First, I don't think there needs to be an exact Bible verse for everything. That may be a very comfortable approach, but examples set in the scripture have great validity. For example, some might consider it handy to have a verse that says [If you are not baptized, by being totally immersed in water, you will not be acceptable to God and you will go to Hell no matter what] but there are so many great examples of baptism and promises to the faithful that I don't believe the detail above is required (and may or may not be true).

Second, what would be the purpose of having an elder appoint other elders or an elder appoint deacons rather than having a preacher of the word or evangelist be responsible for the task? I have discussed this question with people that strongly feel that way and typically, the answer is: people that are around the situation know the men's personality traits better and are better judges of the situation. Is that really true? Maybe and maybe not.

Recently, I went through a process to be appointed an elder of my home congregation and was appointed by an evangelist. During that process, I spend hours talking, sharing and studying with that evangelist and fellow elders. Maybe it's because he did a good job, but I have no doubt that he knows my heart as well as many people do that I meet with every Sunday and Wednesday. While there may be much more to add to this topic, the main point is that the argument that "an evangelist doesn't know them as well" is not necessarily true. I once saw a situation where local members appointed men to an office and specifically chose not to have an evangelist involved and the result was disastrous and, in my opinion, played a part in several people straying from the faith. The worst part of that situation was that there were members that felt strongly that an evangelist should be involved and their opinion was cast aside. Would it have harmed anyone to have an evangelist involved? Is it unscriptural to have an evangelist involved? You shall reap what you sow.

The other main argument that I have heaerd against having an Evangelist involved is that some do not believe in the title or office of evangelist. Since Evangelist means: “ a preacher of the Gospel” and since there are direct references and examples of men specifically doing that task in the Bible, it is a pretty hard case to make. To some, maybe this is one more case of Bible examples not having the same credibility as a command.

Each of the reasons listed above are similar in one respect and they point to an alarming trend in non-denominational churches today. I view it as the return of the Pharisees (not that their kind ever left). The Pharisees didn’t respect the example of Moses, only the Law and they twisted that to fit their needs. They revered the prophets, but they didn’t seek to understand what the real message delivered by the prophets was. They made up stuff! They said that they were about love and unity of God’s people, but that only went as far as it suited them.

If we all had the goal to serve God to the best of our ability and to do anything within His will to strengthen and encourage our local church family; if we separated our opinions from Bible examples and placed proper value on each; if our local church leaders carefully and respectfully instructed those tempted to discount Bible examples; we would do well.