The Authority of the (Local) Church: A Rebuttal Part 1
The Author's Implementation of Exegetical/Logical Fallacies
Introduction
In the context in which I minister, and among circles with which I have at times been associated, I frequently encounter the argument that elders and local churches possess no real authority in the life of a Christian. According to this view and its proponents, preachers are nothing more than talking heads delivering monologues to inflate their own egos.
Among those who make such claims, one particular article is often circulated as if it carries authoritative weight (click here for article). Because the influence this article seems to have, I feel compelled to respond with a series of rebuttals, in the hope that such erroneous and harmful thinking would no longer be promoted or believed, if God would be so gracious.
That said, I want to make it clear from the outset that I am not seeking to attack the author, Alan, on a personal level. Outside of his problematic and dangerous ecclesiological views, Alan has been, at least I would say so, a friend. To the best of my knowledge, there is no hidden or egregious sin in his life that would discredit him or his minsistry endeavors. I’ve also found him to be evangelistically gifted and sincerely engaged in the fight against godlessness and abortion in Tulsa and beyond. He is faithful on the streets. However, I do believe that his views in this particular area cause more harm than good. While I strongly oppose his perspective on the local church, I affirm that his gospel message (at least when i’ve heard it) is sound, and I hold no personal or relational grievance against him.
Now to the article.
A Word about Words
At first glance, Alan’s article seems to promise a substantial arguemnt. It is filled with big words, and it appears he did his homework (with all the references presented). But upon closer inspection, it reveals almost nothing of real value. In fact, it’s a theological mirage. Depending on your expectations, you might be impressed by its surface-level complexity or grieved by its profound emptiness. While the argument initially appears robust, this is only due to its sesquipedalian style—a parade of long words and strained semantics that give an illusion of depth. It's more smoke than fire, more verbosity than veracity. More pejoratives and scare tactics than actual argumentation.
So where to Start?
Preliminary Matters: Alan’s Implementation of Exegetical/Logical Fallacies
I went back and forth on where to begin in my series of rebuttals. But as I thought and prayed about it, I decided, with the time allotted to me, it might be best to address the absurdity of his claims at a logical level. Before moving into a positive argument for the historical orthodox understanding of church submissiveness and/or authority (which I plan to do in the near future), I decided it wise (whether it is or not I will leave to you) and helpful to note several (11 to be exact) logical fallacies and exegetical missteps employed by Alan in his article.
The Daunting Dance
Firstly, and most obviously, Alan engages in the most common of logical fallacies, the Straw Man Fallacy. The Straw Man Fallacy misrepresents an opponent’s position in order to make it easier to combat. The reasons to employ such a method are obvious. But how did Alan do this? Alan claims,
“Note also Jesus' reference to the disingenuous way in which Gentile overlords demand to be addressed. He says they insist on being called "Benefactors", just like authoritarians insist on disingenuously referring to their ideas of elders/pastors as "servant leaders" and simultaneously demanding that all acknowledge the authority of the same to tell the Christians under them how to believe and how to act.”
This is erroneous for many reasons, chief among them being that Biblically faithful Elders do not demand slavish obedience nor desire the acknowledgement by all (whatever that means) of any kind of elevated status. The actual view held by Reformed, Calvinistic Christians regarding Biblical ecclesiology is that elders exercise ministerial, not magisterial authority—that is, their authority is derived from the inerrant, infallible, and sufficient Scriptures, not independent of them. Alan’s accusations falsely equate Biblical Eldership with papal abuse in a way that is confused at best, and dishonest at worst.
Secondly, the article is ripe with another logical fallacy, the False Equivalence Fallacy. This fallacy simply equates two unlike things as if they are the same. Alan asserts,
“Their incessant references to ‘authority of the elders’... resemble papist and conciliarist opponents of the Reformation.”
Not unlike the first charge, equating the Biblical office of Elder with Roman Catholic hierarchicalism is disingenuous and dangerous. The Reformers and their children (the Puritans) taught with tenacity that a church without church discipline and pastoral authority (rooted in Scripture) was nothing more than a synagogue of Satan. Biblically-defined Eldership is not the same as papal tyranny, even if both involve some form of structure. In short, structure does not equal Roman Catholic hierarchicalism or papal tyranny.
Thirdly, Alan engages in the fallacy of Selective Evidence (also known as “Cherry-Picking”). That is, in his argumentation, he only employs the verses that seemingly support his view while ignoring the towering evidence to the contrary. For instance, the article focuses *only* on uses of ἐξουσία and similar words, ignoring other biblical terms and contexts (like προϊστάμενος, ἐπίσκοπος, ποιμήν, and πείθω in Heb. 13:17). I understand, he might argue, that that would be outside the scope of his article, but to omit such relevant words is to ignore the Bible on this very subject. In addition, he completely neglects key texts like Hebrews 13:17, 1 Thessalonians 5:12–13, 1 Timothy 5:17, Acts 20:28, and Matthew 18:15–20, all of which clearly and without apology support church authority (depending, again, on how one defines the term authority).
Fourthly, Alan employs the Equivocation Fallacy. That is, he uses the same word in different senses within an argument, while treating them as the same. Alan continually makes the argument (in various ways throughout the article) that “Authority (ἐξουσία) is never used of elders in the in the New Testament”. Therefore, he concludes “elders have no authority.” This, however, assumes too much.
The argument that states, “unless the exact Greek term “ἐξουσία” is applied to elders, they cannot have any form of authority” is near sighted and doesn’t do justice to the whole of the biblical data. The truth is, Biblical authority is expressed in various terms and concepts (e.g., oversight, shepherding, leading, ruling). Elders can rightly have authority without the biblical authors needing to use ἐξουσία to vindicate that authority.
To clarify this point further, D.A Carson in his book, Exegetical Fallacies, comments on this fallacy by labeling it as an Illegitimate Totality Transfer . Carson explains that this fallacy is bound up in foolishly imposing the full range of a word's meanings onto a single usage. For example, the article suggests that because ἐξουσία encompasses various forms of authority, and elders are not explicitly associated with this term, they possess no authority. This is absurd. As Carson notes, "it is an error to think that a word carries all its possible meanings in every context."
We can honestly stop here, because the thrust of his entire argument rests on the shoulders of this very fallacy. Once this has been revealed, his argument becomes nothing more than conjecture. With that said, I find it to be profitable for those influenced by his argumentation to proceed further.
The Onward March
Therefore, fifthly, consider his use of the Etymological Fallacy. When one employs the Etymological Fallacy, one assumes a word’s meaning is determined strictly by its root or etymology. D.A. Carson has words to say about this in his book as well. But for the sake of brevity, let me point to its usage in Alan’s article. Alan’s argumentation rests almost wholly on the meanings of πρεσβύτερος (elder), ἐπίσκοπος (overseer), and ποιμήν (shepherd) based on root or surface meaning rather than context. This is wildly inappropriate, at least in some cases.
Any able exegete knows that a word’s meaning depends not merely on its simple definition found in a lexicon but on the context it is situated in. In other words, you cannot argue based on etymology alone. While πρεσβύτερος may mean "older man" in some contexts, in ecclesiological contexts (e.g., Acts 14:23, Titus 1:5), it refers to a church office. To insist otherwise is at the very least, linguistically naive.
Seventhly, Alan also consistently demonstrates his inability to think in proper categories. In doing so, he makes many Category Errors. When someone errs in this way, its because they have either mistakenly or purposefully (that is to say, rhetorically) attributed characteristics to something that doesn’t belong to its category. For instance, when Alan dismisses Titus’ authority because it was unique and temporary and therefore not relevant today, he reveals his inability to categorize things coherently. Just because Titus’ ministry commenced during the Apostolic era, does not necessitate the conclusion that no modern analog can exist. Scripture, on the other hand, paints a different picture. Titus and Timothy exist, albeit historically, as patterns for pastoral ministry, not unique exceptions (2 Tim 2:2). The office of elder is perpetuated (Titus 1:5), and their function includes authoritative teaching and correction, whether Alan likes that or not.
More than that, Alan’s point(s) rest on an Argument from Silence. That is, in his article, he promotes a conclusion based on the absence of evidence. To repeat his refrain that ἐξουσία is never used for elders, therefore elders have no authority is to argue from silence. And it’s to align himself with the very hermenetical strategy of the papists and incrementalists he so often (and rightly I might add) rails against.
What I’m getting at is this: the Bible doesn’t need to use a specific word in order to teach a specific doctrine. There are plenty of terms and examples that functionally express authority in the Biblical canon (e.g., ruling, governing, overseeing, watching over souls). Silence on a word doesn’t equal denial of a concept. Alan knows this to be true, and believes this to be a fallacy when he, for instance, employs the term “Trinity” as a Biblical Trinitarian against Triune-God deniers!
Ninthly, Alan often and clearly and consistently props up False Dilemma’s (the Either-Or Fallacy) That is, he often presents only two options when more exist. For example, when Alan suggests that either we affirm mutual submission and reject elder authority or we become a hierarchical authoritarians, he presents it in such a way as to make you, the reader, feel as though those are the only two ways to view biblical authority. Exegetically, however, the Bible teaches both mutual submission (Eph 5:21) and authoritative eldership (Heb 13:17). These are not mutually exclusive. Good pastors submit to the Word, and members submit to qualified, godly elders, AND the body to whom Christ has united them by His Spirit.
Tenthly, Alan often Begs the Question. As he argues, he assumes what he’s trying to prove. It goes something like this, “There is no biblical authority for elders because church authority is unbiblical.” Why is this a fallacy? Using his article as an example, Alan assumes that all ecclesiastical authority is unbiblical and then uses that assumption to interpret Scripture accordingly, rather than allowing Scripture to define the category.
Finally, and lastly, (and really this is at the heart of the problem), Alan’s entire argumentation is based on the fallacy of Reductionism. Alan has written a master-class level article on how to oversimplify seemingly complex theological concepts (although I think in some ways he also overcomplicates the matter as well, but I must stop this list at some point). Alan’s article artificially flattens all New Testament teaching about leadership into mutual humility and denies genuine authority in church government. This is insanely problematic because the Biblical picture is a rich tapestry of beautiful and multi-dimensional truths. It includes servant leadership, real authority, accountability to Christ, and congregational responsibility. Reducing the entire concept of church government to “just be humble” ignores the functional instructions in the Pastoral Epistles, Acts, and the Gospels.