Does Acts 6 Authorize Church Committees?

Author : Ronny Milliner
used by permission from Faith & Facts, January 2007

There was a time when brethren spoke against the idea of churches having committees. Several examples can be given. Brother Foy E. Wallace, Jr. wrote in the December, 1938 issue of The Bible Banner, “All organizations larger or smaller than the local church, whether Sunday School, Missionary Society, Ladies Aid, Young People’s Meetings, Inter-Church Committees and Boards, or What-Have-You, are not only unnecessary but unscriptural.” Later in his book The Current Issues, he addressed some dangers in the church and in one section entitled, “The committee system of congregational government,” he warned, “Another development is the government of the churches by multiple committees, supplanting the divine arrangement of elders in every church” (p. 32). Brother Dub McClish (1982) wrote in Studies in First Corinthians, “Committees have become so popular. I view it as an initial deterioration of the scriptural role of elders so as to implement majority rule.” John Trokey noted in an article entitled “The Need of Elders,” “‘Committees’ appointed by the ‘business meeting’ sometimes amounts to no less than an eldership by another name.” Brother H.E. Philips in his classical work, Scriptural Elders and Deacons, affirmed, “”The New Testament church can and did perform its full mission without ‘committees,’ and it can do so now. All such are innovations in the local organization of the church” (p. 10). Many other examples could be given. Yet, today there seems to be a number of congregations opting for the “committee system” as a form of organization for the local congregation. Is this practice scriptural?

Where Is the Authority for Committees?

A group of brethren that use committees to conduct the affairs of a congregation were presented with the following chart and asked, “In which box would you place committees?”

The first response was that committees fell into the category of being “scripturally unorganized.” These men did not feel they had men qualified to serve as elders so they had set up committees to assist in running the affairs of the church. They were then asked, “Aren’t committees a form of organization?” Initially, there was a denial on their part that committees are a form of organization.

Are Committees a Type of Organization?

To deny that committees are a type of organization is really going against the common usage of the word. Let’s notice some ways that it is used. First of all, the world recognizes that an institution may be organized by committees. The Student Clubs and Organizations Manual for North Idaho College tells us that “Committees are the means by which organization activities are accomplished, and a well-organized committee made up of willing members can perform remarkable tasks” (p. 16). In the Chamber of Commerce guide for a community in Ontario we find this statement, “In Chamber of Commerce activity, committees are the membership in action and the organization through which a ‘program of action’ is carried out” (p. 11). In another example, the Constitution of the Linguistics Society of Ohio University says, “The society shall be an organization that is run and organized by all members in the form of committees” (p. 2). So apparently, all of these groups think that having committees is a type of organization.

Denominational churches also recognize committees as a form of organization. On their Web site, Christ Episcopal Church avows, “Christ Church is organized by committees.” On the Purpose Driven web site there’s an article about organizing a church. It says, “And you need to keep in mind that how you are organized will change periodically over time. We’ve found at Granger that our organizational structure changes every 18 to 24 months. Growing churches require different types of organizational structures. The same structure that allows a church to grow from 100 to 300 will not allow a church to grow from 1,000 to 3,000. As an example, right now, we only have one committee. It’s our church board to whom the senior and executive pastors report…Besides multiplying the people we have involved in ministry, limiting the number of committees was also necessary to remove barriers in decision-making. A church our size can’t afford to wait for purchasing decisions from the finance committee, staffing decisions from the personnel committee, or ministry decisions from the education committee.” Both of these churches recognize an organization by committees.

It seems that brethren in the past did not have a problem recognizing this fact as well. Brother Cled Wallace, writing in the July 1943 issue of The Bible Banner, asked, “What is a committee anyhow?…does not a committee imply an organization? Should it not act on organized authority?” (p. 2). Brethren listed committees along with other types of unscriptural organizations. Brother Leo Rogel wrote in the April 19, 1984 issue of Guardian of Truth, “The New Testament church needs no other organization through which it carries on its work. Both, the missionary society and this committee are organizations apart from the church, yet doing the work for the local church.” In a September 7, 1989 article in Guardian of Truth, Brother J.T. Smith spoke of “seven unscriptural ways of changing church organization. They are: (1) Elders Just Puppets, (2) Trial Government, (3) Preacher Rule, (4) Leadership Ruling, (5) Majority Rule (Business Meeting), (6) Committee Rule, (7) Inter-Congregation Rule. None of these measure up to the kind of organization which God has set forth for the church. All are perversions of God’s plan.” Ted McElroy wrote in the January 1944 issue of The Bible Banner, “The committees and human organizations which pretend to glorify God, are in reality insults to Him; because they are formed on the presumption that human wisdom is superior to divine wisdom, and that the human institution will be better suited to function for His glory than the church. The organizations and schemes of men dishonor God, rather than glorify Him.” In light of all of these common statements, how can one truthfully say that committees are not a form of organization?

A New Look at Acts 6

Once it has been established that committees are a type of organization, then there are only two possible choices in the above chart. They either fall into the category of “Scripturally Organized” or “Scripturally Unorganized.” If they fall under the realm of “Scripturally Organized” then someone needs to point out the scripture where they are authorized. One brother in the meeting apparently saw this need, so he suggested that the seven men appointed in Acts 6 were a committee.

I think most brethren always thought the men appointed in Acts 6 were deacons, not a committee. In an article on the West Palm Beach Church’s Web site on Acts 6:1-7, the author points out several things that were not done to solve the problem in the church. One of the points is “They did not form a committee.” The writer notes, “Along the same lines, we do not see the apostles authorizing a committee or a commission to study the problem and come up with solutions. This is the way our federal government tries to handle problems and we realize how ineffective the government is in solving any problems because of this technique.” (p. 3). Brother H.E. Phillips wrote in a November 16, 1989 article in the Guardian of Truth, “The apostles appointed the deacons in Jerusalem who were selected in Acts 6:3. This was something the apostles did following the selecting by the multitude of disciples – the church. This is what the church is to do in appointing deacons.” In the very first volume of Truth Magazine (June, 1957), Edwin Broadus observed, “Further insight into the work of deacons may be gained by a study of the appointment of the seven, recorded in Acts 6. It is true that these men are not called deacons, but we are told that they were appointed to be over the ‘daily ministration’ (diakonian) and that they were ‘to serve (diakoneo) tables’ (Acts 6:1, 2). The latter is the same verb that is rendered ‘serve as deacons’ in the two passages previously cited from 1 Timothy 3 (verses 10 and 13). If these men served as deacons, it is proper to call them deacons.” The fact that there was a formal appointing to the work by the apostles also suggests to us that these men were deacons (Acts 6:6).

But consider that if Acts 6 is authority for appointing committees as a form of organization for the church, then we do not have an exclusive pattern for the organization of local congregations. Specific authority is exclusive because there is no variation in the Scriptures. Believers are the exclusive candidates for baptism because we have no examples of anyone else being baptized. Singing in worship is exclusive, because we have no examples of other forms of music being used. If we had an example of the church at Corinth singing and an example of the church at Ephesus playing instrumental music, then either one would be permissible. So it is with the organization of the church. If we have an example of the church at Philippi being organized with bishops and an example of the church at Jerusalem being organized with committees, then either one would be permissible.

Committee Rule

Some might suggest that these committees are appointed only to serve the church, and that they have no real authority. The reality is that they do wind up running the affairs of a congregation. In this meeting, it was discussed as to what decisions the committees could make without consulting the congregation. In another meeting, it was suggested that a certain preacher be asked to come to speak on a particular topic. Even though the men of the congregation were assembled, it was stated that the suggestion would have to be considered by the “Preaching Committee” before a decision could be made. The proposal never came to pass. We have witnessed many good suggestions being made, but being tabled to the committees where they “died in committee” as the expression goes.

In fact, in the “Leadership Development Plan” for one congregation, some committees are specifically mentioned as not being answerable to the elders of the congregation. It speaks of some committees that might be created by the elders that would then “answer to the shepherds. At other times, committees may serve the congregation at large, and in those instances would answer to the congregation rather than the shepherds” (p. 8). In this case, the committees have more authority that the elders of the church. In his work entitled The Bible and Problems in the Church, brother Jim Massey warned about the practice of committee member authority when he observed, “Another effort to gain prominence is in church committees. By being in a committee or being head of a committee, men seek authority and the praise of others. They consider themselves officers in the church. They make decisions which other members are forced to follow. Politically-minded men use committees to gain control for themselves over church affairs” (p. 36). We have seen men appoint their friends to committees to “stack” the committee in their favor. In one case, a man was appointed to serve on a committee who had never attended a business meeting in over three years, but he was present for that particular meeting.

Ruling is just a natural consequence of church committees. Writing in the January, 1977 issue of the Gospel Anchor, brother Henry Gbamis of Nigeria warned, “The word ‘Committee’ means a group of persons ‘committed’ to a certain work. Committees allow men to have authority and prominence (3 Jn. 9). Church Committees corrupt the simple scriptural rule of the Lord’s Church.” In The One Book, brother Wallace spoke of the dangers of committee rule. He questioned, “If committee rules and some oppose the committee, what then?” He wondered if they would have to appoint “a new committee to govern the first committee?” He warned, “It leads to anarchy and is a declaration of independence against the Lord’s plan of church government” (p. 337). Another example of committee authority was seen in a congregation observed by brother Julian Snell who described them as operating “under the ‘committee’ system.” In the Searching the Scriptures article, he wrote, “In theory each committee is set up to investigate and advise the church collectively, but factually, each committee ‘has the oversight’ of its area of responsibility. This last statement was made to me twice by the head of one of these committees, the last time in the presence of four other members, and none disagreed with him.”

Another writer has come up with the idea of churches having “a leadership committee.” He explains that this committee is created by having “each member of the congregation number in order the most spiritually developed and mature men of the congregation, beginning with one on down to the number” decided on for the size of the committee. There would even be “an installation service” where “the committee stand(s) before the congregation and receive(s) the charge of leadership and be formally ‘appointed.’” How would this committee make its decisions? The answer is by “voting…by the leadership committee in whom the congregation has entrusted leadership…Majority vote of the wisest prevails.” Just how far can we go from the New Testament pattern?

Conclusion

Brother H.E. Phillips wrote in the April, 1982 issue of Searching the Scriptures, “We are involved with organizations that call for terms unheard of in the word of God. ‘Captains,’ ‘chairman,’ ‘superintendent,’ ‘circles,’ (Yes, we have a few of them), ‘committees,’ ‘youth clubs,’ etc. What place do these terms have in the simple organization of the Lord’s church?” We find no Biblical authority for a congregation to be organized by committees. It is not found in Acts 6, and it is not the type of organization specified in the New Testament.