(Eldership in the 21st Century)

In a recent edition of Una Sancta[1], Brother P. Posthuma wrote on Eldership. In that article he contended that there is a place in the Church for Christian counsellors. To be sure, he upheld the primacy of Eldership, but nonetheless hinted that elders needed supplementation in our day, particularly by those trained to deal with mental illness. This article was of great interest to the current author as it is a topic that is near and dear to his heart. As I read Brother Posthuma’s work, I must admit to feeling as though I had been placed on a roller coaster at a popular theme park. I felt the emotions soaring then plummeting. After the ride, my head was spinning and my knees were the consistency of jelly.

Now, before moving on, let me make a few things very clear:

1. This article is not an attempt to discredit my Brother. Far from it. Referring back to the roller coaster ride, there were indeed high points. I am sure that we agree on much.
2. The importance of the Eldership is such that we need to deal with it Biblically. Neglect in this area will be calamitous.
3. As such, this article is issued as one more step in constructing a Biblical perspective on Eldership. I wish, therefore, not to diminish brother Posthuma’s work, but to build upon it.

Alright, back to the topic at hand and that nagging question that you have in your mind – Why was my head spinning and my knees the consistency of Jelly?

The basic reason is that the good Brother’s article hinted at some very important issues that need to be grappled with, but, regrettably, did not follow through to a consistently Biblical conclusion. Thus, one was caused to soar to lofty heights before being brought back down in a hurry with all the attendant “gut wrenching” sensations that normally accompany such an exercise.

There is no doubt that our Brother pushed very hard to establish eldership as a God given model that is to hold pride of place. However, as noted, there were the lows.  If God has appointed elders, why do we need counsellors? Why have we erected ecclesiastical roadblocks that hinder Biblical practice? What can a university add to a man that the Spirit of God cannot? Are we today confronted by situations to which the Bible does not speak either explicitly or by “good and necessary consequence?”[2]

These questions, and others, must be answered candidly. We must seek the Biblical data and the Biblical data alone, lest we be found to be introducing threads of ungodliness to our thought process. Regrettably, this author believes that such threads were, in part, introduced in the article to which we referred. The gate was left ajar and unlatched – yes, ever so slightly. Nonetheless, that small oversight means that the slightest nudge will see the gate swing further open.

With Brother Posthuma, I wholeheartedly agree that God has ordained elders for the governance of His Church and the wellbeing of His sheep. Peter’s restoration is a clear testament to this fact.[3] These men should be esteemed. These men rightly occupy Moses seat and are therefore worthy of respect.[4] These men are, literally, on the front line of the Kingdom battle as we seek to eject Satan from this our Father’s world. Consequently, we should not make their task difficult. We should pray for them often and by name. This is our great privilege as the non-elders.

However, we cannot esteem elders and eldership, on the one hand, and then introduce unBiblical data, on the other, that erodes the very standard that we have just professed. Thus, we must question whether or not many of the issues surrounding elders and eldership in our day do not in fact come from the tacit acceptance of unBiblical data.

(This said, I may need to encourage you to continue reading whilst sitting on the floor with a ribbon holding your hat firmly in position.)

My background is that of a different Reformed denomination – a denomination that actually sees unregenerate men appointed as elders. As a consequence, there are many horror stories to tell. You may reply, “Well, we do not have such lax practices!” To which I would reply, “No, not yet!” (Gasp!)

You see Brethren, the point is not to focus upon current practice, but on the ideas (theology) that inform our practice? Our focus is not merely to be on the external and outward, but on the data that informs our ideas and which, thereby, undergirds and instructs our practice.[5] Thus, the problem surrounding elders and eldership in the 21^st Century has less to do with the examination of divergent practice and more to do with the degree to which divergent data has been inculcated into our systems of belief and governance.[6]

Thus, a denomination that ordains ungodly men to the eldership is different from the one that does not only because the former has travelled further down the “slippery slope” of disbelief. In short, it has adopted more unBiblical data and thus the practices in that denomination have become more obviously corrupt.

Again, if we focus merely on the externals and begin to feel all warm and gooey inside because we do not do what they do, we miss the fundamental point that, at some stage, these people also once had a Biblical practice founded on Biblical data. They then adopted a faulty standard or data set, a standard other than Scripture, which led to a corruption of the Biblical standard and the implementation of the corrupt. Consequently, the salient question must be, “Have we begun to allow unBiblical data into our thought process in regard to elders and eldership?”

1. Rationalism:

Living in our individualistic, scientific age, we are no longer content with, “Thus saith the Lord!” Rather, we want to find a researched article or some other academic device that supports the Biblical position. This seems harmless enough. Yet, here, there is great danger. Why? Very simple; in the end, we begin to argue science, research, or academic opinion rather than the Word of God.

Just today, as I construct this article, the following headline came to me from a prominent Christian organisation: “WHY Fathers MATTER – research reveals the truth!” Does this mean that fathers did not matter until science stepped in with a helping hand? If so, then fathers can be relegated to irrelevancy by another study that takes a contrary position.

Please allow a further illustration using coffee. As a middle aged man, I hear all sorts of reports on the consumption of coffee and most are contradictory or limited in their application. If I drink too much coffee, I may have high blood pressure or end up with a failing heart. Then, another report says, ‘Na. Coffee is great!’ Finally I hear, ‘If you are middle aged, drink five cups per day as it has been proven to combat prostate cancer.’

So, my options are: 1. Bathe in coffee and flourish in every way; 2. Bathe in coffee and have my head explode from high blood pressure, but not die of prostate cancer; 3. Don’t bathe in coffee, maybe avoid high blood pressure and heart problems, but open myself up to prostate cancer! Anyone for a coffee?

The point that I hope you will see is that there is no absolute answer available in Rationalism. Research contradicts research; academic paper contradicts academic paper; expert contradicts expert, and so on.

Therefore, if we Christians adopt this rationalistic approach, we begin to rely on the so-called ‘wisdom of men’ rather than upon the absolute wisdom of God. When this happens, we find ourselves at the ‘whim and fancy’ of every research paper produced or that of every so-called expert that makes an announcement.

Sadly, this rationalism is too prevalent in Christian circles. Recently, during the debate over homosexual union[7], this rationalism came to the fore. We were told to write to our politicians and insist that children “need a mum and dad.” The obvious question then is, “What is a “mum” or a “dad”?

If we rely on the definitions given by rebellious man, these terms could mean anything. Moreover, these terms would change with every new piece of research. If you question this, please conduct a simple experiment. Find yourself both a new and an old dictionary. Now look up some moral term, for example, marriage. What you will note is that these definitions are changing. The dictionary is being made to conform to current practice. Similarly, the terms “mum” and “dad” will be moulded to conform to the current (secular) view of the family.

Relating this to eldership, the obvious force is to question why we need to wait for “enough university qualified and trusted persons totally committed to what the Bible teaches who could also advise and consult with elders.”[8] The implicit connotation in this statement is that elders are neither “academically qualified” nor “totally committed to what the Bible teaches” and as such are in desperate need of supplementation by other (Humanistic) professionals in order to ensure that they stay on the path of truth.

Here we encounter one of those “head spinners”. The statement unequivocally upholds a Biblical standard – these must be “committed to what the Bible teaches” – yet, in the very same sentence, we see the introduction of that which the Bible does not teach—the university qualified.

In Ephesians 4:11-12 we read, “It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers,  to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up”. You will note that this list is devoid of counsellors, psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers. Also, you will note that there is no mention of the need to be “university qualified”. What you will see is that God, in Christ, appointed, for the edification and building of the Church, certain offices, which are to be filled by qualified officers. Among these is the pastor (Gk: Shepherd).

Turning to Acts 20:28-29, we witness Paul giving the following counsel to the Ephesian elders: “Keep watch[9] over yourselves and all the flock[10] of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers.[11] Be shepherds[12] of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.  I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock[13].”

The point in bringing these texts together is to show what the Bible does and does not emphasise. Extracurricular offices are absolutely denied. No room is given to the concept that secular institutions may turn out a superior product of which the Church should avail Herself. On the contrary, Scripture stands firm. God has given offices to His Church. In these offices are God’s officers, having been appointed by the Holy Spirit. These and these alone are to govern and to defend; for only that appointed, anointed, and empowered by God’s Spirit can adequately care for God’s precious blood bought Church.

It must be remembered that only the true shepherd stands in the face of adversity. The hireling tucks tail and runs.[14] The hireling simply will not defend against the “savage wolf”. Equally, those not having the mind of Christ cannot relate to the Christian whose mind is set on Christ. “The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so.”[15] In similar vein, the one trained by the world, will tend to bring the world’s ideas into the Christian arena, polluting it to one degree or another.

Consequently, Biblical wisdom behoves us to follow the Biblical pattern. God instituted elders for the governance of the Church in the Old Testament. Christ did not alter this. Much rather, Christ’s Apostles continued the practice[16] thereby reaffirming the validity of the elder and his office.

If there are issues regarding elders and eldership in our day, then they are not with the concept of eldership. The problem must be in our inadequate application of the Biblical data, both in regard to the standards for elders and our duty toward elders. Our responsibility then is to return to the data revealed for us by God’s Spirit – the same Spirit who appoints elders – and to stand in that light making sure that we conform to every jot and tittle. This is our only option, for the Bible does not give us warrant to abandon or supplement elders or the eldership.

With Brother Posthuma, we must assert an absolute belief in God’s order and standard as revealed in His infallible Word. This confident stand must, in the first instance, cause us to treasure that order so dearly that we will automatically reject anything that seeks to encroach upon the oracles of God. Thus, we must reject both Humanism and Rationalism at the outset. To accept data from these sources is to step onto the “slippery slope”. It is to introduce that thin thread of false data that will eventually corrupt the whole system.

 

[1] Volume 61, N^o 7; 8 Feb 2014. Pages 165-167.

[2] The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men. Westminster Assembly, The Westminster Confession of Faith, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1995. Chapter 1, Section 6. See also The Belgic Confession Article 7 – that the teaching (of Scripture) is perfect and complete in all respects.

[3] John 21:15-19.

[4] Matthew 23:1ff.

[5] This concept is a two-way street. The Biblical data addresses both the shepherd and the sheep. Hence, whilst the bulk of this article will look at the shepherds, the sheep must realise that the same data places obligations upon them also.

[6] For clarity, think here of the old adage, ‘Ideas have consequences.’

[7] I refuse to use the term “homosexual marriage”.

[8] Shepherding the Flock, p.166. Emphasis added.

[9] This is an imperative or command.

[10] This is the same noun as used in Ephesians 4:11. God gave pastors (shepherds) to watch over the flock (sheep).

[11] Overseers and Elders are two different Greek terms. Whilst some believe these terms to refer to different offices, the Biblical data would suggest that they refer to the same office. Here in Acts 20:17, Paul calls the “elders” to himself and then states that they have been appointed as “overseers” (20:28). Seemingly, Paul saw no difference. Hence, the best way to understand these terms is that the term “elder” refers to the character of the officer, whilst the term “overseer” refers to the character of the office.

[12] This is the same root word as already encountered and it means “to act as a shepherd”.

[13] The same term as previously used.

[14] John 10:12-13.

[15] Romans 8:7.

[16] Titus 1:5.