it is important that we do our best to follow biblical principles. So how did, say, 500 men narrow their selection down to seven? I have no idea. I can only imagine. I can tell you that when we needed to appoint deacons, we followed the following procedure: 1) We taught the assembly about the charcateristics of the men described in Acts 6; 2) We allowed everyone to nominate up to three candidates; 3) We then evaluated each candidate using the criteria Paul provided in 1 Timothy 3:8-13. We did not appoint all of the nominees. Paul makes an important point when he says, "But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless" (1 Timothy 3:10). We believe a man must be willing to proive himself before being appointed to serving as a deacon. I cannot say that the way we did this was the only way or even the correct way. But we do feel it adhered to the basic biblical principles set forth in Acts 6 and 1 Timothy 3. I have written about the appointment of deacons in an article called "Operations of the Deacon Team." It can be found on Shelf 4 of the Apostolic Free Library at GloriousChurch.com.

[Brandon Steinke]

This statement from your reply Bro Dave can really be used as a blanket statement for all areas of (Christian) leadership:

We believe a man must be willing to prove himself before being appointed to serving as a deacon.

When Mike and Steve came to visit us back in January (?), it was brought up in conversation at dinner, that if you became an Elder today, what would change? This idea has helped me tremendously. The whole concept boiling down to this: that you should be a deacon before you're ever a deacon and you should be an elder before you're ever an elder. That these are not positions that you apply for or areas that you think you would like to try. That an appointment to a position should not be for the sake of a probationary trial run or testing of the waters, but that it should simply be a confirmation of a role and a calling that is already apparent and being acted on, and that would continue to remain apparent and be acted upon with the same heart, spirit, soul, and passion whether or not an appointment is ever made.

May I add carefully, not because they graduated from bible school, not because they're the son of the minister, not because they've been attending the longest, not because they give the most...etc.

[Brandon Steinke]

My correction: it was actually November when Steve and Mike visited us. It just doesn't seem like it was that long ago!!!

[Donnie Gillum]

(Bro. Huston, I have saved the two references you’ve given for some future study. –DG)

Quote - D. Huston: I figure that when the Bible does not tell us exactly how the early church did something, it is indicating that we have a lot of latitude in how we do it. Of course, it is important that we do our best to follow biblical principles.

Yes, certainly! I think the “lot of latitude” in this case is a reasonable conclusion, and “to follow biblical principles” the only conclusion, of course. And the process you’ve used seems quite noble enough to me. Since it seems, to me, that the apostles were addressing the multitude instead of a few prominent ones, I’ve tried, over the years, to imagine just how this multitude could reach an agreement in the selection process. Somehow they had to harmonize and reach a consensus on:
-How to know which men were qualified
-How to select the seven required

And what if more than seven were found? If so, another pressure in the selection process surfaces, which can reveal the character and motive of men sometimes: Precisely, how do they select from qualified candidates without offending the ones not chosen. Of course, we can claim that qualified men would not be offended and should not be a concern in selection. (Unless maybe we are the one in consideration. LOL) How I wish this were always true. But I can see where today’s practices make each candidate real vulnerable to the sting of rejection.

For example: the selection of the apostle to replace Judas. Somehow the apostles were presented with two qualified candidates – Barsabas and Matthias, when they knew they only needed one? Which one do they choose? Scripture tells us they prayed and cast lots. Some would claim that casting lots is casting their vote such as on a piece of paper (which I seriously doubt). So, in today’s practice, the apostles each wrote their choice on a piece of paper. In effect, Peter’s paper could have Matthias, while Matthew's could have Barsabas etc.. So, out of the eleven votes, Matthias got at least six. Barsabas now would know that he was definitely not the choice of some of these apostles! Just maybe they did not feel he was good enough etc.. He could feel slighted, embarrassed and rejected. Of course, I do not think Barsabas backslide over this outcome. But the point is, there’s been some real hurt caused by this kind of selection of men for leadership. There must be a better solution.

However, let’s consider the casting of lots was not casting their votes on a piece of paper, but there was some “chance” (for lack of better description) involved. So now the apostles are faced with a choice between two qualified men. They definitely wanted the Lord’s choice, so they prayed and asked Him to show them which one He has chosen. How did they present a situation for Him to show them? They cast lots (whatever this may biblically be). As far as I know, this was never done again in scripture, but I do know for sure that it was done here. I suspect few would be willing to trust a selection made by “chance”. But it would be safe, mainly because both candidates are qualified – either one could do. But they wanted the Lord’s choice to be made known. By the casting of lots, the one not selected just might be better able to accept that it was the Lord’s will done in the selection. (I’m aware that some would not, but we are talking about genuinely qualified men here.)

So, just how did the multitude select the seven? I don’t know either. LOL! But the outcome speaks well for the overall harmony of the first century church.

[Donnie Gillum]

Quote – Brandon: This statement from your reply Bro Dave can really be used as a blanket statement for all areas of (Christian) leadership: We believe a man must be willing to prove himself before being appointed to serving as a deacon.

Brandon, I can whole heartedly agree with your assessment. I make me the think of a situation years ago that a very good man of God told me. He said that his pastor had appointed him to position of a deacon or elder (can’t remember). He went home and read the qualifications and felt that he wasn’t qualified. So, he went and told the pastor so. The pastor asked, “Well, what are you going to do about it?” LOL! As I mentioned, this was a very good man. He went on to finally take the previous pastor’s place.

Quote: …it was brought up in conversation at dinner, that if you became an Elder today, what would change?

Powerful thought! Your comments afterward punctuate this very well, and your “carefully” added comment it true, true, true.

-Donnie

[Brandon Steinke]

It reminds me of the story of Solomon judging over the two mothers. What if, when the true mother said, "Give her the child and in no wise slay it", Solomon would have said, "OK", and given the child to the lying women.

The willingness here on behalf of the true mother to sacrifice her posession of the child in exchange for the life of the child speaks volumes. A willingness to sacrifice her position, but not her calling. Would she have ever stopped being the true mother of that child? Would she not have kept her eyes on that child every moment that she could? Would she not have been willing even to enslave herself to the other women to be with her child? (As Moses' mother similarily had done)

So are we more concerned with being the 'mother' or are we more concerned with the life of the 'child'? We must have a willlingness to say, "Lord, I am yours, and I'm trusting in you, and I will serve you in whatever capacity you should so choose."

Most often, those who think they should,...should not.

[Donnie Gillum]

Wow! A good insight, Brother!

Quote: A willingness to sacrifice her position, but not her calling.

This is profound as well... u've started wheels a rollin' ‘roun 'n ma head, Bruhver. It's is possible that I'm wrong here, but I'm suspecting you've been there somehow...either in, near or around a similiar situation that's caused you to recognize this.