Tag Archives: Eldership

Shepherding Shepherds (Pt.8)

Posted on by
Reply

(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]

  1. 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]
  2. 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.

Of Shepherding Shepherds (Pt.7)

Posted on by
Reply

(Loose ends and clarification)

In this article, it is our intention to deal with a few loose ends. Specifically, we would like to deal briefly with the concepts of Sin and the Medical Model and then conclude with a few words on psychology.

7.1. Sin is the Cause.

When the documentation regarding Counselling is reviewed, it is soon apparent that the Doctrine of Sin is central to the argument. In essence, three positions are evident, a) Sin is the cause; b) Sin might be the cause; and c) Sin is not the cause.

In relation to c), it must be noted that the denial of sin as causative is usually accompanied by an explicit and overt denial of sin as a reality. This is the position taken by the Secularists. It is a position that is completely at odds with Scripture. Thinking back to the Biblical worldview, we have God is, Creation, Fall …! It is the Fall, the entrance of sin into this world, that undoes the Creation and brings strained relationships, erroneous thought patterns, and faulty reference points into being. Similarly, some may use the term sin, but reinterpret it so that it comes to mean an innate dissatisfaction with oneself rather than being a state of lawlessness—rebellion against God’s Law (1 John 3:4). Thus, these views are to be rejected; having no basis in Scripture they should never be found in the Christian’s thought pattern.

In regard to b), some well-meaning folk choose to limit the extent of sin. They take the Bible’s statements concerning sin seriously; however, they end up, for various reasons, limiting the extent, power, and prevalence of sin. When this position is embraced, it inevitably leads to the adoption or quasi-adoption of c). The practitioner who limits the extent, power, and prevalence of sin, must, as a consequence, believe that the problem encountered can have its source elsewhere; therefore they must seek a corrective that either dismisses sin or which limits the prevalence and influence of sin.

It is at this point that we encounter the Medical Model in regard to psychology and counselling.[1] The Medical Model, in essence, renders the patient blameless and innocent. At its core, in very simplified terms, is the idea that problems come upon us from uncontrollable external sources. As these external sources were not rationally chosen by the individual, the individual can, therefore, refuse to accept any responsibility for either his exposure or the consequences of his exposure.[2] Think here of a man. He is fit and healthy. Upon going to work, he meets a friend who is ailing. The friend inadvertently sneezes on our man, contaminating him with the virus, causing our man to call in sick the following day. When questioned as to why he is sick, our man can reply, “It’s not my fault. Friend sneezed on me!”

In a similar way, the Medical Model looks for these external, uncontrollable, and unavoidable occurrences in the patient’s life as a means of explaining and healing the manifestations of “the virus” that has been unleashed upon him. Such factors may be parentage, environment, social status, religion, governmental, anatomical, or anything that comes into view.

The essence of the point can be refined down to this syllogism: Choice or Decision precedes responsibility; I did not choose or decide for option (…); therefore I am not responsible for option (…)! As can readily be seen, this is an extremely dangerous philosophy. Consider the fact, as one example, that all our significant beginnings in life are not chosen by us—our birth, our sex, our parents, our location, our government,[3] and so on. Thus, in a world where “personal choice” is the new god, absolution is given to the most wicked and depraved of individuals on the basis that they did not choose to be born … etc, etc, and so on ad nauseam!

The detrimental impact of this philosophy is evident all around us, especially in our so-called Justice System. How many people have not been punished or held to account because of this belief system? How many times have you heard of a crime committed, a person apprehended, only to hear that said individual is being sent for a “psychiatric assessment”? How often do you hear a litany of reasons as to why this person should not be held to account even though they are clearly guilty of the crime committed? How many times are irrelevant and extenuating circumstances brought forth in order to excuse guilt and lessen punishment? This is the Medical Model at work.[4] This is Man’s attempt to diagnose and treat himself apart from God. Therefore, when Christians adopt such a model, in part or in whole, to that degree they must abandon the truth as God has revealed it to us.

Turning our attention to proposition a), we are left with this as the only tenable position based on God’s revelation. Sin is, has been since the Fall, and will be until Christ’s return, the root of all Man’s problems. As soon as this statement is made, one can hear the vociferous choir of dissent warming in the background. “What about …? Explain this …? Science has proven …!” and an assortment of related questions and exclamations. Even the well meaning Christian will chime in with, “I read in John 9 of the blind man. Jesus disciples asked, ‘Who sinned?’ and Jesus said ‘No one!’ so how do you claim that sin is always the root of Man’s problems?”

In answer to such opposition, it must be remembered that we are primarily talking worldviews and presuppositions. In regard to John 9, the specific answer is that the disciple posed a ‘cause and effect’ question based on their outlook to life. This man is blind. Blindness is an abnormality. Abnormalities occur as a result of God’s judgement of sin[5]. Thus, they logically asked, ‘who sinned?’ Jesus, in answering with the word “neither”, does not say that sin is not present, that sin did not cause the man’s blindness, nor that the man is sinless. Jesus’ answer simply denies the assertion made. In this case, the blindness is not attributable to a specific sin by the man or his parents. Yet, as we know from Scripture, blindness comes to men physically as a result of sin and indeed such physical blindness becomes a metaphor for of our sinful estate – spiritual blindness.[6]

Here, it is important that we distinguish “sin” from “personal guilt”. All men are sinners – their beings are ravaged by sin. The world has been radically altered by the entrance of sin – chaos instead of peace; estrangement rather than fellowship. However, this does not necessarily mean that when something bad / chaotic befalls a person that the person is paying the penalty for a personal infraction. Examples are that of Job and of the man in John 9, currently before us. Neither of these men was considered to be “personally guilty” or to be paying the penalty for a “personal infraction”. In fact, just the opposite is true in both cases. These men underwent trial in order that they might learn a substantive truth concerning God. However, that does not mean that “sin” was not present in terms of being an exploitative defect. The man of John 9 was blind. Blindness does not occur in perfection. Job’s children died, his livestock were stolen, his servants slain. Death, thievery, and murder are abnormalities caused by the entrance and presence of sin. Hence, the absence of personal culpability does not mean, by any stretch, the absence of sin.

It is important that this point be grasped. Those who rail against men like Jay Adams, often do so because of the emphasis placed on sin. However, their rants are fuelled by the misconception that sin equals personal guilt. Now, to be sure, in some cases personal guilt is also present, however, in all cases sin is present.

This leads us to consider another informative aspect of John 9. When Jesus instructs His disciples ‘that neither the man nor his parents had sinned’ causing the man’s blindness, Jesus does us the courtesy of explaining the situation and ending the drama. Says Jesus, in effect, “This man is blind in order that God will be glorified.” This statement is profound, to say the least, and is worthy of some attention.

Consider Jesus’ statement in light of all that has been discussed in this series so far:

  • God is; (Jesus affirms the fundamental starting point of the Biblical worldview.)
  • God has a plan; (God is Sovereign.)
  • God’s plan involves men; (Man is governed.)
  • God’s plan involves men whether they understand that or not; (God works through men for His glory even in the most adverse circumstances.)
  • God’s glory supersedes Man’s glory. (Man is always the creature and must glorify his Creator.)
  • God displays His glory, design, and purposes in His sin affected creatures. (God works in, with, and through fallen Man in order to better display the awesome wonder of His Being.)

If we try and put these points into a sentence, it would read something like this: “Though sin has entered the world and severely marred Man as a consequence, diminishing him greatly, yet God’s power, plans, and purposes are by no means diminished or thwarted; allowing God, the absolute Sovereign, to display His glory through and in such marred creatures.”

          This may sound like we have forgotten the topic in hand and wandered off in to a vague theological discussion. Not so. Throughout this series, we have laboured the point of presuppositions, of letting the Bible speak, and of judging all things by God’s revelation. We even went so far as to challenge the reader to understand what Christian writers mean by the terms “Biblical” and “authoritative”. We did so precisely because they are important and that importance is now on display.

          John 9 clearly educates us on a number of important issues, not least of which, in regard to counselling, is the fact that in a sinful world Man can be and often is afflicted in order to display God’s glory. We might take this one step further and say: in a sinful world Man can be and often is afflicted by God as a means of showing Man his spiritual bankruptcy and his need of God’s salvation’ which can also be, at times, a precursor to God graciously bestowing that salvation. Examples of this can be found in Naaman the Aramean (2 Kings 5), Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon (Daniel 4:34-37); these pointing forward to and culminating in the coming of Jesus Christ, Messiah, and the testimony that, “He healed them, so that the multitude marveled as they saw the dumb speaking, the crippled restored, and the lame walking, and the blind seeing; and they glorified the God of Israel” (Matthew 15:31).

Therefore, when we deny the Biblical worldview, and the fact that God is, we not only deny the doctrine of sin, but we deny God as the Sovereign. In denying God as Sovereign, we deny the fact that Man’s afflictions have a higher purpose and end than just that of “hardship”. In God’s providence, that affliction may lead to a gracious encounter with the Lord Jesus Christ and to the bestowal of life eternal.

Think this through. If God is not and the Fall never happened, as the Secularists espouse, then there is no genuine and absolute explanation for suffering and of why things go awry in this world. This means that a person’s affliction can have no higher end than that of being a personal affliction. That is it. There is no superior purpose, grand scheme, or big picture. It also means that there is no hope in the form of a higher Being’s interposition. The only hope comes from a fallen Man who is afflicted in the same manner as you are.

Hence, we must understand that man’s insistence on “Choice” is just an echo and reverberation from the Garden. It is Man again asserting that he has the right to be Sovereign over his own life. It is Man once more opposing God’s sovereignty.

In John 9, we witness a man who had been “blind from birth”. He had spent years without the ability to enjoy the aspects of life that others took for granted. Think of this. He never experienced something as simple as his mother’s smile or her eyes light up when he had achieved something significant. He ended up begging in the streets. This was his life and his existence. Decades[7] of darkness, fear, disappointment. Then, one day, there is movement beside him. He hears a conversation. The voices of strangers? Maybe not. Possibly he had heard this voice before preaching a better message. Next thing he is touched. A stranger has put mud on his eyes. He is now commanded to go to the pool of Siloam and wash. He does so without question. As the mud disappears from his eyes, he is overwhelmed by light. For the first time in his life he sees!

All of the agonies that this man faced now pale. He has come face to face with God’s true prophet, Jesus Christ. His physical blindness has been removed. He receives sight, physically and spiritually. He knew God was behind his blindness and his sight. Now is God glorified, because this man believes in Jesus Christ, Son of Man and Son of God! Now is God glorified, for this man’s seeing becomes a testimony to the truth of Jesus’ claims.

The point is very simple. By Divine providence this man was born blind because of sin and corruption which entered through the Fall. This man was appointed a time; a time to be born, a time to wait, a time to be healed, and a time to be freed. All of these times were appointed by God and for His glory. Read John 9! Note Jesus’ words, “We must work the works of Him who sent Me, as long as it is day; night is coming, when no man can work.” The blind man was one of God’s works! Just as Jesus came at the appointed time,[8] so this man was, by God’s sovereign power, appointed a time and an affliction. His time coincided with Jesus’ time. Saviour and sinner meet by Divine providence and the sinner receives the gifts of healing and salvation. God is glorified. God’s Saviour, Jesus, is honoured and worshipped.

The blind man’s affliction led him to a direct and compassionate encounter with Jesus. In the end, nothing is said of his years of affliction, he simply rejoices at meeting the Son of Man and bows in worship.

The pointed question for us moderns is, “How many people miss out on healing and freedom, true healing and freedom, because the Secular model does not allow for sin or the fact that people may suffer in order that God would be manifestly glorified when they are healed by Jesus, Son of Man and Son of God?” By removing God, the Biblical worldview, and the doctrine of sin from modern counselling, we remove the Divine response and answer to sin. Therefore, such counselling is ultimately useless because it will never declare the one true answer, Jesus Christ.

7.2. Psychology.

The second point of clarification that needs to be made is that psychology, in and of itself, is not wrong. Throughout this series we have resisted making this clarification in order to drive home a significant point. We questioned Jay Adams stand against psychiatry whilst allowing for psychology. We did so in order to make the same point: psychology has been hijacked!

To help the reader understand, allow us to draw a parallel with anthropology. If you open a standard systematic theology, you will usually find the term anthropology or a reference to ‘the doctrine of Man’. Anthropology, as a term, is derived from the Greek and means the study of Man (words about Man). When found is the context of theology, the study of Man is first of all passive. A picture and understanding of Man is given to us based on the paradigm God is, Creation, Fall, and Redemption. It is this revelation that shows us what, who and why Man is.

If you compare this Biblical anthropology with the anthropology of modern universities, you will find little similarity. Modern anthropology does not or rarely discusses morals. God does not factor into the equation. Religion is defined as how “this” people understood the concept of god and worshipped in that context. The study is not based in revelation, but upon evolution. If you want an up close example, watch an episode or two of the television series, Bones.

In the same way, psychology, meaning a study of the soul (words about the soul), as it is commonly understood, has forsaken all Biblical roots. It is no longer a passive study that first listens to God’s revelation and then deals with Man in light of that revelation. No, this modern concept denies God from first to last. That is why we have, throughout this study, maintained the rage against psychology as understood by most people. The degradation is so radical and so complete that the Christian concept of psychology really needs a new term.[9]

In short, Biblical psychology is moral. As such, it accords perfectly with the point made above, sin is the cause. Biblical psychology, being moral, also means that it is based in law, God’s Law to be specific, and thus refers to an ultimate, absolute, and objective standard that is applicable to every Man. Sin is a transgression of God’s Law. Having transgressed, Man now fosters his state of rebellion by developing relative and subjective standards of morality by which he judges his own actions as ethical or not. This is not abstract theology, it is reality. It is the source of Man’s pain. Man, rejecting God’s Law and rule, seeks now to find happiness, contentment, and purpose by his own hand. However, he cannot escape the intrinsic fact that he is a created being living in his Creator’s world. He is an image bearer and everything he looks at in this world reminds him of God’s claims upon him. It is this that leads the soul of Man into conflict and which leads to anguish. In other words, Man, the image bearer now fallen, cannot escape God. Man thus invents false standards of morality that accord with and appease his conscience, yet none of these avail, for they only lead him into greater conflict within himself. Man is moral. He was created by a moral God. Man’s rebellion brings conflict, internal conflict, which cannot be ameliorated by the self-manufacture of morals that are more to his liking.

This point is clear when we consider the Bible’s view of psychology in comparison to that of the moderns. Adam and Eve, created in perfection, fellowshipped with God. They were both naked. Neither felt shame. They lived in the open. When Man rebelled, they immediately felt shame and they hid from God and each other. Their shame lead them to the inadequate measure of sowing fig leaves together and this simple act belied the fact that their mindset had been radically altered.

You see, my brethren, Man’s dual relationship with himself individually and corporately was always dependent upon his relationship with God. When Man sinned against God all other relationships were broken. Man’s path to restoration could only be in reconciliation to God. However, Man, now being left to a morality of his own making, rationalised that as he now felt shame in the presence of Man he could alleviate his shame by sewing fig leaves together. Phew! Disaster avoided. Man was content in the presence of Man – well that was until God turned up! Then Man had to go scurrying for cover and seek for himself an even greater “fig leaf” that would hide him from God.

When we look at the Biblical narrative, we see that fallen Man was content with a morality of his own making and a remedy to his conflict that was of his own design (sewn fig leaves). However, when God arrived on the scene in the fullness of His righteousness, Man’s efforts were shown to be futile. The lesson is simple. Why does modern psychology distance itself from God? Why does modern immoral psychology prevail? Because fallen Man, despite all his so-called advances, is still shown to be sewing fig leaves together and hiding behind them. The fig leaves seemingly work well in regard to Man’s relationship individually and corporately and Man is pleased with the level of peace this gives him. However, Man is keenly aware that God’s Almighty Eye penetrates fig leaves and thus Man erects signs which state, “God not allowed!” Man becomes hostile when he hears mention of the fact that God is in the vicinity because he knows that God’s Light will dry out the leaves and His Breath scatter the dried fragments, leaving Man, once more, naked and without excuse.

Therefore, we have maintained the rage against secular psychology because it has forsaken its Biblical roots. Biblical psychology is a welcome asset. It works with Elders because it is born out of Scripture. Biblical psychology understands sin and its effects upon this world and all in this world. Biblical psychology equips Elders to fulfil their God-given task as under-shepherds.

What true psychology does not do is supplant Elders and usurp their role. What true psychology does not do is force Elders into a holding pattern until something better comes forth from our secular universities. What true psychology does not do is label Eldership as passé—a concept of the past that is no longer fit or viable for the modern world. Christian, if your view of psychology suggests, hints at, or actively seeks the reality of any of these positions, even if it is not marketed in those words, then you are peddling a blasphemy. You need to repent because you are attacking the Church of Jesus Christ and seeking to inject into it nothing less than idolatry.

Elders, if you are peddling these concepts, then you are actively pulling the rug from under your own feet. You are destroying the very foundation on which you are to stand. You are part of the problem and not part of the cure. Repent. Believe God and take Him at His word. Reject the world’s philosophy and cling to that which has been taught by Christ. Jesus is the Church’s Head. Jesus is the Chief Shepherd. Jesus knows what is best for His blood bought sheep.

Is it not time we took these words to heart: Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will make your paths straight.[10]

Shepherding Shepherds Part 8 (The Last in the Series)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] It is to be pointed out that the Medical model applies to c) as well. See Jay E. Adams, Competent to Counsel, Ministry Resources Library, 1970; p xvi-xvii for a brief discussion on the Medical Model.

[2] Here, we need to understand that most of the problems encountered by us are not actively chosen by us. So this is not the point of contention. The true point of contention is our accountability to and for the way we respond. Biblically, we are accountable for how we respond to any situation, whether it is of our choosing or not. This truth is summed up in the old adage, ‘Two wrongs do not make a right!’ In the Medical model, excuses are proffered on the basis that the individual did not choose what has befallen them or that, in the case where it is their own action that caused the grief, there was yet another catalyst that must be viewed as the prime cause.

[3] We often see this mentality expressed, in regard to the government, by the phrase, “Don’t blame me, I did not vote for them!”

[4] The Medical Model has been superseded in some ways today, but the basics remain. The supersession has to do, not so much with a change in philosophy, but with the way this philosophy has become endemic to society. Blame-shifting and excuse-making are rife.

[5] Deuteronomy 28:28.

[6] Note that in Matthew 23:16-26 Jesus labels the Pharisees as “blind” five times.

[7] Commentators debate over this person’s age. The phrase “he is of age” is claimed by some to mean that he had attained to 30 years of age; others to 13 years of age. It would seem that the person was older rather than younger from other facts. He was known to the people (v8). He is referred to as a “man” when there are a number of Greek words that could be applied if he were a child. This “manhood” seems to be evident from the man’s situation (begging) and his ability to reason with the Pharisees. Similarly, it is hard to conceive of parents so readily abandoning a 14 year old and leaving him at the mercy of these voracious Pharisees.

[8] Galatians 4:4.

[9] The term “Christian psychologist” is misleading because it does not equate to Biblical psychology, but to a dualistic or pluralistic position in which Christian principles are injected into a secular discipline or, more correctly, where secular principles are injected into a Biblical discipline. Think back to our illustration regarding Christian education in Part 2 of this series. Christian education is not the combination of a person who is a Christian and who also has a degree in education from the local university. No, a Christian teacher and a Christian education are those things that flow from, uphold, and apply the Christian worldview. Thus a true Christian education for example, will be given when the faithful mother, without a degree teaches her child that this world was created by God in six days. Christian education is not that which is taught in the Christian school by the teacher with a degree from a prestigious university when he says that God created via evolution or by long ages. So too, Christian psychology must begin with the Biblical worldview and its consistent application; not with the counsellor and what degrees he possesses.

[10] Proverbs 3:5-6.

Of Shepherding Shepherds (Pt. 4)

Posted on by
Reply

(Rebuilding Esteem and Belief in Eldership: God’s Authority)

5. God’s Authority:

The next relevant aspect in regard to the Office of Eldership is that these men, being instituted by God, act with God’s authority. This point is critical, yet it is overlooked and often despised today.

To drive this home, let me ask this related question, “What makes preaching powerful?” The moderns will tend to answer this question by focusing on personalities, oratory, word skills, and dynamism. The orthodox and Reformed Christian will answer, “Authority!”

Why does the preacher preach? He is commissioned to that task. What makes the preacher’s voice or words any more relevant, convincing, or convicting? The answer is power through authority! To be specific, it is Jesus’ authority. The preacher is commissioned of God, thus, when he speaks, he speaks with the very voice of Christ. This it is that rouses dead hearts and brings rebellious hearts to heel. This it is that pierces seared consciences and makes them responsive. This it is that makes the Christian yield to sound counsel.[1]

Please understand, it is authority and authority alone that marks the preacher as different. Nothing else! He has no special quality in and of himself. His words are powerful because the Holy Spirit works through him so that his voice is Christ’s voice and his words Christ’s words.

In the same way, the commissioned elder rightly wields God’s authority. That which sets his administration apart – his rule, counsel, deliberations, intercession, and judgements – is not his qualities as a person[2], as such, but the fact that he speaks and acts not only with the authority of God, but as God Himself.[3] This means that the elder must be humble in his use of this power, but it equally means that we who sit under the elder must be humble so as to submit to God’s authority administered through the elder. The relevance of this for pastoral care is almost unfathomable, however, fathom we must.

  1. The Word of Authority: This is to say, as we have suggested, that the elder speaking as elder is speaking authoritatively in the name and as an ambassador of God. This means that his counsel immediately stands above the counsel of others. It is not to say that it is necessarily different in kind, rather it is different in degree. Where one may readily dismiss a brother with a hasty, “That’s your opinion!” one cannot do so with the elder.
  2. The Action of Authority: The above aspect is made all the more pertinent when we look at the concept of discipline. In Matthew 18 we note that the issue begins among the brothers. It then extends to the brethren as witnesses. At this point, we observer the difference in degree. The brethren may have sound counsel, but it goes unheeded. However, when the issue is escalated to the Church, to the elders, the ballgame, as they say, changes. Now the Word is spoken with Christ’s voice and authority. It is backed by the possibility of severe punishment and eternal consequence, all of which are sanctioned by Christ Jesus. Here, the counsel changes from a positive suggestion to an ought!
  3. The Need of Authority: This then leads to the crux of the matter. Man is spiritually dead. Man can only be brought to life by the Divine command issued by the commissioned man. Illustrative of this is the text in which Ezekiel commands the dry bones to live.[4] Equally, as God’s children, we can still, in varying degrees, fall into sin and become hardened to the things of God.[5] In such circumstances, we too need the voice of authority to command us to awaken and repent. So it is that often the difference is not in the quality of the counsel given, but in the authority with which it is given; not kind, but degree. Importantly, it must be understood that we need the authoritative voice.[6] Sound counsel is not enough. Sound counsel given authoritatively is what is most necessary.[7]

Let us take these points and transfer them to the real world. Bill Bloggs, Christian and local member of the Church, goes to a Christian counsellor. Let us grant that the counsellor is indeed sound. He counsels Bill to leave his sin. Session after session he pleads with his brother to forsake this sin and be reconciled to Christ. Bill refuses. What next? The counsellor has no ability to sanction Bill. The counsellor does not possess the keys of the Kingdom. The counsellor has no juridical power. The counsellor cannot cast him out of the Church for his rebellion. In point of fact, the counsellor cannot even truly implement the process of Matthew 18.

Moreover, depending on how the counsellor operates, he could not take the matter to the Church, even if he desired to do so, because he would be in breach of privacy laws enacted by the State. In some cases, there would even be other factors in play that protect Bill’s indiscretion from finding its way to the Church.

In another scenario, Bill’s rebellion and unrepentant heart may lead to depression. As the counsellor has no other means at his disposal, he is left to simply medicate the symptoms. Bill is left in his rebellion and the consequences of that rebellion are simply masked by the application of medicines.

Therefore, we need to grasp the serious reality that when we step out from under God’s order and authority, we step into impotency. The so-called ‘Christian counsellor’ may counsel, but in the end he is impotent. The counsellor only has as much authority or power to realise change as the so-called patient will give him or the State allows. Thus, it is the sinner who effectively sits in the pilot’s seat and guides his craft to the destiny of his choosing. He hides behind State protections and only allows inputs to the craft’s control column that will not alter his desired course. The counsellor, Christian or otherwise, is ineffectual in these circumstances.

Now, as we have noted, some will find this difficult, but that does not alter the truth of the matter. If we look around us, we will already see that counsellors, Christian and otherwise, are being constrained by the secular laws under which they operate. This has clearly come to the fore in regard to those who counsel homosexuals. In some instances, and increasingly so, those whose counsel to homosexuals is “forsake the practice” are being shut down or muzzled. The State has defined the air corridor – effectively conjoining itself to the rebellious sinner/pilot – and in so doing does not allow inputs to the control column that would see the craft deviate from its course—even though it is evidently heading for a mountain. Thus, the counsellor bound to obey the State must bow to his master’s will; even the so-called Christian counsellor.[8]

Equally, we must address the sinner and state boldly that they too, in seeking out the uncommissioned are placing themselves in a position of impotency. They are walking away from the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth[9] in which they can actually find help, power, strength, forgiveness, and reconciliation.

Brother Posthuma rightly noted that some seek out the counsellor for anonymity.[10] This is understandable, but only to a minute degree; for we must ask as to the point of anonymity, if it also means impotency. Could it be that the anonymity sought is a guise in which one can soothe the troubled conscience without seeking a real remedy to the problem? Why would a person suffering from an ailment and supposedly seeking a cure, turn away from a medical centre simply because they were known at that clinic? Why seek out the backyard quack for the sake of anonymity when such action could prolong your suffering or lead to greater harm?[11] In point of fact, being known may lead to better, swifter, and more compassionate treatment.

The only genuine reason for anonymity is the fear of shame. After all, you only seek out a medical doctor anonymously if you have a medical condition or are in need of medical assistance because you are fairly certain that the condition arose out of a spurious circumstance.  Similarly, you only seek out a counsellor anonymously when your spiritual circumstances are a result of spurious activities. Consequently, the whole counselling phenomena has, at its root, a faulty and unBiblical premise.

The reality is very simple. In turning from God’s order, we turn from God’s power and authority. As such, we turn to the impotent and embrace that which can never truly bring us the genuine help we need.

More coffee on the newspaper? If so, we are not sure why. Let us be frank. In Psychiatry, it is well known that many of the problems are medicated, not healed. People are forced to exist in a drug induced state in order to function, and that term is used very loosely. Medication is used because there is a fundamental inability to deal with the core issues. This is the impotency of which we speak. There is no God-empowered command that causes the dead to live and the rebellious to heel. There is no worldview that rises above. No hope on the horizon that can be given – particularly from the secular standpoint.

Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that we grasp the importance of the fact that the elder operates under God’s commission and with His authority. The elder operates within the Biblical worldview and thus gives God’s answers to the troubles of this world. These attributes are not known to the secular counsellor, even the Christian counsellor, for at some point, they seek to introduce another worldview that conflicts with the Biblical worldview.

As an example, you would not go to a witchdoctor for advice, would you? Yet, the secular science of psychology comes from the same poisonous root. So why do we give it credence simply because it comes from a university? What makes this theory or view of Man more acceptable than the one outlined by God in His Word?

Friends, it is here that we come to the pointy end of the stick, for the essence of our contention, as we have noted, comes down to a clash of worldviews and to these two questions:

a) Will we faithfully accept what God says about Man and His creation as it is revealed in Scripture or will we seek out another worldview, another wisdom that is more acceptable to us in our circumstance?

b)  Which man will we choose to counsel us—the man who stands with God’s authority and administers wisdom according to the Biblical worldview or will we seek out the man of compromise who seeks to supplant God’s wisdom with the wisdom of fallen Man; baptised though it may be?

Footnotes:

[1] It must also be remembered that in the Biblical covenantal paradigm, counselling and preaching can also legitimately harden a person in their rebellion so that God’s judgement is proved just (Psalm 51:4; See also Exodus 9:16 and Romans 9:17 as a practical example). God’s word is, as it always has been, both life and death. It is to one the aroma of life; to another the stench of death (2 Corinthians 2:15-16). It is for this reason that much of the modern Church Growth theory should be despised and rejected. The truth does not in every case bring life. Sometimes it brings death. The only sure, categorical, and absolute statement that we can make in regard to God’s Word proclaimed is this: So shall My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it (Isaiah 55:11).

[2] This is not to say that personal qualities are not important; they are! Biblically, the office of elder is only open to those who have certain, proven character traits. The point here is that we do not elect a good man, but a righteous man. We do not elect a smart man, but a wise man. We do not elect the popular man, but the godly man. We do not elect the rich man, but the spiritually wealthy man. We do so, on God’s command, so that, once in office, these traits are subject to and magnified by the power of God’s Spirit. Such a man becomes a powerful instrument in God’s hands because he is blessable; he is a worthy instrument through which God will work. As such he stands in God’s stead and should not be trifled with.

[3] Some may doubt this. If so, please turn to Exodus 16:2&8. There you will see that Israel grumbled against Aaron and Moses and in so doing they grumbled against the Lord.

[4] See Ezekiel 37:1ff.

[5] Hebrews 3:8-11.

[6] Is it not for this very reason that we are urged to attend upon the preaching of the Word in constancy. We are in absolute need of hearing God’s word – Christ’s voice – proclaimed with His full authority.

[7] It may be an oversimplification, but it is worth remembering that Man is a subordinate being to God. Thus God was right to give the Ten Commandments and not the Ten Suggestions or the Ten Helpful Pointers.

[8] It is worth noting the power of secularism at this point. Many pastoral care positions that are now advertised require that the applicant be eligible for enrolment in a Psychological Association or some such. This requirement alone generally rules out the Biblical counsellor and therefore puts the pressure on this group to undertake further studies so as to be “approved”. In essence, these situations effectually force a compromise. It also sees the field heavily stacked in favour of Humanism.

[9] 1 Timothy 3:15.

[10] Volume 61, No 7; 8 Feb 2014. Pages 166.

[11] A pertinent example, here, is that of abortion. At every step along the way it was argued that legalising abortion would do away with the need for backyard practitioners who were causing pain and death. Yet, legalising abortion did not resolve this problem. The very same argument was once again paraded in the recent discussion over the abortion drug RU86.

Of Shepherding Shepherds (Pt 3)

Posted on by
Reply

(Rebuilding Esteem and Belief in Eldership: God’s Institution)

Right now, you no doubt have many questions running through your mind as a consequence of reading the previous articles in this series. You may agree with certain points. You may disagree with certain applications. This is to be expected when the proverbial boat is firmly rocked. However, I hope, like the Bereans, that we will turn to Scripture and search out our agreement in the light of God’s word. After all, every belief and every action must have genuine Biblical warrant. Therefore, to be obedient to our Lord, we must look past the external tags, the “We have always done it this way!”, and the paralysing exasperation, “What else will we do!”

Our obligation is to search out and live in light of the Biblical data. Thus far, that data has shown us that we cannot hold to two masters, two worldviews, or two fundamental presuppositions. Likewise, we cannot believe that the elders are God’s appointed authority for the good and holy governance of His blood bought Church, whilst asserting that such an institution is dated or in need of supplementation. Such a philosophical contradiction is simply untenable.

As posited previously, if we are to rebuild genuine esteem and belief in the institution of Eldership, we must begin by cutting off everything that would seek to undermine and supplant that institution, no matter how subtle its influence in this direction.

So let us look at a few reasons as to why elders should be preferred to counsellors in the Church.

4. God’s Institution:

The first and most obvious reason is that the eldership was instituted by God. Eldership existed during Israel’s captivity in Egypt and was given specific form and structure in the wilderness under Moses[1] and continued in existence to the day of Jesus. As such, it was naturally taken across into the New Testament Church and continues to this day (and forever?).

This point needs to be underscored. In our Reformed history, it is tragic that most look for the foundation of the Eldership in the New Testament only. Our creeds, confessions, and theologies are almost Dispensational in their desire to see Eldership as a new or mostly new office instituted by Apostolic warrant.

Rushdoony rights states:

The origins of the church theologians place in the Old Testament. … Strangely, the government of the church is not likewise sought in the Old Testament, although the New Testament is clear that the familiar pattern, and even the name of the office, elders, was derived from the Old Testament….[2]

Strange indeed; yet true.[3] Consider the following statement:

We know nothing about the origin of this office. There appears to be elders in Jerusalem (Acts 11:30). There probably is a connection between the Jewish council of elders that conducted the business of the synagogue, but did not play a role in worship, and the elders of the Church.[4]

Please note the categorical followed by the maybe – we know nothing, but there probably is! This inconsistency is unexpected given that we Reformed people do not like surprises or the unknown. It is even more surprising given our Doctrine of Scripture and the Biblical evidence that this doctrine unearths for us.

For example, in our theology we have no problem admitting that Moses is a type of Christ[5] and that the Church existed in the Old Testament.[6] Why, then, do we suppose that God’s Church, of old, was ungoverned? Why would we suppose that a new form of Church government needed to be invented?

These questions are posed precisely because the Biblical evidence gives us no right to assume that the “congregation of Israel” was ungoverned or that the New Testament Church[7] had to hurriedly find a model of governance. When we examine Scripture, we see something very different.

After the re-formation of the eldership in the wilderness, we see that elders take a more prominent place in Israel. Such is the evidence that we would need many pages to enumerate all the Old Testament passages regarding eldership. Consequently, we will cite just a few before moving to the time of Christ and on into the embryonic Church, the newer.

The first thing we need to see is that the elders went with Moses and Aaron. We often think of these two great men acting alone. However, this was not the case as far as God’s intent was concerned:

The elders of Israel will listen to you. Then you and the elders are to go to the king of Egypt and say to him, ‘The LORD, the God of the Hebrews, has met with us. Let us take a three-day journey into the desert to offer sacrifices to the LORD our God.” (Exodus 3:18)

We must also grasp the significant fact that the elders of Israel are always portrayed as being in the company of God’s appointed leaders; as taking over leadership in their absence; and in performing significant rites.

Passover – Then Moses summoned all the elders of Israel and said to them, “Go at once and select the animals for your families and slaughter the Passover lamb.” (Exodus 12:21)

Worship at Sinai – Then he said to Moses, “Come up to the LORD, you and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel. You are to worship at a distance.” (Exodus 24:1)

After the defeat at Ai – Then Joshua tore his clothes and fell facedown to the ground before the ark of the LORD, remaining there till evening. The elders of Israel did the same, and sprinkled dust on their heads. (Joshua 7:6)

Israel’s Faithfulness through Elders – Israel served the LORD throughout the lifetime of Joshua and of the elders who outlived him and who had experienced everything the LORD had done for Israel. (Joshua 24:31)

Kingship – When all the elders of Israel had come to King David at Hebron, the king made a compact with them at Hebron before the LORD, and they anointed David king over Israel. (2 Samuel 5:3)

Leaving the Old Testament, let us move forward to the time of Christ.

Please note these three texts:

Matthew 15:1-2: “Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”

Matthew 16:21: “From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.”

Acts 4:5-8: “The next day the rulers, elders and teachers of the law met in Jerusalem … They had Peter and John brought before them and began to question them: “By what power or what name did you do this?” Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: “Rulers and elders of the people!”

In these texts, we witness both the prominence and continuity of data regarding the eldership, both of which are almost universally ignored. We know of the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the teachers of the Law, but how often have you noted this group called the elders? These elders have traditions. Jesus states that He will suffer at the hands of these elders. When the embryonic New(er) Testament Church is persecuted in the persons of Peter and John, the elders are there and Peter, by the Holy Spirit, addresses them directly.

So it is that we must see that eldership was not some dinky concept that Moses invented in the wilderness so that he could get a bit more “me time”. No. This was a serious institution in Israel for the governance of God’s covenant people. Even though Israel had good familial governance through heads of families and tribes, it was pleasing to God to add to this the office of Elder. Therefore, we should neither view this institution lightly nor be surprised that it is brought into the New(er) Testament Church without fuss.

Here, again, we must challenge ourselves. When we speak of elders in the New Testament Church, we immediately think of the Pastoral Epistles, Timothy and Titus, and of Paul’s instruction to them regarding the standards for the office. What we miss with this singular focus or blinkeredness is the prominence of their position already highlighted throughout Scripture.

The Book of Acts is the record of Christ’s embryonic fulfillment Church moving forward at Her Captain’s command. It is replete with information that is of great use to us in our day. Have you ever noted the place of elders in the Book of Acts?

The term elders – always plural – occurs eighteen times in Acts. Eight of these references are to the Jewish elders. The rest, the remaining ten, refer to the Christian elders. Now, please note that nowhere do we witness an initiation, a ceremony, a command, or any other process of inception. These elders arrive on the scene and are fully accepted, without a whimper, as the authoritative officers for the governance of Christ’s Church (as they always had been).

We first see the Christian elder[8] in the context of those to whom Barnabas and Paul (Saul) would entrust the alms collected by the Antiochian[9] church.[10] The elders took receipt of these alms and were presumably responsible for their distribution. Next, we see Paul and Barnabas appointing elders in the Church. In this instance the context refers to the four local churches of Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, and (Pisidian) Antioch.[11] Please note, once more, that there is no fuss or bother involved at this point. These commissioned men appoint elders and the church accepts them.

In following the chronology of Acts, we now come to one of the most significant texts. We are all familiar with the Council at Jerusalem as outlined in Acts 15. Whilst there are different views on this Council, certain things are beyond dispute. This Council had authority. It did so because of its makeup. However, this makeup was not in and of itself Apostolic. Please be aware that five times the term Apostle is used in conjunction with the elders. That is to say that every time the Apostles are mentioned in chapter 15, the elders are mentioned right alongside.[12] Hmmm, interesting. Yes?

So who was it that took over the governance of the Church when the Apostles were not around or once they had been promoted to glory? Yes, it was the elders. Then we must ask, “Have we seen this pattern before?”

With this said, let us leave Acts and move into the Book of Revelation. When reading Revelation and with your gaze fixed upon the sublime worship of God in which praise is offered to God by the Seraphim, the angelic host, and the saints, have you ever noticed the role or presence of that other group? Yes, I speak of the elders.

When we view Revelation chapter four, we are immediately introduced to a vision of God Almighty upon His throne. What comes next? Angels? Seraphim? Spirits? Saints? No, none of these. After being introduced to God and His throne, we are introduced to twenty-four elders who sit upon their own thrones in the presence of God.[13] Then, and only then, are we introduced to the four living creatures.

In Revelation, these elders are referred to twelve times. In 5:14, 11:16, and 19:4, these elders are involved in worship. They are said to fall down or to fall on their faces before God and to worship Him. In 5:8 they are said to fall down before the Lamb. They are also shown to sing unto God (5:9, 11). Most striking, though, of all these is the text of Revelation 5:8 – And when he [the Lamb] had taken it [the Book], the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.

The import of this text is monumental for our understanding. As we noted earlier, many do not look for the establishment of eldership in the Old Testament. Yet, here, in this resplendent heavenly vision, we see correlations that cannot be dismissed.

In our view, the Eldership is re-established and re-organised in Exodus 18. In Exodus 19, God speaks to Moses and says, “Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant … you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.”[14] This theme of being kingly-priests is picked up several times in the New Testament. Peter calls us a “holy priesthood” before referring to us as a “royal priesthood”.[15]

Returning to Revelation, we see that John, in his opening comments, addresses the saints in exactly the same manner – “To him who loves us … and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father.”[16] The next reference occurs in Revelation 5:10, two verse after the text under consideration, and says, “You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God….”

With this information in mind, think back, please, to Revelation 5:8. Here we see the elders, the governors and representatives of the people, falling down in worship before the Lamb. Question, “What is the Church’s priority?” It is the worship of God. Again, think back to Exodus, why did Israel demand to leave Egypt? It was so that they could go forth and worship God.[17] What happened in Exodus 19 after the mention of the kingly-priests? Did not the kingly-priests worship at the foot of the mountain? Did not the kingly-priests meet with their God?

Then we ask, “From what did these elders in Revelation 5:8 arise?” Was it not their thrones? What image comes immediately to mind when you think of a throne? Is it not kingship?

Now we are forced to look at what these elders were holding. First, we note that they possess a harp. What would the harp be used for? Is it not the worship of God? The Psalmist certainly thought so – “I will praise you with the harp for your faithfulness, O my God; I will sing praise to you with the lyre, O Holy One of Israel.”[18] Equally, if we look at Revelation 15:2, we see the victorious possessing harps. With these instruments, verse three, they sang the song of Moses and of the Lamb. How interesting! Moses is not despised. His song is not ridiculed or cast out as irrelevant because it belonged to type and shadow. No, no! Much rather, it is incorporated into the fullness of the worship of God—Servant and Son together praising the Father, God Almighty.

Second, we see that the elders hold censors full of the prayers of the saints. Why would these elders hold these prayers? Could it be that they are going to offer them before God, the Almighty? Could it be that their song of praise is infused with the prayers of God’s people on earth? Such would seem to be very probable. What role, then, would we ascribe to the elder at this point? Would we not rightly designate him a priest?

If so, we see kings who are priests worshipping God and the Lamb. Moreover, we see these elders rightly representing the people who are also designated as kingly-priests.  Thus, the evidence for the unified Biblical doctrine of eldership seems very solid. Also, the potency of these visions underscores the roles that the elder must undertake as part of his commissioning.

Conclusion:

Although this has been a very quick look at some of the Biblical data surrounding the Eldership, it is hoped that your horizons have been widened as to the chronology and importance of this institution. It was given substance through Moses. It was not revoked by Jesus. It was affirmed by Apostolic practice and warrant as normative, and, if that were not enough, we are shown that the elder operates in the heavenly worship of the One Living and True God.

Thus, unlike social workers, psychiatrists, and counselors, when you deal with an elder and the eldership you are dealing with those who are ordained by God. They operate as God’s instruments for His glory and they operate on God’s authority alone. This should, indeed must, signify something of great importance to every Christian. To willingly sidestep the elder, is tantamount to trying to sidestep the living God.[19] God gave us this institution for a reason, to despise it in favour of Worldly substitutes is a fatal error.

 

[1] Exodus 18:24-26. The first mention of elders in Scripture is in Genesis 50:7. This reference is to the elders of Egypt. In Exodus 3, we see, as part of Moses’ commissioning, that he is sent to gather the elders of Israel (3:16). When Moses returns to Egypt, he first gathers the elders together so that Aaron can explain all that Yahweh had commanded (4:29-30). After the elders are given instruction, there are demonstrations of power before the people. When they hear that Yahweh is concerned for them, they bow down and worship. Apart from some obvious patterns and clues that shall become more apparent as we progress, it is necessary to see that right at the beginning of redemptive history, nationally speaking, the elders were at the forefront.

[2] Rousas Rushdoony, Systematic Theology, (Vallecito: Ross House Books, 1984, Vol. 2), 679.

[3] See also: Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership: an urgent call to restore Biblical Church leadership, (Littleton: Lewis & Roth Publishers, 1995). The first five chapters of this book are useful. The major weakness, however, is the fact that he passes over the Old Testament foundation for eldership. He vacillates, speaking of an apostolic institution, but then tacitly admits some prior form or information that guided their model.

[4] Van Genderen and Velema, Concise Reformed Dogmatics, (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing Company, 2008), 736. Emphasis added.

[5] Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology, ([1948 Eerdmans] Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1975; reprint 1985), 104

[6] Van Genderen and Velema, 677. These do not make the link as strongly as Charles Hodge, who, in one sentence, states: “The conclusion is that God has ever had but one Church in the world.” Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, reprint 1989, Vol. 3), 551. See also The Belgic Confession, Article 27.

[7] As noted, it is our view that the Church is one. It would be better if we could hold this conversation without the Old Testament / New Testament bifurcation. However, this pattern has become so entrenched that many find it difficult to grasp arguments when the pattern is not present. Please understand that when this bifurcation is used, we intend no radical discontinuity of a Dispensational variety. Rather, we are referring to the two chapters of the Bible, which make a complete book, as the source of our authority.

[8] Acts 11:30.

[9] This is Syrian Antioch.

[10] A “cat among the pigeons” question may be: Given the evidence from Acts 11:30, would we better term the seven from Acts 6:1-7 as elders rather than deacons? I think I felt a shudder! Think this through please. Remember, Acts 6 does not give these men a title. We have applied a title and an office to them. Calvin argues that the deacons operated under the elders and so the two pieces of information are not incongruous. That however is an argument from silence. If we put the concept of Acts 6 with the information of Acts 11, we have evidence to suggest that the missing institution is not, in fact missing. Just some food for thought.

[11] Acts 14:23. Derbe may be exempted from the list

[12] Note, please, that the letter circulated by this Council also bore the name of the elders (15:23).

[13] These twenty-four thrones are mentioned in Revelation 4:4 and 11:16.

[14] Exodus 19:5-6.

[15] 1 Peter 2:5 & 9.

[16] Revelation 1:5-6.

[17] Exodus 3:18ff. In these passages the term “sacrifice” is prominent. However, in the Old Testament context, sacrifice is worship. See Exodus 3:12 for the term “Worship” and the setting of the context.

[18] Psalm 71:22.

[19] Romans chapter 13 states that there is “no authority that is not from God”. It also states that those who resist that authority will be punished.