Shepherding Shepherds (Pt.8)

(Sterling Shepherds)

8.0. Elevating Elders.

          The last issue that must be addressed with the closing words in this series is the critical deficiencies that exist within the Eldership today. As a Reformed Christian, time has been spent in different Reformed denominations and the one thing that they all have in common is a deficient Eldership.

In one major Reformed denomination, it is not uncommon to find unbelievers and unskilled men holding the office of Elder – something contrary to the Word of God – which leads to poor pastoral care and shepherding. In another denomination, there is great organisation of the Eldership, but little effectiveness in reality. In other words, there is a really good system, but there seems to be little substance to the system. However, what most Reformed denominations seem to have in common is their inability or unwillingness to take seriously the Biblical instructions in regard to Elders and Eldership. By this we specifically refer to the Biblical criteria for elders, their Biblical character, and their charter.

          Some years ago, we found ourselves in hot water for insisting that prospective elders be measured by the Biblical standards. You would not think that such a request would have brought such vehement responses, but it did. On one occasion, we were hit with everything from, “Why don’t you leave?” to the guilt-trip-inducer of “You realise that you are judging God!”

          Now, we are happy to admit that in those days our zeal outweighed our tact and verbal articulation. However, we must also admit that as we have grown a little wiser, understood Scripture better, and continued to raise the same objections, the opposition has not lessened one iota! This is tragic because it is really the fundamental cause of many of our current problems within the Church.[1] Biblically speaking, a people are only as faithful as those who govern them. Thus, if we are truly serious about reform in the Church, we must begin by addressing the deficiencies within the Eldership. This can only take place effectively when the Elders clothe themselves in humility. This is so because the Elders are the ones who have the greatest ability to bring substantial reform, but that reform needs to begin willingly from within their own ranks.

          We have no desire to turn these pages into an exercise in “Elder bashing” or to simply create a catalogue of disasters.  Yet, it is also important that people understand what these deficiencies look like, how they come to the fore, and how they present themselves. Thus, we will try and give a few varied examples:

1. In one instance, the Elders found themselves in a vacancy. After several months, these Elders announced that they would not be doing any pastoral visitation because it was, in essence, beyond them. To highlight this betrayal of their role, you need to understand that there was something like twenty of them. The problem was not that they were stretched for resources; they were simply stretched for talent, willingness, and a genuine understanding of their role.
2. A second instance concerns the election of Elders. In this denomination, the church order added a few qualifications to the criteria for eldership, namely age and sex. Consequently, when the voting form was produced, every member of the congregation who met those two criteria was listed. Can you guess the number of candidates? We will give you a hint. They wanted to fill eight positions. No, you are probably not even close. The finished list exceeded eighty names. Yes, 80, just for clarification.
3. A third instance involves a visiting VIP. In the worship service children, and possibly women, read the Scriptures. This was a new event in this congregation, not witnessed up until this time. Upon viewing this, a concerned citizen who was due to preach, and whose identity will be kept secret to protect the …, wrote to the elders raising this issue, insisting that, according to Scripture and the Confessional standards of the denomination, qualified men alone should read the Scriptures in worship. Their response? The concerned citizen was disinvited to preach 36 hours before worship and upon turning up to worship was confronted with an elder’s wife reading Scripture. The concerned left. The next week another woman got up and read the Scriptures. The association was terminated soon thereafter.

          Of importance, though, is the reaction. It was antagonistic and ungodly. Rather than talk, instruct, counsel, or listen, these Elders responded with vitriol and hostility and then began to parade their error in a manner not heretofore seen. In short, they acted from pride and were simply happy to see a family driven out of worship, rather than act in a Biblically sound manner.[2]

4. The fourth instance is a general instance. In a certain Reformed heritage, it is commonplace for ruling elders to do a “reading” service if the teaching elder (minister) is absent. This means that the Elder must read from a manuscript prepared by a minister. This practice is raised for two reasons. First, it has the tendency to turn the Reformed view of Eldership into an Episcopalian view. Second, this practice cuts the heart out of the Scriptural instruction which says that an Elder must be a “faithful man, who will be able to teach others”; able “both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.”[3]
5. Lastly, we return to the statement above, wherein we were accused of “judging God”. In this discussion, the elder who opposed us was greatly displeased that we had dared to criticise the Elders’ stand. Discussions turned to all sorts of fancy – Who is perfect? So and so did not really stack up, but he turned out to be a good elder! Then, the words etched in our mind for good came to the fore when the standard of an elder’s family was raised. This elder responded with a “come back when you’ve got teenage children!” which seemed both then and now as though he wished that our family would fail just so that our stand would be proven wrong. This conversation only came to a close when we put before him this question – Does the Bible state that a prospective elder must meet certain criteria to be worthy of office? This chap was like a dog with a toffee. His mouth went round and round; lips pursed and danced, then came the affirmation, “Yes!” This man knew enough to know that the Bible did list the criteria for office, yet he fought tooth and nail to defend an indefensible position and an Eldership that had together abandoned the Biblical principles.

          Okay, let’s move on. We have no desire to focus on the people herein represented. Sins offered, sins committed, we pray sins confessed, are all in the past and have all been dealt with by Jesus’ all powerful and cleansing blood. Rather, the intent is to look at the fallout of these “instances” and to make sure that we learn the lessons.

          Ask yourself these questions: Are the eighty men in one congregation all Biblically qualified? On what authority does a Session / Consistory vote to “opt out” of their calling? Why would an elder who knows the Bible’s teaching in regard to an Elder’s qualifications fight that teaching? Why would a Session / Consistory react to a congregant with antagonism and in essence provoke that person publicly, so much so that they cannot worship and eventually leave the congregation? Lastly, why would denominations, knowing God’s instruction to Elders, limit their calling and thereby passively create a divide within the Eldership?

The one common answer to all these questions is: a defective view of Elders and Eldership!  In the current context of our discussion on Biblical Counselling, we then must ask, “What is the outcome of this deficiency? Answer: The sheep suffer!!

Not properly vetting the candidates for Eldership means that the standards are not upheld and that ungodly and unable men are elected to office. When a Consistory / Session votes not to fulfill their calling, then there are no guardians of the flock. When Elders argue against the clear teachings of Scripture in order to hide their errors, it is an act of pride that robs the sheep of protection and blessing. When a Consistory / Session acts in an antagonistic fashion, then they are guilty of driving sheep into the dangers of the wilderness.[4] Lastly, when denominations adopt practices that divide the Eldership in an unBiblical manner, why are we surprised when the bulk of the Eldership are viewed disparagingly as second rate and are, therefore, not esteemed by the sheep? Similarly, why are we surprised when the ‘exalted’ ones end up burnt-out or on stress leave because the “workload is just too much!”

          In all this the sheep suffer. In all this the cause of Christ suffers. In all of this the very Elders and Elderships themselves suffer. Each failing is of great concern because it plays into the hands of those who argue that Eldership needs supplementation by the university trained.[5] These deficiencies help to give rise to the “Christian Counselling” phenomena that is rife at the moment.

As anecdotes alone prove little, let us explain the detriment of these anecdotes by relating them to the commands and instructions given in Scripture—our ultimate and only authority. Regarding Elders and Eldership, Scripture states:[6]

1 Timothy 3:1-7: It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. 2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, uncontentious, free from the love of money. 4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity 5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 and not a new convert, lest he become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. 7 And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he may not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Titus 1:5-9: For this reason I left you in Crete, that you might set in order what remains, and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, 6 namely, if any man be above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. 7 For the overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, 8 but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, 9 holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.

1 Timothy 5:17-20: Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. 18 For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing,” and “The laborer is worthy of his wages.” 19 Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses. 20 Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also may be fearful of sinning.

• “If any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires” – How many elders are selected and elected on the basis that they genuinely “aspire” to be an elder? How many assent simply because it is their turn and it is expected of them? How many accept the role because they are interested simply in status? How many of the eighty had this aspiration?
• “Above reproach… temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable… not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, uncontentious, free from the love of money” – My wife tells the story from her youth in which several elders were drunk at a wedding – no censure. How many elders do you know who are truly wise (prudent)? When was the last time an elder invited you home for a meal or showed hospitality simply because he cared? Pugnacious and uncontentious – we know of more than one situation in which an elder failed this test. Havoc was wreaked, yet the one not measuring to the standard was left in office, in some cases while others around resigned because of stress and the unworkable situation. What of the “love of money”? How many elders put their businesses before their calling and duty? How many elders try to “keep up with the Jones’” and therefore find themselves less inclined to put in the necessary time to pastoral care?
• “He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?); having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion” – This criterion is crucial, yet how often is it insisted upon? How many are elders with young children? Have they displayed adequate evidence to be qualified for the position of Elder? What of the old adage, too often true, that “the minister’s children are the most misbehaved”? How do we think we will find blessing at the hand of God if we are disobedient to such a fundamental criterion? Equally, if family is such an important marker with regards to eligibility for Eldership, why does the job often strain those families? What then does this say in regard to families having a sense of call and duty?[7]
• “Holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict; able to teach” – In our experience, this would have to be one of the most disobeyed commands when dealing with Eldership. This is also one of the practical failings associated with the divide in the Eldership – when we call one ‘minister’ and the others ‘elder’. One is expected to know at a higher level, the others can be “also-rans” because they have someone to fall back upon. If Elders and the Eldership are to be a true collective, then there needs to be obedience to this command. The Elder must be able to teach sound doctrine and refute error. He must be able to preach and construct a sermon or a series of instructions. This is his job! Why is this so important?—“For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, who must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families, teaching things they should not teach, for the sake of sordid gain”(Titus 1:10-11). Likewise, this divide robs and debilitates. Why do we ring “the minister” when we have a problem? Why do we not call our Elder or any Elder? Subconsciously, and maybe not so subconsciously, we have created a divide within the Eldership, which cuts against the very principal of “the plurality of Elders.” This divide, as noted, has relegated some to the status of “also-rans” and in so doing has robbed them of the ability to have true pastoral input. Such a situation defeats the whole point of having a “plurality of elders” and in essence relegates these men to the position of administrators or “rubber stamp” applicators.
• “Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.” – Several issues are raised here. First, why is it only the minister who, in our modern world, is paid? Why do we never consider paying Elders in general? If an Elder must make a living from other means, it stands to reason that he must then have limited time to devote to being an Elder. In one denomination, this irony was marveled at—the church rules allowed for an organist to be paid, but never mentioned anything of this sort for the Elders, outside of the minister! Second, does this teaching undermine the point above? No. All Elders stand on an equal footing. Their roles may differ, but when honour is due, it must be given. Note the plural, please – the elders who… are worthy of double. Not just the minister or an Elder who preaches or teaches, but all Elders who do their job well. Now, the word for honour can and often does mean “money” or “price”. Interpretations vary, but the context cannot mean that monetary considerations are excluded, otherwise Paul’s analogy of the ox and labourer are irrelevant. Equally, if the excellent Elder is worthy of double, does this not suggest that they already receive, or, at least, should receive something? Might this also be a reason for Paul’s caution that the Elder be “free from the love of money?”
• “Not a new convert, lest he become conceited” – At this point, we would like to take a different tack. If the Elder is to be able, then he must be one who has grown through instruction into Christ’s likeness. The question often pondered is, “How many Elders are “new converts” even though they have been in the Church for decades?” In other words, how many have been elected to office because they have been in the Church for decades, yet, practically speaking, they are new converts because they have not grown and blossomed?[8]

The closing point, relevant to our whole discussion, comes from James. There we read this instruction: Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing praises. Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him. Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much. Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain; and it did not rain on the earth for three years and six months. And he prayed again, and the sky poured rain, and the earth produced its fruit.[9]

This text is important for our discussion because it provides a Biblical framework for our understanding of Biblical psychology and, in that context, an understanding of healing and wellbeing.

Let us look at the constituent parts of this text. James first refers to someone who is suffering. The remedy? Turn to God and pray. Next James addresses the cheerful person. His counsel is to sing praises to God. Please note, at this point, the place that God holds. Both prayer and praise are to be unto God. In other words, we must see that life, all life, ups and downs, is directly connected to God. In affliction we turn to the One, and only One, who is able to rectify or change that situation. We turn to the only One who can provide patience, endurance, steadfastness, and victory.[10] Similarly, recognising that this world of sin has many dangers and discouragements, we should sing praises unto God when we are able to be of a cheerful disposition by God’s providential care.[11]

Next James addresses sickness. It is necessary to grasp the fact that the term for sickness means “weakness” and can, therefore, be thought of as any malaise or precursor to sickness. It is used of those who are physically ill as well as those who are spiritually ill. This is important for us in that it divorces this current discussion from some of the more perverted views on “healing” and places the discussion fairly and squarely in the realms of genuine pastoral care.

In advancing our understanding, we need to begin by comparing the cases presented. In the first instance, the “suffering” one encounters the trials and tribulations of life. This “suffering” or “hardship” is a physical reality, but it is one that does not penetrate the person, so to speak. For example, Paul speaks of this “hardship” in the context of his imprisonment.[12] Whilst wronged and confined, Paul was still well, physically and spiritually.

In these cases, James instructs the person to pray. The Christian in such circumstances is called upon to apply his energies to resolving the situation or overcoming the situation through prayer; through his personal prayers.

By comparison, the “sick” one is obviously infirmed in body and soul. His malaise is of a greater degree and has evidently impacted body and soul. This seems to be shown by the fact that he is “to call” or summon the elders to himself. Apparently, he is unable to make his way to them. This interpretation is also backed up by the phrase “and the Lord shall raise him up.”

Here, then, we view an individual who is weighed down and is oppressed to such a degree that they are bedridden or housebound. They are in need of added help.

What is that help? It is prayer! Is this not a marvelous statement? The cure, if you will, in both cases is identical. Prayer. The only difference is in who is and how many are praying. When it comes to the “weak” one, the “big guns” are called in to help in this situation. Now, we are not saying that this individual is not to pray for himself; indeed he should and he must. What we are saying, however, is that the elders add something that is missing. We could speculate, but let us be content to stand on this foundation – the elders are called to prayer.

Before moving on, we must ask the pointed question: Do our elders pray? No, I am not talking about the five second verbiage that is required by constitutions to open and close a meeting; I am talking about serious, earnest, wrestling before the Throne of Grace. Let me ask another pointed question for clarification: How often does your eldership meet specifically for prayer? Indeed, does your eldership ever meet just to pray?

These questions are raised precisely because the text raises them. This whole pericope, verses 13-18, focus on prayer. Prayer is the key to understanding. People get hung up on the “oil” or on the verb “to save” or on the “raise up”, but these are really side issues. “Hardship” sufferer – pray! “Weak one” – pray! Elders – pray! ‘Oh yes, just in case you still don’t grasp the importance of this “prayer” concept,’ says James, ‘consider this dude Elijah. He was pretty big stuff in his day. He prayed and shut the heavens. He prayed and he opened the heavens. So successful was his prayer that the earth brought for its produce.’ James then adds, ‘Well just in case you are tempted to say, “Oh, but he was a mighty prophet!” consider the fact that he was a man, just like us.’

Please read and reread this text to note this point. The whole pericope hinges on prayer. The Christian is to pray. The elders are to pray. Encouragement in this area is drawn from the prophet Elijah. But wait, there is more …! Note even the example of Elijah has a bearing upon the need for prayer. Elijah shut the heavens. Life and vitality dwindled. Hardship comes upon all the people of Israel. Food was scarce. Water was not in abundance. The land withered.[13] Is this not a picture of the “weak” or “sick” one? Vitality is sapped from the bones. Life withers. In essence, death awaits. However, when the prophet prayed, the rains came and the earth produced its fruit in abundance. Similarly, when the elders prayed to their Lord,[14] He heard from heaven and raised up the weak one. The prayer of the righteous brought an abundance of life.

In finishing with this text, we need to make one further statement. Because there are perverted views on healing abounding in the Church today, it is important that we back up our statements with other Scriptures. One in particular springs to mind: “This kind cannot come out by anything but prayer.”[15] In this text, Jesus’ disciple met a challenge. They had tried to “cast out” a demonic force – a feat Jesus completed – but they failed. In giving instruction to His disciples, Jesus noted that “this kind” had to be prayed out, not cast out.

This text, and its parallel in Matthew 17:14ff, are instructive in that there is some correlation with the teaching of James. In Matthew, the disciple failed because of faith.[16] James refers to the “prayer of faith”. In Mark 9:27, Jesus, having rebuked the evil spirit, takes the boy by the hand and “raises him up”. As we have already noted, whilst the elders pray, it is the Lord Who raises up the weak one.

Thus, it seems to this writer that James is doing nothing more than applying His Master’s teaching to real life. James is not urging flights of fancy, but obedience to all that Jesus commanded. James is not dealing with the ethereal and the contents of the “too hard basket”, but with the everyday reality of powerful pastoral care in a fallen world.

To round out these comments even further would be to add unnecessary tedium. However, some words of application are in order.

We have argued that the Church does not need “university trained” experts. On the contrary, the Church needs to return to a Biblical understanding of pastoral care and of those primarily responsible for pastoral care. We need nothing short of godly, obedient, faithful men who will implement the Master’s teaching. We need men who are genuinely called by God, who have a sense of this calling, and who are willing to live up to that calling.

University training may fill the head, but it rarely fills the heart.[17] In short, university does not train men in the knowledge of God, practical godliness, personal holiness, or the art of spiritual warfare. The psychology texts will not mention the Armour of God or the necessity of prayer.[18] They will not mention Satan and his hatred of God’s people; yet, these so called “trained” ones will dare to step into the arena and demand to be heard because they have the goods! Not likely. These have been deceived by the father of lies and if they are allowed to peddle their wares they will but deceive others. Indeed, they have deceived and are currently deceiving many. One of those deceptions is – Elders are passé!

To meet such a challenge, the Church of Christ must reform. She must return to a diligent study of God’s word and be prepared to learn from God. In short, listening to the whole counsel of God, the Church must allow the Head of the Church to do the teaching and instructing on these issues.

First, when Jesus walked this earth, He did not need a psyche degree. Jesus did not insist that His followers go to Ichabod University and gain a degree so that they could serve. No, Jesus gave something far greater. Jesus gave His Word and His Spirit! Thus, when we insist that the Church needs something newer and greater – especially something designed by the world – we are displaying a haughty spirit of the most grievous kind; a spirit that essentially says that God does not know what He is doing.

Think here of the woman at the well. How different would the account of that interaction be if we allow for the moment that Jesus was a psychologist instead of the Saviour? The psychologist would not have upbraided her. That might impact upon self-esteem. The psychologist would not have passed comment on the multiple husbands, for that is really a moral judgement and outside the scope of the discussion. If comment were made in regard to the husbands, it would probably have been to explore the links to a derelict father who gave her such a poor view on men or some such.

You see, Jesus the Saviour stopped her at every turn and confronted her with the reality of God is, Creation, Fall, and Redemption. It was through this paradigm that Jesus was “perceived to be a prophet” and that the door to further discussion was opened. This in turn led this woman to approach the men of the town with the result that many believed.

Would Jesus the psychologist have changed this town in like manner?

Second, Jesus knew that Man’s plight is spiritual and that it is based in warfare. Some years ago, praise be to God, R. C. Sproul Junior was used to open my eyes to this when he focused upon those words in Genesis – I will pit enmity …! These are God’s words. It is our God who issued the war cry and it is this holy war cry that defines human history and human eternity. This whole concept is probably best captured in the title of a book by the late Henry Morris, The Long War Against God. Thus, when the moderns come to the fore with their theories, do you ever ask, “Whose side are you on?” Do we take Scripture seriously and “test the spirits”[19] or do we just take “his word for it”?

Now this may seem a bit too Charismatic or Pentecostal for some, if so, please read John. Why do we test the spirits? “Because many false prophets have gone out into the world!” If we do not put forth the test, how do we know if we are dealing with a false prophet or not?

Third, this brings us directly to the need for qualified and obedient Elders. Another name for Elders is “shepherds”. The term shepherd is really a job description.[20] As such, it tells us that the shepherds should be out to shoot the lions, bears, and wolves that come to attack Christ’s sheep. The shepherds are to feed and care for the sheep. Here, again, we are brought back to the Biblical criteria. To feed the sheep, the shepherds must be able to teach. To bring cure and ward of harm, the Elders must be able to exhort in sound doctrine and be able to refute error. The Elders must, as good shepherds, be able to pick up and carry those sheep that are week and ill so that they are removed from danger and placed in a position in which they can fully recover.

Fourth, to come anywhere near to achieving these outcomes, our Elders must be godly, faithful men who have the right Biblical experience. For example, if war breaks out, we do not rally behind the lowest ranked private who has just arrived in boot camp, do we? No, we look for a man who has years of experience and preferably experience in battle.

Thus, we need to take a long hard look at our practices in regard to electing Elders and we need to ask some tough questions. Here is a little list:

1. Is term Eldership Biblical? Now, my brothers will be on the defensive, but here is the curve ball. Most who practice term Eldership expect that the teaching elder accepts his call as a permanent obligation. They do not allow him to have a year off after every third year of service. Hmmm! So, do we have a consistent view of the plurality of elders? Equally, such a system puts a strain on the talent pool within a congregation and will lead to men being ‘tapped on the shoulder’ when they are not really qualified. Similarly, this pressure tempts congregations to fiddle with the Biblical criteria.
2. How serious are we in regard to the Biblical criteria? St Angus of Garvoc used to speak often of “having runs on the board”. In other words, there had to be evidence. Do we look for the evidence that the men for whom we are voting have met the Biblical criteria? How many of the eighty, mentioned above, were Biblically qualified? Did the Session / Consistory responsible for that election make any effort to find out? No, they did not.

Did the elder, mentioned above, who argued over Biblical criteria have God’s perspective or Man’s when he argued so? Obviously, Man’s. The question then becomes, “Why?” The answer seems to be the old catch 22 situation. Elders who were not elected according to Biblical criteria do not know that criteria or understand the importance of that criteria, therefore they fall back upon “their experience” rather than God’s command. Consequently, these men, well-meaning though they be, are either unable to raise the bar or simply do not see the need to raise the bar. In a worst case scenario, it is more than probable that pride plays its part. These men are unwilling to lift the bar because it is a tacit admission that they have not measured up. Either way, the simple reality is that if Elders in Elderships do not see the need for change, and personal change at that, then we will not see the reforms that we so desperately need.

Therefore, it must be asked in all solemnity, “Are we as Christ’s Church willing to take the Biblical criteria for Eldership seriously and demand that our shepherds be measured by and comply with these standards?” This is the only question that really matters.

Yes, you can fire the: “Oh no one’s perfect!” or “He is looking for the ideal or perfect Church!” etc; yet the reality of the situation remains the same – these are God’s standards for God’s officers in God’s Church! This writer did not invent these standards so that he could write an article; they are God’s revealed will for His people.

Consider this a little more. Did God give impossible standards to His Church? Surely God, of all beings, knows only too well that all Adam’s sons of natural progeny are imperfect. Jesus was well aware of the imperfections of His disciples. Yet, the Godhead wrote these standards to imperfect, but sanctified and holy, men for the betterment of His Church and people.

Similarly, we know that there will not be an “ideal” Church this side of glory. However, there is not one passage in Scripture that tells us that because this reality is not attainable now that it should not be our goal or ideal! Unless the Bible I read is faulty, there are no passages that say, “Give up. It is all futile!” The text reads, “I can do all things through Him who strengthens me” not “I cannot do a thing for no one strengthens me.”

Much rather, Scripture says, “Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect”. We are encouraged to “run the race” and to persevere so that “no one takes our crown”, and just like Jesus, we are to be “overcomers”. All this is possible because, “greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world.”

Therefore, any and all negative arguments that are used to halt the progress of the Church must be dismissed. This is especially the case when these arguments are used to justify the Church’s noncompliance to Her Biblical obligations. God’s word is clear. Elders are appointed by God to shepherd His blood bought sheep. They are appointed to shoot wolves. They are appointed to clean up fly strike. They are appointed to search out the lost sheep. They are appointed to carry the lame. They are appointed to trim the dags.

This is the calling of the Elder. If, therefore, you are not willing to pick up a gun; deal with the nauseating; burn up some shoe leather; bend you back; or get your hands dirty, then do not put up your hand or the hand of someone equally unwilling when they call for nominations. If you are an Elder and you realise that you are not suitably qualified, you have two choices. First, ask forgiveness of God and then pray earnestly that you will live up to and exceed criteria. Second, resign – but only after you have made your case so that those who remain will not repeat the same mistake.

Brethren, a look around the Church, no matter what denomination, shows that we are in serious trouble. We do not see the blessing of God and the forward progress of the Church. The reason for this is manifold, yet certain trends can be discerned. Chief among these is that the Elders or, if it is more acceptable, the office-bearers have abdicated their responsibilities in regard to being guardians of the sheep. That is to say, the teaching Elders no longer preach the whole counsel of God. Many have become mere ear ticklers.

Let me give a very recent example. Locally a Creation Seminar was run. Approach was made to a minister to see about hosting the event. He commented that while he supported the idea a number in his congregation did not. Therefore, he declined. Question. If he is the preacher and he believes in the literal account of Genesis, then how will the sheep in his care ever be taught this truth if he will not preach on it? If the preacher never preaches on a Biblical topic because of a few dissenters, how will the truth be proclaimed? If Biblical topics are avoided because of a few dissenters, then how long will it be before the Church is bereft of all orthodoxy?

Brethren, the point is simple. If the preachers do not preach the whole counsel of God and call God’s people to belief, we will wither and die. If the Elders will not shepherd God’s sheep to this same standard, then the sheep will be torn by ravenous animals, will fall ill, will fall into snares, will remain lost, and will die of exposure – for there will be none to care, none to aid, none to warn!

We must, therefore, repent and return to the ideal of God’s word and insist that Elders meet the criteria laid down in Scripture.

Lastly, a few words to the non-elders. Whilst this article aims at seeing a radical change in the Eldership through the strict implementation of the Biblical criteria for those to be elected as Elders, those who are not and will never be Elders are not exempt from this challenge. In most systems, it is you who will cast a vote. So, are you voting correctly?

Similarly, like a political election, we may say a few prayers around polling day, but do we continue to pray for our Elders. It is easy to knock when things go awry, but have we been praying? Do you pray for the Elders that have charge over you? Do you name them before God’s throne on a regular basis? Do you regularly pray for the Consistory / Session as a whole? It may be worth remembering how Aaron and Hur held up Moses’ hands so that the battle went in Israel’s favour.

Thus, do not underestimate your role in this reform process. You too need to be acutely aware of the Biblical criteria for Eldership. You need to be willing to ‘stick to your guns’ and ask that only qualified men be put on the voting list. You need to resist popularity contests, family and political cliques, and the pressure to maintain the status quo. If you agree with the thrust of these articles, then begin to pray that these reforms will be realised in your midst and before your eyes.

Conclusion:

This series was sparked by comments in a Reformed publication suggesting that the Elders of the Church needed to be supplemented by the university trained. This led us on a journey to explore worldviews and to explain why, on the basis of worldviews, the Church could not embrace any form of Secularism.

In the end, the conclusion of the matter is that the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ does not need anything new and it most certainly does not need the latest proffering from the World. What is needed is Reform! We must repent of our failings and return to the standards specified in God’s word. We must stop making excuses to condone our sin and we must begin to seek blessing through righteousness. In other words, if there are no suitable candidates in our midst, we do not fiddle with the Biblical requirements; we get down on our knees and ask God to provide someone suitable.

The words of Paul are apt here – there is no authority but from God and those who oppose the ordinance of God will come under judgement![21] These words are not to unbelievers, but are addressed to all. Hence, we must take the warning seriously. Just as Peter was rebuked because he argued contrary to God’s desire,[22] so we too will be rebuked and judged if we stiff-neckedly pursue our own agendas. There is no excuse for disobedience. Faith is the mark of the Christian; disobedience is the mark that faith and belief are missing.

Therefore, let us return to the position of faith and obedience. Let us only put men into Eldership who are worthy according to the Biblical criteria. Let us resist all efforts to supplant God’s Elders and God’s order. Let us wait on God alone and stand in awe as we behold His marvellous benefits and His manifold answers to the prayers of the righteous.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Whilst these words are specific to Reformed denominations, they also hold an element of truth for all denominations. The simple reality is that the Biblical data has been set aside and most in Church government have been measured by an alternative form. My father had a conversation with a gentleman from outside the Reformed camp who stated that his “denomination was now turning out administrators, not pastors.”

[2] See Jeremiah 44:15-19 for what seems to be an excellent parallel. When these people were confronted by the prophet they stubbornly defended their idolatry rather than repent.

[3] 2 Timothy 2:2 and Titus 1:9.

[4] Jeremiah 23:1.

[5] It must also be said that these malaise make for a weak and feeble Church that does not adequately fulfil her mission in obedience to Jesus.

[6] These are not the only texts that relate to Elders and Eldership, but they are among the most well known and will be used because they speak directly to the issue.

[7] Though there is some debate regarding the translation of 1 Timothy 3:11, it seems, in the context, no small thing that Paul addresses himself to the wives of office-bearers. The “two shall become one” says God, yet how often is Eldership “his thing” and the wife remains detached?

[8] It must be remembered that time does not equal growth. It is hoped that it would, but it is by no means a certainty. Therefore, we must truly investigate to see that genuine growth in Jesus Christ has taken place. We need to become “fruit inspectors”!

[9] James 5:13-18.

[10] Psalm 23; Psalm 145:18; Psalm 46:1-3; Psalm 70:5; Psalm 121.

[11] Romans 12:15.

[12] 2 Timothy 2:9.

[13] 1 Kings 18:2b.

[14] John 16:24.

[15] Mark 9:29.

[16] The words “this kind can only come out by prayer” are considered to be an addition to Matthew.

[17] This is not a head / heart distinction popular in many circles. Rather, it is aimed at highlighting the difference between knowledge and practice; the difference between learning about God and learning God; the difference between academia and practical and personal holiness.

[18] Ephesians 6:10-17.

[19] 1 John 4:1.

[20] Acts 20:28.

[21] A paraphrase of Romans 13:1-2.

[22] Matthew 16:23.