Questions about Elders

[mikew]

To some degree I get over zealous with the names overseer and pastor. My reason is to move away from the concept of the management being a one man show. My main scripture-based grief is how churches will place a "pastor" just out of school into the overseer position. Or even the term "pastor" today would cause these young heads to swell to great sizes. Such issue are likely what Steve addresses by saying these are "roles" not "offices."

Paul, in his letters, just spoke of the overseer as a ruler/leader. Now it is interesting in Romans that we can see a difference possibly between the two roles.

Rom 12:7 or service, let us give ourselves to service; or he who teaches, to his teaching; (8) or he who exhorts, to his exhorting: he who gives, let him do it with liberality; he who rules, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness.

An overseer/ruler likely is more of an administrative position that would emphasize structure, organization and order -- to take care of necessary actions such as getting places to meet. The pastor/teacher would be one who sees the needs of the flock in personal/community growth.

Darin has a useful consideration regarding overseers. It often should just be someone is respected, a natural status gained by good reputation. The elders among the inhabitants of a Jewish city were apparently those whose decisions (for their community) were trusted. Today I think we artificially assign the pastor that respect or we assign the respect to someone merely for starting a church group (whether or not such respect is due).

The basis for saying that "elder" may be a broader term than "overseer" is that Acts mentions multiple elders from a city (Act 20:17 And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called to him the elders of the church) whereas only one overseer is selected per 1Tim 3 (verse 2 spoke of an overseer/bishop whereas verse 8 spoke of deacons as a plural noun). I could not quite tell if the term "elders" included overseers and deacons or merely the overseers.

[mikew]

What is the role of the overseer?

Based on the "job qualifications" he would:

1) Host meetings or have guests (1 Tim 3:2, hospitality)
2) Resolve disputes such as those of doctrines ( Tit 1:9)
3) Manage people or organization toward life consistent with Christ (1 Tim:3:4-5,Tit 1:6 -- not unruly children)
4) Manage around threats from outsiders (Tit 1:10-11)
5) Make just decisions in conflicts among members (Tit 1:8 --,lover of good must be just)
6) Handle money matters -- gatherings for the poor (Tit 1:7 -- not greedy)
7) Representative to the community or just good reputation (1Tim3:7--good testimony)
8) Teach corrected doctrine when no others are able (1Tim3:2)
9) Show organizational skills needed to make sure proper actions happen (1Tim 3:2)

From the verses and the list of tasks, it seems that the overseer has more the gift of administration/governing (1Cor 12:28) than the gift of teaching.

[steve]

Why was it necessary then and not now?

This is a good challenge to my position. It does seem that appointed leaders would not be needed any more or any less at a given point in history. There is a problem in our time, of course, that did not exist in the first century, and that is the absence of universally-recognized apostles to do the appointing. The value of Paul (or an associate of his, acting on his behalf) giving official recognition to certain leaders would be that, in a day when there was only one church in a town, and often wolves would enter into the church and attempt to subvert it, Paul could set aside trusted men in the congregation to be heeded when controversy would arise. The presence of such dangers is the stated reason why Paul wished for Titus to appoint leaders in every church in Crete (Titus 1:9-11). I find it perplexing that Paul had not attended to the appointment of the elders in the churches of Crete prior to this (the churches were in existence, and Titus was apparently just sent to appoint overseers in them). Perhaps the appearance of the troublemakers was a new development, creating a need for apostolicly-recognized leaders which had not existed previously.

I also have found it peculiar that there is no mention of elders in all the Corinthian correspondence—even though the need for church discipline, for order and for theological normalization (e.g. the doctrine of resurrection) were addressed. One would hope the elders would normally handle this kind of thing. However, Paul steps in and takes charge of the situations without so much as an exhortation to submit to the overseers, or a rebuke of the overseers for neglect of their duties. There is mention of the household of Stephanas, and his type, to whom Paul urges submission—but not on the grounds that Stephanas is an overseer, but that he is the Christian with the greatest seniority in the region, and because he has a servant's heart.

I think Paul considered a church's not having appointed elders, and a church's having them, as equally normal circumstances—depending on the need of the church and the presence or absence of qualified individuals to receive such a vote of apostolic confidence. But what about today?

As I said, today we do not have any men who stand in the role of apostles whose authority would be recognized by all churches. We also do not have only one church body per town. Each church has its own governing authority or denominational affiliation to which it submits and which is recognized as having the right to appoint pastors, bishops, etc. It would be wonderful to have the apostles here to tell us whose doctrines and practices must be recognized by all, but all we have is their writings—and the Holy Spirit, of course.

Since there are now multiple churches in each town, it is possible for one group to become entirely taken over by those that Paul would have regarded to be wolves, and yet the true sheep can flee to other congregations that are free (or relatively free) of such corruption—or start new ones of their own. The thing is, no denomination can claim to have the authority to appoint leaders whom all Christians must acknowledge. The ordination of certain individuals to be recognized "in house" within their movements is a somewhat provincial matter, since the leaders they appoint have no real, objective, overarching authority to enforce norms upon saints in other communions.

This means, as near as I can tell, that the best option left to believers is to recognize genuine spiritual leadership where they find it, and to submit to it insofar as it does not overstep the scriptures or one's godly conscience. But this recognition need not be formal. It can be, if an entire assembly wishes to express their confidence in a group of mature men in their midst—but this can be verbalized without turning such men into "officers."

Let me tell you how I am using the word "officers." An officer holds an office. The office has an existence of its own, independent of any particular man who occupies it. When it is vacated, it requires a successor to fill it. It is assumed to have a legitimacy of its own, quite apart from the character of the person who occupies it at a given time. Once there is an established office, there exists a "position" of authority, which even bad men (or at least unqualified men) can aspire for. This is why the Roman Catholic church went so wrong, I think. They had "positions" of cardinals and bishops and priests to fill, and when bad men came into those offices, the church was at their mercy.

By contrast, if individuals are recognized because of their character and their gifts, they can, without holding any "office," do everything for the church that they could have done as an officer, but there would be no vacancy, upon their death or relocation, which might later be filled by a less qualified individual. It is my theory (though I cannot prove it) that, when Paul or his associates appointed elders, they were not creating an inheritable office in the church. The men, no doubt, served in a recognized leadership function until they could no longer provide such service (or, perhaps, until the challenging circumstances that had called for their appointment ceased to exist). Once the existing leaders stepped down or died, the church would return to square-one, and could decide whether or not the service of new recognized leaders would be useful to the needs of the congregation, or whether they might do without them until another need for them should arise.

When it comes to the modern-day alternatives to having an apostle around to recognize elders, I can think of two possible ways that a modern congregation might get the mind of the Lord about who (if anyone) should serve in this capacity:

1) The casting of lots has a good scriptural precedent—even for the selection of an apostle! What is done in this case is to identify every person in the church who has the qualifications of an overseer, and have each one separately draw a straw from a hand that had one short straw and one long one (flipping a coin would be the same, in principle), on the understanding that every man who pulled the correct straw was thereby approved by God's designation (Prov.16:33). Some scholars believe that this is how decisions using the Urim and the Thummim took place—drawing one or the other stone out of the bag (breastplate).

2) An alternative method would be to ask every person in the assembly to privately make a list of every person in their congregation whom they would recognize as a spiritual leader, and whose leadership they would be willing to follow. The elders who would ultimately be selected would simply be those who appeared on every person's list. A man whose name was on every list would be a man who had the unanimous recognition of the whole congregation—so that there would be no one dissenting to his appointment (unlike a majority vote, where a man might be selected though a significant number of congregants had opposed his appointment). This method would prevent any discontentment with or grumbling about any of the appointees.

I have no word from the Lord on these matters, but only give my judgment, as one who has attempted to think through the scriptural issues for many years, according to the limits of my wisdom and spiritual insights. As near as I can tell, the thoughts I have presented above have nothing against them in the scriptures.

[darinhouston]

Why was it necessary then and not now?

I don't think it's a simple issue of changed "necessity."

A lot of things were done then that aren't done now -- for example, we don't have general apostolic action today, either. What they had then that we lack today is the real presence of the apostles so that the "appointment" could be made by them or their legates. The reality is that the church then was in its infancy and there weren't likely elders in nearby or neighboring congregations to help out as need required until elders emerged. So, the apostles appointed them as needed. We also don't have the apostles today giving us inspired teaching -- we have that from the Scripture they left us just as we have their instructions on what sort of men should be considered as elders.

Today, I suspect that if a congregation spontaneously generated from immature Christians and there was no clear eldership (let's use more general terms so we aren't locked into paradigms here)... assume a group of "bikers" in an area came to know the Lord, and they started gathering and having fellowship together but had no clear spiritually mature leadership among them to resolve disputes over doctrine or discipline issues, etc. I would think there would be a nearby congregation they should be able to turn to and some spiritually mature individuals there that they could draw on to fill that need until some time passed and that person felt one or more of them had really been discipled and grown spiritually to a point to be a leader in that respect -- for future issues that arose, that leader might start saying "go talk to Joe about that -- I think he has a good grasp of how to resolve that issue." Over time, a leadership vacuum would be filled as necessary. If over time they grew spiritually at the same rate and they all became mature and handled issues biblically among themselves they may never have need of even an informally designated "leader."

So, not much has changed except that we now have the benefit of the apostolic teaching instead of the direct action of the apostles. We get hung up on these words -- I thin it's just a matter of leadership and function and not positional authority.

This scenario no doubt arises in mission fields, and perhaps (like the apostles) someone in a missionary function (like an apostle) might feel the need to actually appoint someone in the new congregation as their "stand-in" or to have functional leadership in their absence.

[anochria]

steve wrote:

I find it perplexing that Paul had not attended to the appointment of the elders in the churches of Crete prior to this

I've always just taken this to mean that Paul waited for the churches to get past their infancy stage in order to even be able to identify who could serve in the role of Elder.

steve wrote:

I think Paul considered a church's not having appointed elders, and a church's having them, as equally normal circumstances—depending on the need of the church and the presence or absence of qualified individuals to receive such a vote of apostolic confidence.

I agree on this.

To me, having officially recognized elders serves two purposes:

1) It's pragmatically helpful in that it identifies to new people and to those who are in most need in the congregation particular people that they can approach for help and service. Not that there aren't other people in the church who couldn't be turned to as well, but it provides for an easily recognizable group of people.

2) It's helpful for the group to know how practical decisions are going to made. I'm not a fan of congregational-style voting nor of monarchical autocratic leadership. Rather, I think it is good to have a plurity of elders making decisions with the prayerful input of the entire community of believers.

If certain people aren't willing to be identified as Elders or Deacons, then how does the leadership know who to make such decisions with, without being arbitrary or showing favoritism?

Regarding the appointing of elders, aren't you making it a bit too complicated focusing on the need for apostles to identify them? Obviously those churches nominated their own elders before long without the input of the apostles and no one seems to have had a problem with their ability to do so.

[anochria]

So, another thought/ question,

I'm just not so sure that "office" is always a bad thing or a thing that doesn't have a place in the family of God.

And the apostles must not of either if at least in some cases they "appointed" elders- that is, specifically said, "member X is an Elder", "member Y is an Elder". That's bestowing a title to me.

Now I agree that in the kingdom of God a title in and of itself doesn't inhere any automatic authority. And I share the same concerns about all the possible negative effects of titles. But titles still have uses- in keeping things organized, in clearing up confusion, in helping an individual get a clearer sense of their particular mission/ calling/ giftedness. I just don't think "titles" or "offices" are inherently antithetical to the family of God.

Part of this is that I am probably more ceremonially oriented than a lot of you. I have found great value in my experience of "ordination" for instance. The ceremony surrounding it (and it was minimal- we're talking a house church mind you) was very beneficial for me in "considering the cost" and "not looking back" and "running the race" purposefully. This probably varies from person to person- I know it does in our congregation.

We've got Chris who couldn't give a fig about titles or ceremony (hmmm, I wonder who has influenced him ) to others who really benefit from and benefit others through those things that might be considered sacramental, ceremonial, or to some degree formal.

[mikew]

Special giftings is what elders I've seen have, mostly the holy spirit is just there with them through it all, the last elders we all should be so lucky to be near, but they did move to two towns away, and I don't think they're coming back. (BTW, my daughter asks me often to not post or comment, so when you don't see me online, that's why.) how about the smiley face with the sunglasses; =)

We would naturally expect scripture to say that the elders should have special gifts such as prophecy or miracles. But it is interesting to see that Paul only listed basic personality traits and management/reputation qualifications.

On one hand the scripture doesn't prohibit a man gifted with prophecy from being an overseer. Conversely there is no requirement that he should have the gift of prophecy.

[christopher]

We've got Chris who couldn't give a fig about titles or ceremony (hmmm, I wonder who has influenced him )

No doubt there is influence, I agree with Steve almost point for point on this particular issue. But it could also be that birds of a feather flock together .

My personal experience is that I've seen too many men (some very close friends) change for the worst when they've received the title of "elder". You and Brian are rare exceptions so I have no objections in this case.

I've also been in situations where elders were either not needed or not tenable. In the house church we met with for two years, there were no elders, nor were they needed. In the prison I minister in, the guys often lament the fact that there are no elders in their group (it's actually illegal for them to have this arrangement). I have to remind them that their fellowship is just fine without them and they have a unique opportunity to work things out by exercising love (patience, kindness, etc.) and reason (using scripture as the final authority) rather than "official" decree.

[darinhouston]

But it is interesting to see that Paul only listed basic personality traits and management/reputation qualifications.

Huh?

[anochria]

You and Brian are rare exceptions so I have no objections in this case.

Yeah, but you should have known me before I was an elder/pastor. I was a really great guy then