The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum How are Elders Trained?

I'm not sure how we Presbyterians have managed to justify and maintain the distinction between "ruling" elders and "teaching" elders in our churches, but I do know that all elders are supposed to be "able to teach (1st Timothy 3:2)" among other things. Yet most churches do not even offer - let alone require - training in doctrine or skillful use of the Bible. For some there is an "officer training class" that is finished in a few short weeks and serves to "qualify" church officers as elders and or deacons. Perhaps there is such a shortage of men willing to serve as church officers that there is pressure to qualify the few who are willing as quickly as possible. But oh, the extreme danger in doing so!

Of course no amount of Bible and theological training can, by itself, qualify anyone for church office, be it pastor or "ruling" elder or deacon. It takes much more than mere proficiency in doctrine and knowing one's way around the Bible to serve administratively or otherwise in the Body of Christ. But it is by far the most desperate need in churches today. I really doubt that my former church (PCA) would have sank to the level of teaching a class on the Purpose Driven Life had they been adequately trained and equipped Biblically. It would have been enough for the pastor or the Session to simply make a ruling and state for the congregation that the theology and premise behind the popular books is unBiblical and not endorsed by their church. But it never could go even that far at our church, because despite the 10-week "leadership training" class, our elders enthusiastically embraced the books and taught a course on the "purpose driven" theme. There's no way that should have happened in a Reformed church, and no way I should have been so quickly dismissed and told to "lighten up" when I said so.

So what am I suggesting - that every elder and deacon should hold a degree from a Bible college or seminary? Is that realistic?

Yes. On both counts.

There is absolutely no reason to have untrained "undershepherds" managing the household of faith and holding the pastor accountable for what he teaches. And there is absolutely no reason why the local presbytery or association should not provide this training to anyone who requests it.

However:

I have read that it takes only about 40 years for even the most solid of denominations to apostasize. And the evidence also shows that such apostasy usually occurs "from the top down," beginning among the highest educated seminary professors and most venerated clergy members. So doesn't that prove the opposite of what I just said above? Not at all. Here is why:

Liberalism is attractive to untrained elders and deacons, who promote their ear-tickling pastor and provide him with funding to publish books and go on speaking engagements. Officers with good grounding in "the faith once delivered" would censure the same stuff. Liberals who gain high ecclesiastical standing are given that standing by ignorant, untrained church officers who see it as a way to advance their church and its standing. Ambition and glory-seeking is fed by promoting books and tapes and conferences. It is very prestigious to be an officer in the church that develops the Next Big Thing. It's not unlike the competitive adolescent need of Charismatic churches to be On the Cutting Edge of What God is Doing in the Earth Today.

The very highly educated, the very wise, the very noble, and the very wealthy face unique spiritual peril. And if they are accountable to and surrounded by untrained officers with power over the church budget and responsibility for the spiritual care of the flock, the pride and ambition that they are especially vulnerable to can be easily ignored and quickly misidentified as "promoting the ministry of the gospel" rather than promoting the man and his organization. This is why we must pray constantly and fervently for our leaders, and pastors in particular! Especially if they excel and gain notoriety for published books or fame for gifted oratory or popularity for innovative ministry. But my point is that officers who are adequately equipped in doctrine and personal discipline and equal in authority to the pastor are a lot less likely to fall due to ignorance or ambition. And more likely and more able to protect a pastor whose gifts expose him to the unique and terrible temptations of fame and prestige.

How are elders recruited and trained in YOUR church?

Robin,

It is quite remarkable that you ask this question at this time. Yesterday the elders in our congregation had a morning long meeting to again talk about our calling as elders and to discuss the practical aspects of being elders. And your question about training of elders is something that I also have thought about. I am not going to try to explicitly answer your question. Rather I will tell how it works and have worked in our denomination for many years. And then in the evening service earlier tonight the sermon was also about the elders.

Let me start to say that perhaps the central texts in the NT that refers to duties and character of the elders are 1 Peter 5:1-4, 1 Tim 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-8. Paul's address to the elders of the church in Ephesus in Acts 20:17-37 also gives us direct hints as to the duties of the elders. Perhaps the main duty of the elders is to shepherd the flock of God.

We have a special formulary that is read with the ordaining of elders. The duties of the elders are (try to translate freely from Afrikaans and to shorten it a bit): (1) That there is good order in the church and that the Word and sacraments are presented regularly and that the sacraments are kept holy. The elders should see that the ministers of the Word (ordained pastors), other elders and deacons faithfully do their duties and to assist the pastor with good advice. (2) The elders should see to it that the members of the church live according to the faith they profess. (3) In particular should the elders oversee that the minister of the Word keeps to the pure doctrine and that their lives testify of the Godly calling. To see to it that no false doctrine is being taught.(4) Should partake in evangilization.

Okay, that's already a lot said. The question is how does it work in practice. Two things: (1) It is said that in the 1850's when our churches separated from the old Cape Dutch Reformed Church due to false doctrine that was contained in certain hymns and preached by some ministers, it was the elders who were the first line of defence. I can say that since the 1850's there has been no split in our churches. (2) There is no formal training of elders.

In practice, elders in our churches are expected to do house visitations of the church members. We have wards and each elder has a ward with 6 - 10 families. This makes that there are perhaps too many elders. Even though there are some negative points that we can raise against this system, it does have the one positive effect of the elders knowing the people in the church. And four times per year we have to report at an elders' meeting on the members in our ward.

As for the lack of formal training I am not sure whether it still is a good thing not to have formal training. Now the fact that we didn't had a split in our churches for 150 years can, I think, on the one hand be ascribed to the fact that the elders have as their to duty to see to it that false teaching is not preached. This means that the elders certainly has to have good knowledge of the reformed doctrine. I am treading on thin ice when I say that I suspect that more than 50 years ago the elders in our churches had a better idea of reformed doctrine than most elders today.

However, I think over the last decade or so things have changed a lot for the churches in SA. You mention liberalization. There defintely are new forces at work in our churches that has not been there for many years. I think churches in the US and Europe have been much more under attack of liberalism than what has been the case in South Africa. Now, all of a sudden we are confronted with the very subtle things that came with post-modernism. And I am not sure whether the elders are equipped to identify these very subtle things. I don't say that I am properly equipped either.

Within our local church I would say that we have some really "good" elders. In fact recalling yesterday's meeting I think I can say with a clear conscience that each of the elders love our Lord Jesus Christ in whose service we stand. But I feel worried that not all of us have a similar understanding of what the authority of Scripture really mean or should mean. As I already said in some of my first posts on this board last year, the issue of women as elders is on the table at our next synod. And then there is the matter of church music on which we also don't have the same opinion. I ask myself why this is so. I have no facts but I am pretty sure that 50 - 100 years ago most elders had the same opinion on these matters. I am therefor really struggling with myself that I struggle to understand the statements made by some elders. Sometimes it feels to me that I am the only one that holds an orthodox position. And I don't think I hold such a position simply because I am old fashioned and want to keep up the tradition but rather that I am convinced that the Lord does not accept any arbitrary form of worship where secular ideas have been imported.

At the moment then my view is that unless elder training is strictly done within some well defined doctrinal boundaries there will always be tension and I am not sure whether that is good for the congregation. I think I have in an earlier post also mentioned that there are elders who are Purpose Driven fans and one who have no problem with Robert Schuler and many of the TBN preachers.

There is still a lot more that can be said but I'd rather leave it at this point hear what others have to say.

Johan

Robin,

My church does it mostly like the way you describe not to do it. Besides going through a 3-6 weeks training, the church does require the officer to answer a questionnaire based on their personal Christian experience and on the WCF. Since the PCA has started requiring Bible (whatever it is called), I am sure that will be thrown in as an additional questionnaire.

Though I see your points, I do not agree that all officers be degreed holders in Seminary or Bible College. Are you implying a paid officer staff because most people will want their paid vocation be in whatever field they are formally trained? I've known plenty of RE who spent years in teaching SS classes and Bible studies who are quite knowledgeable in Christian and doctrinal matters. They have not received any formal training whatsoever.

Also, I dispute whether liberalism creeps into the church by so-called ignorant lay officers. I think it can be proven that liberalism creeps into the church by trained Pastors from seminaries and Bible colleges, not from those who has no formal training. Now of course their untraining may prove easy fodder for the trained liberal theologian, but that is another story - isn't. it.

As to the PCA system, I am sure there should be more accountability, but how to go about it is no easy answer. The men who are elected as REs in their local churches are seen as spiritual leaders in the church.

I agree with John that error and false teaching usually starts either in the study of the pastor or the professor at the seminary. If it infiltrates the seminary it spreads to the students and from there to the churches. One can find many examples of this.

I think y'all missed the point. We agree that liberalism first takes root in seminaries. When a teaching elder brings that liberalism to a congregation, it is the (so-called) ruling elders that are supposed to intervene. But they're "not qualified" to argue with the (so-called) teaching elder because, after all, he's seminary trained and they're not.

What I am suggesting is that all elders be trained at least to the Bible college level at no financial cost to them through seminars and courses offered through their own church under the guidance of presbytery or something like that.

Perhaps so equipped, they would be better able to guard the flock against the liberalism that creeps in through the "professional" ranks. Seminary officers and faculty should be scrutinized by those trained "ruling" elders and the Standards upheld without the compromises that are allowed because of "professional courtesy" or simply left to continue growing unchallenged by untrained "lay" elders who mount no defense against heresies because "the clergy knows better - they're seminary trained after all." Get my drift now?

For the same reason we believe in plurality of elders, we must train those elders sufficiently to guard the flock against the Clergy Elite and their "superior" professional education.

I'm not suggesting that all elders become "paid staff members" as a vocation, nor that they invest thousands of their own dollars in their training. But I am suggesting that untrained elders are ill equipped to oppose liberalism when it is introduced by a "seminary trained professional."

Robin,

I am not convinced that training as such is sufficient to guard against heresy. If training alone is the issue then heresy or liberalism should not originate in the seminaries because these people are trained. Heresy and liberalism originate in seminaries and in the studies of pastors in spite of the fact they are trained people. I agree completely with you that we sometimes cannot stand up against the arguments of the liberal preacher who attended seminary, knows Greek and Hebrew and who spends a lot of time developing some kind of "new" idea. But then I ask myself the question why a person that studies the Bible on a daily basis has a liberal approach or concoct a heresy? If one academic can influence another academic about his/her opinion then a trained elder can also be influenced negatively in the same way.

When we want to guard against liberalism or heresy my opinion is that we have to go down one level to a more basic level. Is this not the level of presuppositions? Is this not where things either go in the right or the wrong way? I quote the following from " Introduction to Biblical Interpretation " by Klein, Bromberg and Hubbard:


Thus, unless in the training of elders we do not first agree on the presuppositions, I cannot see that training alone will do the thing. This is perhaps the reason why I am struggling to understand statements made by some of my fellow elders - our presuppositions differ.


Johan

Johan,

Personally, I see great value in what Robin has espoused.. perhaps because I hold the same idea(s). Regardless of why or how heresy enters the Church (it was happening in Paul's day too), it is essential that Elders AND Deacons be educated. Whether that entails sending a few men at a time to a local well-established Bible College that adheres to the historic Reformed Faith... is there such a place today? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" /> Or, they are trained by the seminary-trained preaching Elder. Or, if they take it upon themselves to read established Systematic Theology texts, e.g., Berkhof, Hodge, etc. They are to be well grounded in the truth of Scripture as well as as being fluent in the Bible itself.

Now, I also agree with you that education alone will never stem the tide of never-ceasing heresy. But I would have to believe that Robin wasn't even hinting that be the case. Some of the greatest minds that have been in the Church have apostatized. This is inarguably due to two things: 1) a weak man with an errant heart, and 2) the influence of the Evil One. Brother, there is a full-blown war going on in the world. And from the very day man was put on this earth, that war became evident, even though it preceded man.

What the Reformed churches have in their favor, although not a failsafe thing, are the Creeds, Confessions and Catechisms which came about due to this very thing; an attack on the orthodoxy of the Church's doctrine. Even a uneducated layman, if he can read, can discern most error when it appears by consulting these historic documents. Their original purpose was two-fold: 1) to guard against heresy and 2) as a standard of beliefs to which ALL may adhere to as biblical truth for their edification and sanctification. There is also the long history of the Church to which most today thumb their noses at. The argument against looking to our forefathers, who admittedly erred in some things, is that it is too much like Rome. Yet, invariably, the errors made today resemble Rome, e.g., NPP, FV, etc. So, they bring the world into the Church and pride themselves on doing something "new", "inventive", "productive", etc.. aka: pragmatism at the expense of truth.

Finally, there is another factor which would hinder heresy from entering the Church and that is church disipline... another ignored element which is one of the foundational marks of the true Church. (cf. Belgic Confession) For the sake of "tolerance", "academia", "respect", ad nauseam, men are allowed to bring even damnable heresies into the church without much or any resistance whatsoever. But what did Paul teach? If after three attempts to bring a brother (or sister) around to right thinking, Paul said to throw the bum out (loose translation <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />) with the hopes that he/she will see the seriousness of their ways, repent and return to the fold.

Dems my

In His grace,

Indeed... I'm not suggesting that education of church officers alone is the answer - just a help.

My recent experience with my PCA church has got me re-thinking the whole church government thing. While I still think that Presbyterianism is the most Biblical form of church government, I wrestle with the way church officers are chosen in, for example, PCA churches like mine.

1. In the Scriptures I find elders appointed by the Apostles and evangelists rather than chosen by "popular vote" from a pool of candidates, and

2. I find no Scriptural justification for giving greater ecclesiastical authority to "teaching elders" (who alone are eligible for appointment to many committees and who alone are authorized to administer the sacraments, etc) than to so-called "ruling elders." Certainly there is Scripture to demonstrate the principle of "first among equals", such as Peter among the Eleven, but none giving one elder authority over the others.

3. Deacons were chosen in at least one instance by consensus from among the people, but I cannot find a single instance of elders being chosen in such a way.

I'm starting to favor an "EpiscoPresbytalian" approach to church government... I'm disgusted with the way the government of my former PCA church failed so badly, and with the wider failure of the PCA to confront and refute the NPP/FV heresies before they gained so much ground and did so much damage in the denomination over a period of several years. Presbyterian government hasn't prevented other Presbyterian denominations from apostasizing. But the way Presbyterianism has been implimented in our Western culture surely demonstrates that the church should revisit it.

Is there such a thing as an EpiscoPresbytalian church anywhere? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" />

Pilgrim,

I think we're saying the very same thing. You ask the question of whether there is a well established Bible College that adheres to the historic Reformed Faith is for me the same saying that we find a Bible College where the presuppositions about Scripture is in line with the presuppositions of historic Reformed Faith. And then of course, it makes sense to have elders trained at such a college. Agree whole heartedly! And with your remarks about the Creeds and Confessions of Faith.

Johan

Robin,


I made the same remark on Saturday at our elders' meeting.


In our churches teaching elders (pastors) do not have greater ecclesiastical authority than ruling elders. At least on paper. And here I will agree with you that better training of "normal" (ruling) elders will certainly also help to let it also be the case in practice. If I am not mistaken, at synod level meetings in our churhes there are equal numbers of so-called ruling elders and teaching elders (pastors).

Johan

Well, the problem I see here is that there are no more Apostles nor Evangelists (early N.T. type). So, unless you are going to go back to Pente-caustalism and embrace the perpetuity of the Apostleship, who would "appoint" these men? Is it really any better that a bunch of liberal or heretical or worldly "officials" appoint men after their own liking rather than a congregation choosing from among a group of men who have initially met the basic qualifications? Neither alternative can prevent what we all would like to not see happen.

I've already remarked on this subject many times before. I am in full agreement that there is equality among the Eldership but a diversity of gifts. Today, we mainly see churches ruled by a Protestant Pope, i.e., the "PASTOR" before whom everyone must and does bow. In my experience, this is most typically seen in independent churches but it can also be seen in Presbyterian-type churches as well. There is this "I got the degree, so I'm the boss" mentality. But the truth is, I've known men who have had no formal training
but who have a far superior knowledge of the Bible and theology than the seminary-trained Pastor.

but I've been a Presbygationalist for years.

In His grace,

I'll take that. I wonder where I might find a Presbygationist church...

One of the issues that I have personally noticed within the church I worship at is it becomes basically a popularity contest. Very little theological discourse takes place in the consistory meeting. The concentration is on admin busisness and the property itself. As an aside, when the property committe has a larger budget than any other function of the local assembly, there is a big problem.

That being said, Elders should be recognized for their gift of being a Holy Spirit determined Elder. Then confirmed by the congregation. Not an election.

This thread has sort of come to a halt but it still is an important issue.

What do you see as the tasks of the elders?

Johan

Well, from what I have been able to glean from reading "stuff" on the Internet, some of the primary tasks of Elders are:

1. Making sure there enough greeters at the door and they smile widely.
2. Making sure that there are enough doggie biscuits on the communion table.
3. Making sure that there are just enough colorful balloons and banners hung up in the room.
4. Making sure the band has enough electrical outlets for their equipment and the mics are all working.
5. Making sure that they appear inconspicuous and blend in with the crowd, e.g., as equals.

I think those are some of the areas where I was most impressed.

Okay Pilgrim ..... I tried to be a bit more serious than that!

"Shepherding the flock of God" by means of preaching and teaching, the sacraments, and church discipline - that is the duty of the elders according to the Scriptures. Pilgrim's description seems more applicable to far too many churches, however (in a PCA church that would be the deacons, though - the elders just pass out the communion elements once a month).

My purpose in starting this li'l thread was not just to complain about untrained elders, but to suggest that presbyteries and/or districts, associations, etc make real training available to all church officer candidates and that such training should be a prerequisite for service as a deacon or elder. Their responsibilities are too vital to leave in the hands of one "trained professional," and the elders are to share equally in that responsibility instead of merely endorsing or approving (lending some sort of official validity to) whatever the pastor decides.

I think church bylaws have been adapted to accommodate the misconception that the real government and work of the church should be left to "trained professionals" with assistance from "lesser" elders and deacons. In my opinion that needs to be changed too.

Well said. You certainly have my vote!

A really good book on the role of the Elder is The Elder and His Work by David Dickson (edited by McFarland & Ryken). Dickson describes his duties that he performed back in the 1800s. It is vastly different today. A true eye-opener.

I'm just unsure if the training encouraged by Robin will get us where we intend to go on this. Many Pastors are not sufficiently trained upon leaving seminary, so advocating lay officers going through similiar type of training will leave the same gaps in ministry. I mean they will receive good training in head knowledge but there is much more to ministry for the Elder and Pastor.

Most church Elders see their role as primariy one of teaching SS and governing the church through meeting attendance.

The problem in the overall church is just not with Elders, but the time allocation with everyone. We have too many toys that keep us away from true Christian service.

Johan: What saieth the Scriptures. The whole Idea of a seminary degree for elders according to Robin is not the answer. Paul states:

2) The overseer then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, prudent, respectable, hospitable, skilful in teaching,

3) not given to wine, not a violent man (striker), not fond of shameful gain, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not loving money,

4) ruling his own house well, having his children in submission, with all reverence

5) for if one does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?

6) not newly converted, lest being puffed up he fall into the condemnation of the devil.

7) Moreover, he must also have a good testimony from those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.


Teaching is one of many that Paul states. Having one with more degrees than a thermometer who is violent, rude, arrogant, self righteouss is worse than one who may lack in scriptural exegesis, but his character righteousness is beyond reproach.

The question was how should they be trained, not "is training important" or "is character more important."

This discussion has been helpful. Thanks to all who participated.

Joe_k

Thanks.

In Titus 1:9 Paul says of the overseer that


Robin said that the task of the elders is to shepherd the flock through teaching and preaching and I agree. But I think that in our churches we have made a lot of the overseeing aspect of the task of the elders but the teaching part has, I would say, been neglected.

So, what is the practical implication of "to give instruction" in Titus 1? Is it preaching as from the pulpit or is it something else?


Johan

That is a REALLY good question. If a denomination differentiates between "ruling elders" and "teaching elders", is it permissible for a ruling elder to say, just teach by discussing theology "one on one" with a member of the congregation? Or does he have to actually teach a Sunday school class or Bible study?

On the other hand, denominations such as Anglicans have all presbyters preach--and even deacons are expected to preach. I do not know if any or all of the continental Reformed groups differentiate between "teaching elders" and "ruling elders"--would be interested to know the answer to that.

Theo

There is a difference between preaching per se from a pulipit and teaching. Since I see no scriptural warrant for a ruling elder vs teaching elder, i cannot partake in that type of discussion. It is way too vertical and smells of ecclesiastical popery to me, but thats another story.

My point in my post was not to neglect the teaching aspect as laid out by Paul in Titus and elsewhere. The elder is a much broader person than we tend to make him.

Since the primitive church appeared to be taught by a plurality of elders, and not a one man show of pastor/laity, instruction should be done one on one, private study and during worship. This whole idea of a 20 minute sermon by an ordained minister and that becomes the teaching for the week is absent from the inspired writ.

I believe the Holy Spirit picks those fit and then they are confirmed in their ministy and gifts.

Theo, that's exactly where I am aiming toward with the question.


Given the fact that Paul uses elder and overseer interchangeably and the apostle Peter refered to himself as "a fellow elder" it seems as if there is no real distinction between ruling and teaching elders. I have also read somewhere that the term "elder" was better known with the Christians of Jewish origin and "overseer" with those from the Greek world, but that both terms refer to the same office. But this then also affects the "qualifications" for elders. It seems to me that apart for the other qualifications for elders as given in 1 Tim 3 and in 1 Titus, there is also the requirement that an elder must be able to give instruction in sound doctrine.

And this relates directly to Robin's original question. Does this requirement mean that the person "nominated" to be an elder must already have the gift of being able to instruct other people in sound doctrine of should he get some training after being ordained as elder so that he is able to instruct? Not all people really have the ability/gift to teach/instruct other people. Mark Dever says the following:


This seems to me to be a good explanation. Comments?

Johan

[/quote]

Johan

I have noticed that there has been an absence of another important passage where bears directly upon this discussion:

Ephesians 4:11-14 (ASV) "And he gave some [to be] apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, unto the work of ministering, unto the building up of the body of Christ: till we all attain unto the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a fullgrown man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: that we may be no longer children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, in craftiness, after the wiles of error;"

I would like to point out a couple of salient things in the above quoted text: 1) re: "pastors and teachers" which I believe should be taken as a group and not two distinct offices, e.g., ruling elders and teaching elders. We can see a parallel of Paul's phraseology in 1Tim 5:17,

1 Timothy 5:17 (ASV) "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and in teaching."

Here we do see a unified Eldership where some are singled out as having given themselves to the study of the Word and teaching. 2) All the Elders therefore can rightly be deemed teaching elders or overseers, which is part and parcel of shepherding the flock. Therefore, although all must be "apt to teach", there are some who have the gift for preaching. There doesn't appear any bifurcation between ruling vs. teaching or even teaching vs. preaching, i.e., two distinct groups of men where the qualifications differ in regard to the office of Elder itself. Thus there is not a difference in authority among the Eldership; they are equal in that regard. There is likewise no prohibition in regard to preaching. All are qualified to preach, albeit one or more may be better at doing so.

The bottom line, therefore IMHO, is that an Elder is an Elder is an Elder. All must meet the qualifications, one of which is being "apt to teach", which nowhere is said to be restricted to a "one-on-one" situation. This teaching can be from the pulpit, group study and/or one-on-one.

In His grace,

I too have trouble with the "three office" view of TE, RE and deacon, and think all elders should fulfill the Biblical requirement as far as being "able to teach." But I could live with Mark Dever's comments, though: "one on one" teaching to me would meet the Biblical requirement, but a church could not get along well if the elders ALL wanted to limit their teaching to that format.

I also wonder how well someone who wanted to be an elder could fulfill the Biblical mandate if he had a condition that made his speech more or less unintelligible. (I have actually known someone in that situation who was convinced he had the gift of teaching but was not really able to communicate easily orally.)

Theo

I believe that part of the justification given for dividing the Eldership into two distinct, at least functional, offices is that it was to coincide with the three offices of Christ:

Prophet = preaching Elder
Priest = Deacon
King = ruling Elder

It's a fascinating idea, but one which I don't find very strong support in its favor. I have no qualms with recognizing the diversity of gifts given, i.e., some men may be gifted in the area of public preaching more than others. But my objection, which apparently is shared by others here as well, is the additional division of authority among the Elders, thus effectively making the "pastor" (preaching elder) a higher authority. He should be one among equals, IMHO.

And just an aside, this same allocation of authority within the Eldership seems to also apply to the distinction between Elders and Deacons. In many churches I have been involved with, Deacons are looked upon as "second-class" officers, which bothered me to no little extent. Any thoughts on this?

In His grace,

In our churches, for many years there has been the tendency to nominate young sometimes inexperienced men for the position of Deacon. This strongly left the impression that the office of Deacon is some sort of preparation school for eldership. I think I am not far off when I say that this habit has to a large extent been done away with during the last 15 years and in many congregations one now finds quite a number of older deacons as well.



Johan

I see that too, all too frequently. In my former church the Deacons prepare a budget and the Elders have to approve it. A sensible precaution, I suppose, but it has a way of conveying more than a functional distinction between the two offices.

I'm much more bothered by the artificial distinction made between clergy and laity than by the separate (but equal?) duties of Elders and Deacons. Yes, those who labor especially in word and doctrine should have their material needs provided for. I have no qualms about that at all. But when the ministry is treated as a profession comparable to the practice of law or medicine, unBiblical and dangerous presumptions follow fast upon it.

-R

Both Johan. That is why the requirements are many. The elder must be mature in THE FAITH. Blameless, not a new convert. This was my point in the above post. Age is not a determining factor. I believe a young person can posess the pauline requirements. Look at many of the reformers. They were in their teens and twenties when they begin expounding the Word.

If my church needs Elders, I'll be looking around within the church for guys who are already "elding" (discipling and teaching others - whether individually or teaching a Bible study or Sunday school class; someone who already meets the Biblical requirements. And someone who, once nominated, would seek (and get, at no cost to himself), even further training.

I don't think we should nominate "trainees" (per se) as officers and then train them. But I do think that Deacons who are already "deaking" and Elders who are already "elding" should be acknowledged, nominated, given further education in the Word and doctrine, and appointed to positions they "already" occupy. Wha'd'y'think?

I would agree that it IS a problem, because I think the office of deacon actually could be used as a counterweight if the elders fell into sin. What I would like to see, for example, would be that the elders have final authority over SPIRITUAL issues, but the deacons would have authority over FINANCIAL matters. (I realize some if not most Presbyterian elders would not like this at all.)

I guess it seems to me that a church with absolute authority by the elders over all things could wind up finding the elders voting themselves financial benefits they really might not be due.

In Anglican churches the clergy have jurisdiction over spiritual matters, but the vestry (lay officers) has jurisdiction over temporal matters including financial--which does serve as a counterbalance to any clergy who fall into financial temptation.

Theo

In our churches we have the following system: We have to kinds of offerings. (1) An offering that is given by member to maintain the preaching of the Word in the congregation. This means that the minister's "salary" (we don't call it a salary but I don't know the correct English word for it) comes from that offering as well as expenses to maintain the physical infrastructure. The elders have responsibility for how this is spent. (2) During the worship service there is a collection that is used by the Deacons for financially supporting people in the congregation who are in need. And, they sometimes also help people outside the congregation as well. Once a year the Deacons report to the Elders on their activities.

However, we don't see the Deacons' task as merely collecting and distributing money. Some reflection on Acts 6:1 will show that what is being said there is not merely a matter about material things. It is about believers caring for each other. The Deacons has this caring task as their duty but they also have to encourage the members of the congregation to by themselves care for other members of the body of Christ.

I also would like to thank all of you who participated in this discussion started by Robin. For me it was most useful to participate and to hear what others have to say about the duties etc of elders in the church. On August 25 we had an elders' meeting where we discussed a lot of matters about the office of elder and the practical aspects of our service in the congregation. I now have to write a proposal for church council about some practical aspects in the way forward. This afternoon I met with two fellow elders to discuss the basics of the proposal. I can assure you that this discussion helped me a lot so that I could firmly set the boudaries within which I think we should move forward. They agreed with me on these basic principles, one of which is that the teaching/instruction aspect of the office of elder should be expanded.


Johan

Very true, CH Spurgeon preached his first sermon at age 17.

Tom

This is exactly what the body is supposed to do!!!!!. But we do fall short and must ask for forgivenenss.

Ephesians 4:11-12
"And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists , and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry for the edifying of the body of Christ."


Instead we make it a popularity contest, or import pastors from the seminary across the country. Its all messed up....

I agree with a hearty Amen Robin....The Holy Spirit will put them in front of you. And some may be elder material who you would least expect. There are many Levi/matthews... Sauls.And Davids.

Remember this:

n the Old Testament, when Samuel was choosing a king for Israel, and the eldest of Jesse’s sons was presented to him, the Lord said, “Take no notice of his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. God does not see as humans see: people look at appearances but the Lord looks at the heart” (Sam16:7).

Theo,

One of the requirements in the Presbyterian office for RE is to be able to teach. Now, how that is applied may be different between churches. Some requires that they have ability to preach from pulpit, some require teach in SS, some require to teach in small groups, and others may only require they know their theology well enough to keep accountability of all the church's teaching.

There may be some misconception of the function of the Ruling Elder. They are the spiritual leaders in the church, not the management leaders. They have the same requirements as outlined in 1 Timothy and Titus. The PCA Book of Church Order (BCO) says in 8-9 "Elders being in one class of office, ruling elders possess the same authority and eligibility to office in the courts of the Church as teaching elders. They should, moreover, cultivate zealously their own aptitude to teach the Bible and should improve every opportunity of doing so."

I have heard the Presbyterian form of government called a two and a half officers whatever that is meant. But there is not as defined delineation of responsibilities of the TE & RE as some wants to make it.

John,

What is written in the "book" and how things are actually practiced I highly suspect and have seen personally, can be very different. If you have taken the time to read through the individual posts in this thread, you can clearly see that not one person has seen in practice what the "book" says. Now, this is mainly in regard to Presbyterian-type churches, but the abuse of the Eldership as taught in Scripture is even more abused and/or ignored in Independent churches. So, if your particular local church has a plurality of Elders who are 100% equal in authority in actual practice and where all of the Elders are "apt to teach", and the Deaconate isn't viewed as either a stepping stone to Eldership or a second-class office of the church, then your church is blessed. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,

John,

Thanks for those comments. Your first paragraph is pretty much on target: I myself have seen different churches handle the teaching role of elders in every one of those ways--at least one that I had heard about even had ruling elders in the preaching rotation. It would be interesting to know if anyone has ever made a case for the different ways of handling that role: that is, why should a RE in First Presbyterian be required to preach or teach Sunday School, while an RE at Second Presbyterian winds up simply being asked to serve on Session and be knowledgeable of doctrine?

I do agree with your second paragraph personally but based on my own observations of four Presbyterian churches, I'd have to say that in at least two of them the Session had taken on the role of management leaders as well as spiritual leaders. And I would bet they were never going to relinquish control over the budgetary matters.

Theo

That is becasue it is an unscriptural foundation. Straining the writ terribly. First off to use the word "ruler" to signify any type of leadership position is not very Christlike. When used with the expectation of Lordship of any type.

Smacks of a pharissee title.

Elders are suppose to RULE (manage, oversee):

There is a gift of government (1 Cor. 12:28). As Moses stated, "Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you" (Deut 1:13). Though "lordship" (attributes: control, authority, and presence) may be abused, it is VERY biblical. Read "The Ruling Elder" [An Essay, on the Warrant, Nature and Duties of the Office of the Ruling Elder, in the Presbyterian Church] by Samuel Miller. It is rather enlightening.

I have read it. It is weak at best. The rcc has a better warant for the sacrament of penance. Moses does not a NT position make.

And Ruler is not the Christ model of servant. Pauls use of the word had nothing to do with ruling in a lording way.. It is the shepard.

The is non scriptural warrant for the 2 positons..<<< period

There is certainly Scriptural warrant for government! But I find little if any truly Biblical warrant for "two kinds of Elders" even though some are more gifted in teaching than others.

And so how does one "rule" without control, authority, and presence (the definition of lordship)? Shepards must rule (control, authority, and presence) the sheep to be a successful shepherd. And yes, rulers may be and "should be" servants -- even in the civil realm (Rom 13:6).

You appear to have an unbiblical idea of what a godly ruler is! Though you have expressed your dislike of the OT, may I point you to Joseph there. However, though the OT is the Gospel "also", if it is insufficient for you, the generally accepted outline of Mark is: (1) Chapters 1-8:26, is "The Servant Who Rules: The Authority of the Servant," and (2) 8:27 to the end is "The Ruler Who Serves." Since Christ is our example, I see a ruler who is a servant and a servant who is a ruler. One of the reasons the qualifications of elders includes managing his household (1 Tim 4:3) is that he is to be a proper ruler over his family (Gen. 3:16 -- please hold God accountable for His OT reference). Thus, we see an example of Christ, a servant-ruler (prophet, priest, and KING) who lovingly meets the needs of those under his care.

Biblical leadership is expressed by several terms which are used of the same office. Generally speaking: (1) the term elder emphasizes his character and maturity, (2) the term overseer or bishop emphasizes his function—he exercises oversight and supervision, and (3) the term shepherd or pastor emphasizes his attitude—he has a shepherd’s caring heart. As Paul states, "Let the elders that rule [proestotes] well[/b] be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine" (1 Tim. 5:17). Or, "He must manage [proistamenon] his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way; for if a man does not know how to manage [prostenai] his own household, how can he care for God's church" (1 Tim. 3:4-5;)? Luke says, "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood" and Peter, "Be shepherds of God's flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve" (1 Pet. 5:2, NIV). As Paul states, "But we beseech you, brethren, to respect those who labor among you and are over you [proistamenous] in the Lord and admonish you" (1 Thess 5:12).

This is starting with a premise. ie 2 elderships, and forcing the text to say what it never intended Joe. The ekklesia is not under the design of the temple/synogogue no matter how many presby's attempt to make it. I agree the Gospel is present. But this will digress the thread. A simple reading of scripture speaks of 1 eldhership with many requirements and hats

I am not saying they are not to rule, I am specifically stating there are not 2 distinct positions. Paul does not make the seperation no matter how much miller thinks he does. There is one who rules yet does not teach? Talk about too many layers.

The westminsters were split on this topic anyway. It was far from a majority who supported it. REason being no matter how had many looked, they could not find it present in the writ..

JoeK, I do begin with the premise of two types of elders as I believe different elders have a different measure of various gifts and thus they are employed in different ways. While all elders should be capable of teaching (and should be educated to this end), some are better gifted then others in different types of communication i.e. preaching, etc.

Thus, there is NOTHING wrong with delineating the differences in what elders regularly do, just like there is nothing wrong with delineating that someone is a treasurer, youth coordinator, etc. Titles assist us in understanding a person's duties.

In addition, I made the assertion that elders are to “rule” biblically, which your previous post seems to somewhat deny [i.e. First off to use the word "ruler" to signify any type of leadership position is not very Christlike]. It is great to hear that you believe in elders that can rule. And finally, the article by Miller was to show you some of the thinking in how they (1) came up with the name ruling elder, and (2) his duties. It was meant to show you some history. Others such as Smyth, Hodge, and Thornwell dissented from this position. I personally would have preferred "preaching elder" and "ruling elder" however, understanding what they mean by the phrases it is no biggy. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/hello.gif" alt="" />