In accord with the way they understood matters then, however, the selection of elders, and of deacons to assist them, was made by congregation vote. Each year, or more often if necessary, the qualifications of those who might serve were considered, and a vote was taken. It was basically a democratic procedure, but one that was hedged about with limitations designed to act as a safeguard. All in the congregation were urged to review carefully the Biblical qualifications and to express by vote, not their own opinion, but what they believed to be the will of the Lord. Since only those “fully consecrated” were eligible to vote, their collective vote, when guided by the Word and spirit of the Lord, was viewed as expressing the Lord’s will in the matter. Although Brother Russell may not have been completely aware of it, his recommendation of this arrangement was perhaps influenced to some extent not only by his determination to avoid any semblance of an exalted clergy class but also by his own background as a teenager in the Congregational Church.

When the Millennial Dawn volume entitled The New Creation (published in 1904) again discussed in detail the role of elders and the manner in which they were to be selected, special attention was directed to Acts 14:23. Concordances compiled by James Strong and Robert Young were cited as authorities for the view that the statement “they had ordained them elders” (KJ) should be translated “they had elected them elders by a show of hands.”d Some Bible translations even say that the elders were ‘appointed by vote.’ (Young’s Literal Translation of the Holy Bible; Rotherham’s Emphasised Bible) But who was to do that voting?

Adopting the view that the voting was to be done by the congregation as a whole did not always yield the results that were hoped for. Those voting were to be persons who were “fully consecrated,” and some who were elected truly met the Scriptural qualifications and humbly served their brothers. But the voting often reflected personal preference rather than the Word and spirit of God. Thus, in Halle, Germany, when certain ones who thought they should be elders did not get the positions they wanted, they caused severe dissension. In Barmen, Germany, among those who were candidates in 1927 were men who opposed the work of the Society, and there was considerable shouting during the showing of hands at election time. So it was necessary to switch over to a secret ballot.

Back in 1916, years before these incidents, Brother Russell, with deep concern, had written: “A horrible state of affairs prevails in some Classes when an election is to be held. The servants of the Church attempt to be rulers, dictators—sometimes even holding the chairmanship of the meeting with the apparent object of seeing that they and their special friends shall be elected as Elders and Deacons. . . . Some quietly try to take advantage of the Class by having the election at some time which is especially favorable to them and their friends. Others seek to pack the meeting with their friends, bringing in comparative strangers, who have no thought of being regular in attendance at the Class, but come merely as an act of friendship to vote for one of their friends.”

[Box on page 207]

Why the Change?

When questioned on his change of view regarding selection of elders in the various groups of the Lord’s people, C. T. Russell replied:

“First of all I hasten to assure you that I have never laid claim to infallibility. . . . We do not deny growing in knowledge, and that we now see in a slightly different light the will of the Lord respecting Elders or leaders in the various little groups of his people. Our error in judgment was in expecting too much of the dear brethren who, coming early into the Truth, became the natural leaders of these little companies. The ideal view of them which we fondly entertained was, that the knowledge of the Truth would have upon them a very humbling effect, causing them to appreciate their own insignificance, and that whatever they knew and were able to present to others was as mouthpieces of God and because used of him. Our ideal hopes were that these would in every sense of the word be examples to the flock; and that should the Lord’s providence bring into the little company one or more equally competent, or more competent, to present the Truth, that the spirit of love would lead them in honor to prefer one another, and thus to help and urge one another to participation in the service of the Church, the body of Christ.

“With this thought in mind we concluded that the larger measures of grace and truth now due and appreciated by the Lord’s consecrated people would make it unnecessary for them to follow the course outlined by the apostles in the early Church. Our mistake was in failing to realize that the arrangements outlined by the apostles under divine supervision are superior to anything that others could formulate, and that the Church as a whole will need to have the regulations instituted by the apostles until, by our change in the resurrection, we shall all be made complete and perfect and be directly in association with the Master.

“Our mistake gradually dawned upon us as we beheld amongst dear brethren to some extent the spirit of rivalry, and on the part of many a desire to hold the leadership of meetings as an office instead of as a service, and to exclude and hinder from developing as leaders other brethren of equal ability naturally and of equal knowledge of the Truth and competency in wielding the sword of the Spirit.”—“Zion’s Watch Tower,” March 15, 1906, p. 90.