Today, we are continuing with our study of chapter 26, and in particular, paragraph 9, which deals with the election and ordination of church officers. By way of reminder, we saw last week in paragraph 8, the local church has a mixed, or you could say compounded, church government. And the power, as it exists in the local church, is a mixed power, or a compounded power. The church is partly a monarchy. in respect of the great king, Jesus Christ. Christ rules his kingdom and he rules in his churches through his word and his spirit. This is how our confession and other confessions say he governs the church through his word and through his spirit. So we are a monarchy. We are partly also an aristocracy. Somebody asked last week, what's an aristocracy? What's nobility? It's dukes and lords and earls and all those fun things, right? You could even say we are partly an oligarchy as far as the governors or rulers of the church are considered, namely the officers and in particular the elders of the church. But then lastly, we saw that the local church is also partly a democracy, insofar as Christ has given the members of the church certain privileges and prerogatives, especially in the weightiest matters of church governance. And so, if you remember, I ended last week by saying that we can say we, in a certain sense, believe in elder rule, right? We don't believe that and what's often meant by that, but if you ask if we believe that elders rule in the church, they do. Elders rule, they are not the ruled. The church is the ruled, right? We can also say we believe in elder-led church government as well because the elders do lead. They even lead the church as she exercises her prerogatives. Choosing, as we'll see today, and nominating perhaps officers or giving the sentence of excommunication is not something that the church does by themselves if they have officers. If they have officers, they do them, and the officers guide all those things. And if the church votes for excommunication, the officers pronounce it. As we'll see today, if the church nominates and chooses officers, the elders ordain and appoint them to their office. So there is elder-led church government as well. And then lastly, we do also believe in this sense in congregational rule insofar as the church has a mixed power within her, but not all this power is a power to rule, okay? Well, today we look at the election of officers. I don't know about you guys, I was very excited today because one of our sister churches was having an election. They already had the election, and I know the results, but they haven't told the man yet, so we won't say anything. But they got to do this very thing today, right? So it's very, very exciting. But as we look at this, the election of officers, we will see in a very practical way how paragraph eight plays out, okay? What I mean by that is it's all well and good to say that the church has a mixed power or government, but okay, what does that look like? How does that play out? Well, paragraph nine gives us a snapshot of that principle in action with both the monarch, in terms of the calling and gifting of certain men for ministry, the elders, or aristocracy, guiding and overseeing the election of the people and ordaining those who are chosen, and the members, or the democracy, exercising their privilege of nomination and voting for their officers. We'll kind of see how this all plays out in practice. Let's go ahead and read paragraph 9. And we'll get started, so if you have your Confession of Faith, Chapter 26, Paragraph 9 says, The way appointed by Christ for the calling of any person fitted and gifted by the Holy Spirit unto the office of bishop or elder in a church is that he be chosen thereunto by the common suffrage of the church itself. Now, suffrage means vote. You've ever heard of the suffragettes? Whatever that was. I'm a man, so I don't think about these things. They were women who wanted to have the right to vote. Suffrage is vote, right? So it is the common suffrage of the church itself and solemnly set apart by fasting and prayer with imposition or laying on of hands of the eldership of the church, if there be any before constituted therein, and of a deacon, that he be chosen by the like suffrage," vote, and set apart by prayer and the like imposition of hands. Well, if you remember two weeks ago when we dealt with the independence of the local church, I really only had to deal with Presbyterian critiques of the independence of the local church power because, by and large, Baptists still today, of all stripes really, still agree with that principle, the independence of the local church. Last week, however, as we talked about how church power is exercised in the local church, if you remember, I didn't just take aim at Presbyterians, but almost more than that, those amongst us as Baptists, right? Not really so much in our confessional circles, but we could even say the broadly kind of more Reformed-ish Baptist circles. I interacted with them. And I said I did that because while all Baptists still really hold to the independence of the local church, yet many today do not hold to the historically Baptist or congregational view of how church power plays out in the local church. And there are many who argue for what is called elder rule in which They really go farther than even Presbyterianism and even some forms of episcopacy in terms of how much power the elders take unto themselves. So we interacted last week a lot with our Baptist brothers to kind of argue for the more historical confessional view. Well, as we come to paragraph 9 in the election of officers, it's still very much the case that I have elder rule Baptists in my sights more than Presbyterians or anyone else because there are, as I said, many Baptists today who argue that the nomination, the appointment, and everything else about the choosing of officers is vested entirely in the eldership And kind of if you don't like that, then you can just go somewhere else, right? That's your problem. Or if anything, even worse than that, then you're being insubordinate. You are not submitting yourselves to the elders, okay? I wanna push back against that today. Now, as we look at this, I wanna say with the election of elders, one thing that has surprised me as I've studied this over the years, is on the one hand, how broadly reformed And we could even say broadly Protestant. We'll see, do we include the Lutherans in this? How broadly reformed and Protestant this idea is that the people have a say in who their leaders are. But more than that, it's also very ancient and Catholic as well, okay? Now, I'm going to be arguing primarily from biblical grounds for why members can vote and things like that. But I do want to take a moment just to show you that this is not some harebrained congregational Baptist thing where these guys got too intense and zealous, you can't tell me what to do kind of thing, and so we can only choose our officers, right? That is by no means the case. In fact, I would say if anything is harebrained in terms of the scope of church history, it's what is called elder rule government. Or you're like, well, you're not in the best of company if you're going to start doing things like that. Let me just give you a few examples. First, consider the Westminster Standards. What? Those dirty, elder-heavy Presbyterians? Yes! Even them! They don't go as far as the elder rule Baptists do, okay? I'm just kidding. They're not dirty. They're much cleaner than we are, and they dress nicer than we do, too. Anyway, now the Westminster Standards. Sometimes you'll hear the Westminster Standards. That can be used to speak of the confession of faith and the shorter and larger catechism. Shouldn't it be the longer catechism if the other one is the shorter? Or is that the smaller catechism? I don't know. But that's not all that was produced by the Westminster Assembly. There were a number of documents. And really on the point of church government, the confession, the Westminster Confession, really does not go into great detail. That was left for two other documents, one of which we'll look at called the Form of Government. Okay, the Form of Government. But listen to what it says. Now, and it does still sound slightly elder heavy, but it's not elder rule heavy, okay? It says, when any ruling elder is to be chosen where an eldership is constituted, it be done by the eldership with the consent and approbation or approval of the people of that congregation. So you need the consent and approval to have this new elder there. It continues. It shall be lawful for the congregation respectively, or any other persons, to exhibit exceptions against any person elected, as aforesaid, touching the right of his election, the qualification of the person before mentioned, or touching matters of ignorance or scandal hereafter mentioned to such person as are hereafter appointed to receive the said exceptions. So it seems that in many ways, and this is how Presbyterians often word it, it's like the elders do it. It's more of an elder thing, but they don't do it without the consent and the approval, and the people can lawfully give their dissent. Even the congregation can, right? That's not rebellious or insubordinate. Now that's Presbyterianism. And I'll also say that's Westminster Presbyterianism. Early Presbyterianism sounds a lot more to me like Congregationalism. In fact, do you know what the very first Congregationalists called themselves? Presbyterians. They didn't yet differentiate between those two views, okay? But even the later, stronger Presbyterianism still gives a role to the people. This makes me think there's, in the movie Home Alone, have you ever seen it? It's a great movie. We had an argument during the association whether that was properly a Christmas movie or not, and one of the brothers was saying it wasn't. I was like, well, anyway. Well, there's this scene in Home Alone where Kevin, he wants to watch a movie, But he complains to his mom that his Uncle Frank said no. And his mom says, if Uncle Frank says no, then it must be really bad, right? Well, if the Presbyterians, those heavy-handed, elder-heavy Presbyterians say no to what you're doing, it must be really elder-heavy what you're doing. That's what I would say to those elder-ruled Baptists, okay? Next, the Belgic or the Dutch Confession, chapter 31, the officers of the church. We believe that officers of God's word, elders and deacons, ought to be chosen to their offices by lawful election of the church with prayer and in good order as stipulated by the word of God. The Gallic confession or confession of the French Reformed churches. We believe that no one should undertake to govern the church upon his own authority, but that this should be derived from election as far as it is possible and as God's will permit. Lastly, the second Helvetic confession of 1562, the confession of the Swiss Reformed churches. No man ought to usurp the honor of the ecclesiastical ministry, that is to seize it for himself by bribery or any deceits or by his own free choice. But let the ministers of the church be called and chosen by lawful and ecclesiastical election, that is to say, let them be carefully chosen by the church or by those delegated from the church for that purpose in a proper order without any uproar and dissension. and rivalry. So there you notice it kind of actually has room for two views, either the church chooses or the church appoints those who can choose, maybe like a search committee or something like that. But it's still the people's consent, right, insofar as they're choosing the choosers, okay? Furthermore, we can go beyond this into early church history and just see how far back this goes. We can just take a quick snapshot. I think I said last week there's an ancient document called the Didache. Didache is Greek for the teaching, and I think the full title, Jason can correct me if I'm wrong, is the teaching of the twelve apostles. Scholars used to believe, as far as what I can read, again, take Jason's word for it, not mine, they used to argue it was from the second century, meaning the century after Christ and the apostles. From what I've read, many now agree it was probably from the first century. It's not canonical, but it's probably from the same century as Christ and the apostles, okay? Listen to what it says, Article 15. And it's talking to the congregation, as you'll see. Therefore, appoint for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek and not lovers of money." Note, it's the church doing it. How do you know that? Because they're appointing them for themselves. Meaning those men serve over the body, right? So it's the body who is appointing them. Eusebius tells us of the Church of Rome in the 3rd or 4th century. He says, This is why I said you can even have episcopacy, where you have bishops, right? If we think of like, whoa, they're even more hardcore than Presbyterians, well, yeah, they are in a certain sense. They invest it more in one man, right? But even they in the early church are allowing for the people to choose and vote for their bishops. Cyprian of Carthage in the third century writes that he was called to be a bishop, quote, by the voice giving of the whole people in peace and quiet. In fact, Cyprian says elsewhere, quote, that a people obeying the Lord's commandments and fearing God ought to separate themselves from a wicked minister, seeing they chiefly have power to choose worthy ministers and to refuse unworthy ones, okay? We could spend more and more time and have a whole lot of fun doing this. But the point is, this is not some harebrained Baptist idea. Don't let anyone tell you that this is an Enlightenment idea that comes when, you know, radical liberty and, you know, John Locke and all this stuff. No, this goes back way, way farther to the ancient church and ultimately, as we'll see today, in Scripture, which is where we want to turn now. What I want to do now, though, is to create a biblical argument for the fact that church officers are not to be appointed without the consent, or as the Confession calls it, the common suffrage, or the vote of church members. The way I want to do this, though, is to play kind of devil's advocate. and look at several texts which are often used by those who oppose the vote of the people in choosing officers. Okay, we'll kind of look at that, and then we'll say why they're wrong, and then we'll say why I'm right. Okay, it's always good to do it that way. First, turn with me to Acts chapter 14. Acts 14, we looked at this briefly last week. Acts 14 verses 21 through 23. It's at the end of Paul's first missionary trip. It says, after they had preached the gospel to that city, the city of Derbe, and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch, strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith and saying, Through many tribulations, we must enter the kingdom of God. When they had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed. All right. Well, perhaps from that very last verse there, 23, you can see why those who argue that the people really have no say in the matter of choosing their officers would appeal to this passage. It says that Paul and Barnabas, they appointed elders for them, for the people, in every church. They're really the ones doing the action, right? We're going to come back to this passage in a second for something I want to do, but there is another primary passage that they point to as well, which we looked at last week as well. Titus 1.5. Titus 1.5, Paul says, for this reason I left you in Crete that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you. Again, you can see why they would appeal to such a text. Paul tells Titus to appoint elders and he does not lay out really how that's to be done. And he doesn't say, go and call for a vote. He just says, appoint them, okay? As far as Acts 14 goes, I'd like us to stay there for a moment. There's something important I want to discuss that often comes up in older discussions and controversies, and even today this is kind of an important discussion. It has to do with the Greek word that is translated as appointed. in Acts 14. Now, there are multiple words used in the New Testament, at least three, that can mean to appoint or to set forth or things like that. But this one in particular, for the reason of its etymology, tends to get argued a lot about, okay? The Greek word, you can say it with me, you don't have to say it with me, or if you don't want to roll your R's, you could say, he rataneo, he rataneo. Now, the etymology of the word, which is not necessarily the same thing as the meaning of the word. For example, in English, we say, I understand under and to stand, that's the etymology. We don't mean by that I am standing under some kind of knowledge thing or... I mean, I grasp it, okay? The etymology is not always the same thing as the meaning, though sometimes you can see they work together quite well. Well, the etymology of Herataneo, its origin in many ways, comes from two words. hedos, meaning a hand, and taneo, meaning to lift or to raise. The etymology of the word really comes from this idea of an election taking place in a group of people. You're raising your hand. Sometimes we do this at association meetings when a vote is very close. We say, let's see a show of hands. And those who are yay raise their hands, and those who are nay raise their hands, right? So it's very much, we still do this today. And those are really the origins of the word. Now, hereteneo can mean to elect by a vote. And heretania does mean an election in the sense that we speak of a people casting their vote or like an election of a public official. Okay? This is important. The word itself does not so narrowly always mean to choose by vote. Say it again. The word itself does not so narrowly always mean to choose by vote. It can sometimes just refer to one person choosing or appointing. To give an analogy or a comparison, just think of our word elect or election. We do speak of electing officials by a vote. And often we speak of an election as that very thing. However, it doesn't always mean that. I could say to you, well, I have elected this certain course of action. I have elected to take another job somewhere else. I don't mean I took a vote with myself or something like that. I mean, I just chose to do it. Furthermore, we speak of God's election of us. That doesn't mean the members of the Trinity took a vote and held an election and raised up their hand. No, no, the one God chose or appointed, He did not hold an election. Similarly, the word hereteneo can mean to choose, to elect, and to appoint by a vote. It can mean that, depending on the context. Or it can simply mean that one person chose, elected, or appointed. To prove my point, let me just give you an example from a slightly different version of hereteneo, which is Now, all it means, if you just add pra to herataneo, it just means beforehand. Okay? Just like we do that in all kinds of things in English. Can someone give me that? I don't know. Prognosticate, to prorate something, right? It's the same thing, right? So this occurs once in the New Testament. It's when Peter is talking to Cornelius in Acts 10, but the one, you know who the one is who beforehand, heretaneos, it's God, okay? He said, God raised up Jesus on the third day and granted that he become visible, not to all people, but to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God. So even there, you have a word which etymology came from voting, but in the context, it does not mean that. It just means God chose, okay? Now, why am I telling you all this? Well, I tell you all this because historically, many Reformed people, congregational and otherwise, have argued that when it says in Acts 14 that Paul and Barnabas hedataneod, elders in the churches, it means they held an election. And they argue from the etymology of the word, okay? So, Henry Jacob, very famous Congregationalist says, the very nature of this word signifying in the ordinary use thereof the custom which was then to vote by lifting up of hands, implieth the people's concurrence and voice giving with the guides of the assembly. So he's arguing then from the etymology that it means that they oversaw a vote because in the word itself it speaks of hand lifting. So it doesn't just mean, according to him, Paul and Barnabas came in, but rather they governed and held an election. Similarly, Theodore Beza, excellent exegete and by no means actually a congregationalist, he was way more heavy-handed on a lot of things, says of Acts 14, the force of this word is to be noted that we may know that Paul and Barnabas did nothing by their private will, neither exercised tyranny in the church." Now, I do believe they did nothing by their private will, nor did they exercise tyranny in the church, but I don't think it is necessarily implied from the etymology of the word. What I'm getting at is I agree with some modern day critiques that it cannot be proven by the word alone. Does that make sense? In other words, the word itself does not necessarily always imply election. I think it's implied from other things as we'll see today, but not the word itself. As I said, there are many Baptists today who will make this kind of argument. And if you come at them with an etymological argument, they'll probably just tear you apart with other lexicons and things like that, okay? They'll argue that since hereteneo does not necessarily always imply a vote, that therefore elders were not chosen by a vote of the church, but that it was strictly speaking just an action of Paul and Barnabas. For example, one author, and his book is very widely read by Baptists today, even Reformedish Baptists, he argues for this. His name, I don't know how to say his last name, it's Alexander Strauch, Strauch, you know what I'm talking about? Can somebody say it? Strauch, Strauch, something? Well, yeah, okay, it's C-H, but, okay. He has a book called Biblical Eldership, An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Eldership. He argues along these lines and therefore concludes that really only existing elders choose future elders. He argues that you're reading in to the meaning of the word something from the etymology of that. My argument to that is that although the word hereteneo does not necessarily mean to choose by vote, yet it can also mean to ordain or appoint someone who has been chosen by another party. So, if some people read too much into the Word, Alexander Strelok reads too much out of it. He excludes some possibilities, which I think are there. In other words, just because the Word means to appoint, that doesn't mean that Paul and Barnabas also chose the person that they appointed. They installed him in office, they ordained them, but the choice could be of someone else. The Word does not necessarily exclude that possibility any more than it necessarily implies in election by vote. You tracking with me so far? We're good? Okay. Let me show you an example of kind of how this works. For example, in Titus 1.5, the word used there for appointing is not heretaneo, but it's kathistemi. Kathistemi, which essentially means the same thing, to appoint, to put in order, to ordain, things like this. But the word can be used to speak of appointing someone who was chosen by another party. So someone does truly appoint, but that doesn't mean they also chose the person who was appointed. So for example, we read in 1 Samuel 8, 5, the people want a king, and so they say to Samuel, behold, you have grown old. Okay? Don't start off with sentences like that to Jason, okay? Never mind. Behold, you have grown old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint Kathistemi, in the Septuagint, a king for us to judge us like all the nations. So they want Samuel to appoint Kathistemi, the same word used in Titus 1.5. Well, the Lord tells Samuel a little bit later to do it. They have not rejected you. They've rejected me. And so he does. He does appoint the king. But who chooses Saul? Who chooses him? Who remembers? Huh? I'm hearing mumblings. God does, right? God chooses him. At first, Saul comes up to Samuel and he had previously revealed to Samuel that this would be him. So he anoints him as king. Then a little bit later, God's choice is confirmed in the presence of all people as they cast lots. And then what does Samuel do? He appoints him as king. But who chose Saul? The Lord did. So, the word to a point does not necessarily imply that you also chose the person, no more than it necessarily always implies that you did. You know what I mean, that it's by vote. Really, we speak of ordaining in a very similar way without even thinking of it today. Several months ago, we went down to El Paso for the ordination of Frank Gonzalez, and I knew I said a few times, people asked me, why were you there? We said, we went to ordain a new minister, right? We didn't choose Frank, the church did. But we did ordain, we did appoint him to the office by the laying on of hands, but that doesn't mean we chose him necessarily, okay? So it's true, many of these words do not necessarily mean that someone is chosen by vote, but neither do they necessarily exclude such an understanding either. For example, listen to the famous Congregationalist Heinrich Bollinger. The successor of Ulrich Zwingli. He says, those who think that all power of ordaining ministers is in the bishops, diocesans, or archbishops' hands, use these places of Scripture. Titus 1.5, for this cause I left you in Crete, says Paul to Titus, that you should ordain elders in every city. But we say that the apostles did not exercise tyranny in the churches and that they did not execute all things about election or ordination alone, excluding other men in the church. For the apostles of Christ ordained bishops or elders in the church. but not without communicating their counsel with the churches, yes, and not without having the consent and approbation of the people, okay? Again, this is not a Baptist idea. This is not even a Protestant idea, or it ought not to be. This is a Christian scripture idea, okay? All right. All right, well, perhaps you're thinking, okay, so it's not excluded, but where is it implied that there should be a voice of the people? There's many ways we could argue this, but I'm going to look primarily at two passages that historically are pointed to. First, turn with me to Acts chapter 1. Acts chapter 1, verses 15 through 26. Acts chapter 1, verses 15 through 26. It says, at this time Peter stood up in the midst of the brethren, a gathering of about 120 persons was there together and said, brethren, now stop right there, who is the brethren that he is addressing? The other apostles? The same word brethren was just used. He stood up in the midst of the brethren, a gathering of 120. It's the members of the church of Jerusalem. He's speaking to all of them. Brethren, the scripture had to be filled with the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. For he was counted among us and received his share in this ministry. Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness. In falling headlong, he burst open in the middle. and all his intestines gushed out. And it became known to all who were living in Jerusalem, so that in their own language that field was called HaKeldama, that is, field of blood. For it is written in the book of Psalms, let his homestead be made desolate and let no one dwell in it, and let another man take his office. Therefore, it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning with the baptism of John until the day that he was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection. So they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also called Justice, and Matthias. Now, who is the they there in verse 23? Who put forward these two men? Well, it's the people who Peter just addressed. Who? The brethren, the 120, the whole congregation. They put them forward or nominated them, really. It continues. And they prayed and said, you, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two you have chosen to occupy this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place. And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias, and he was added to the 11 apostles." So interestingly, they do use lots, probably because it's the highest office of apostle. Maybe God gets the final word right. But who got to nominate the two men? The people did. And notice, they did this with the highest office in the church, the office of apostle, the people could nominate and choose, right? Next, turn with me to Acts chapter 6. Acts chapter 6, verses 1 through 6. It says, now at this time, while the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint arose on the part of the Hellenistic Jews against the native Hebrews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily serving of food. So the Twelve summoned the congregation of the disciples and said, it is not desirable for us to neglect the Word of God in order to serve tables. Therefore, brethren, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom you may put in charge of this task. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the Word. The statement found approval with the whole congregation, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochris, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicholas, a proselyte from Antioch. And these they brought before the apostles, and after praying, they laid their hands on them." So again, well, before we say who chose, who guides, who calls for the election? Well, the apostles do, right? They oversee the matter. It says in verse 2, the 12 summoned the congregation, right? They're going to call for an election. But who chooses the men? Well, verse 5, the statement found approval with the whole congregation and they chose, all right? But is the matter done then? No, it's not finished yet. Verse 6, and these, the seven, they, the congregation, brought before the apostles, and after praying, they, the apostles, laid their hands on them. So the apostles appointed, they ordained these deacons, but the congregation chose them. Now notice two very important facts here. First, in both cases, in Acts 1 and Acts 6, there were still actual apostles with apostolic, extraordinary power, but even then, with that apostolic power, they did not take things unto themselves without the consent of the church. We might even say they could have, right? In fact, other congregationalists like John Cotton says they had power to do things like that, but even then they did not exercise it without the consent of the people. And so if the apostles who had extraordinary power did not do so, how much less ought those with ordinary power do things without the consent of the people? Furthermore, notice with Acts 1 and Acts 6, the people nominate or choose persons for, on the one hand, the highest office, and then on the other hand, the lowest office, apostle and deacon. Does it not therefore make sense that the office in between should also be called with the election of the people, right? Listen to what the famous Congregationalist Martin Luther says. Yes, we can keep going all day. Luther wrote a little book titled, The Right and Power of a Christian Congregation or Community to Judge All Teaching and to Call, Appoint and Dismiss Teachers, okay? He says this. Now you will say to me, St. Paul commanded Timothy and Titus to appoint priests. Moreover, we read in Acts 14.23 that Paul and Barnabas appointed priests in their congregations. The congregation cannot therefore call anyone, nor can anyone come forward of his own accord to preach among Christians, but we must have the consent and commission of bishops, abbots, or other prelates who sit in the apostle's seat. Luther replies, we read in Acts 6 with respect to a very minor office that the apostles themselves did not venture to appoint men to be deacons without the knowledge and consent of the congregation. The congregation on the contrary chose and called the seven deacons and the apostles confirmed them. But if the apostles did not venture upon their own authority to appoint men to an office that had to do merely with the distribution of bodily food, how should they have been so bold as to commit to anyone the office of preaching by their own power and without the knowledge, consent, and call of the congregation? So in some respects, as we look at you know, the book of biblical eldership, what I would say is, yeah, if you just look at passages that talk about ordaining elders and all it talks about is that missionaries appointed, well, I guess then, yeah, you would maybe conclude that. But if you step back and you look at how power functions in the church more broadly and how other elections take place, then no, you would say it's implied. You'll notice in some cases, for example in Acts 1, it's not so clear that the apostles ordained. It kind of just says they. You could almost read that and conclude that therefore the whole congregation ordained the new apostle. I don't think that's the case, really. At other times, it just speaks of the ordination. It was with Paul and Barnabas. I don't think we should read into that, though, that the people had no role. Rather, each of these are giving us a piece, and when we put all of these together, we see that each of those three parts has a role. Christ calls and fits men, gifts them for the role. Elders call for elections. They can even examine candidates. But the people have a right and privilege to choose, nominate, or to refuse those who they do not wish to see as church officers. And really, this is what we see in paragraph 9. We see all three parts of these, the monarchy, the aristocracy, and the democracy. Look again at paragraph 9 and just kind of read it with that mindset. The way appointed by Christ for the calling of any person fitted and gifted by the Holy Spirit. So this person, this is really God's idea. God has fitted this person and gifted them for the task. They didn't call themselves unto it. He has appointed them and so gifted. The way appointed unto the office of bishop or elder in the church is that he be chosen thereunto by the common suffrage of the church. So the church votes. But then it's not done yet. And solemnly set apart by fasting and prayer with the imposition of the hands of the eldership, if there be any before constituted the ordination." They all go together, okay? Lastly, with this, brothers and sisters, just consider the great privileges that the Lord has given to you. He allows you to choose your own leaders. Use that privilege wisely. One of the most perhaps scary texts I know for us as ministers is where we read that elders keep watch over the souls of the members of the church. We keep watch over souls. We will be held accountable for souls, right? Nominate men who will keep watch well over your own soul. When you nominate an elder, You are basically saying, I am entrusting myself to you. Ladies, you who have been married, you are basically saying when you say I do, I'm acknowledging you're not, well, you may be a little bit of a dork, but at least I can trust you enough that I can submit to you, you will be a good husband, you will be a good father down the road, like all those things. As you, the church, do that, consider the weightiness of the task and give thanks to God that He gives you such a privilege. And no man can take that away, not your elders or otherwise, right? This is why typically when elder rule starts, they come into a church that's congregational, they change the bylaws, and then they do whatever they want. They push everyone out. I've seen that, I've heard of it happen many, many times. They take away the powers of the people, give it all to themselves, and yet they're still calling themselves historically Baptist. And they may be in many regards, but not in terms of how power functions in the local church, okay? Any questions?