I believe this would give us higher standing among our Christian brethren. It would indicate that we did care about the standard of our leadership, and were concerned that God's work was cared for in the best possible way by us. On the question of church property, it is appalling that a very valuable set of buildings, established and built up by generations in the past, should be entirely in the hands of a particular group of church officers for disposal, or any other usage. If a church has a lean period, and the membership decreases, it means that the savings and sacrifices of hundreds, over a period of many years, is at the mercy of a few, who may not have contributed much to its development at all. To an outside observer it must seem odd that in our Brotherhood there is not even any uniformity on the type of officers a church may appoint.
Most churches have Deacons, and some have Elders as well.
Members of other communions must think that we don't care a button about office bearers. To take a real part in a democratic institution would to me entail such practical involvement. A very important consideration in the realm of practicality is Christian Union. By far the majority of Protestant Christians have same form of authority vested in their central bodies. When God blesses the church with union we will no doubt be involved in a kind of structure not yet envisaged, but one which will in itself express the authority of Christ, the Head.