Where are all the elders?

In 2007 Tim Keller (New York) addressed the London Evangelical Ministry Assembly (EMA) thus: ‘If people are saying conservative evangelicals don’t know how to preach and don’t know how to minister in a way that reaches the working class or the poor, then I’m not able to tell you how to change that, but why in the world aren’t you talking about it incessantly?

‘You need to think biblically and theologically on race and class. You’re way behind on being able to integrate your congregations racially. But why aren’t you thinking about it? Why aren’t you talking about it? Why aren’t you writing papers about it? Why aren’t you producing books about it? “Ah”, you say, “we’ve got to deal with all these doctrinal issues...”’

The following is not a new view, but a representation of one long held by many across the social, ethnic, generational and denominational divides. Consid-ering the title question will show that doctrinal issues regarding eldership lie at the bottom of quite a few problems, not least that raised by Keller.

The heart of the matter: common practice is adrift from God’s design.

Paul describes the work of elders as ‘taking care of God’s church’ (1 Timothy 3.5) and ‘directing the affairs of the church’ (1 Timothy 5.17). They are the pastors of the church. They do this through care, teaching, setting a good example and prayer. The deacons are helpers to the elders.

‘Elders’ are not juniors

Within a local church the New Testament (NT) has two ‘officials’: elders and deacons. The myriad extra-biblical titles now used should be rejected as exactly that. Appointing an elder is the creation of a fully-fledged leader, not a lower ranked junior.

‘Paul “empowered” these new leaders. He gave them ownership, and thus lost a lot of control. This is a huge barrier for churches... Ministers are also afraid of giving away glory... An additional problem — that when you let go, you lose direct control, but you can’t really avoid responsibility for problems. It is like being the parent of an adult child. You are not allowed to directly tell them what to do...’ (Keller).

‘Elders’ is a plural word

a. Two by two, not one by one

Christ sent out the 12 and the 70 in twos. The successes of the NT church: Antioch with its five elders then send out Paul and Barnabas, later Paul and Silas, who, having benefited from the Antioch pattern, ‘appointed elders [plural] in every church’. Obvious and irrefutable, yet largely ignored.

One-man leadership is not the pattern, for good reasons:

i. Lack of fellowship. It is not good for man to be alone. Yet many a man is sent out in splendid isolation, making it hard for anyone to really help bear his burden.

ii. Lack of counsel. Iron sharpening iron, our inevitable imbalance being compensated for by another’s perspective. Comfort and assurance that you are not just being ‘pigheaded’, but are collectively coming to decisions about forward motion for the Kingdom, thus your mistakes are shared, as well as the blessings. So both depression over perceived ‘failure’ and pride over success are softened.

iii. Potential puffing up. We are to call no one Father or Teacher. Yet it is inevitable if they dominate the leadership that they will both feel (and be) revered by some.

iv. Feeling threatened. If he is opposed, yet feels he must be the ‘leader’, then he feels his whole position and placement is under attack rather than merely a particular action. If you are alone at the top, you may feel you have to be right all the time, or leave. So every such decision may become much more serious, more bitterly fought over than it should be; and too personal, not sufficiently reflective...

Amplifying problems

The Bible is very realistic about the inevitability of good men appointing bad men. It will happen. Jesus did it. Paul did it. The principle of plurality of elders, with no ‘dominant’ pastor, is a huge and wise damage limitation mechanism.

For the one man system unusually amplifies problems in the case of an ‘unsuitable’ (not qualified for the task) or ‘bad’ (positively gone astray) elder.

i. Training up/choosing others in his image. The ‘unsuitable’ elder will quite possibly appoint elders who are more ‘unsuitable’ or even ‘bad’. Thus, a return to sanity and health for a church becomes a challenge for those who seek it.

ii. Getting ‘yes’ men in and independent thinkers out. A serious ‘bad’ man will not appoint anyone who does not align with him. He is not looking for Christ to be ruler of the church, but himself. An ‘official’ hierarchical system would be favoured by him.

b. Elders appointing, not men volunteering

In the NT model: a good elder is one who trains up others, who disciples; a bad elder is one who fails to pass on the baton, has stayed indispensable.

Passing on what you have learned to trustworthy men cannot be done entirely from the pulpit. Being an imitator of Christ means you will not simply preach, but also seriously disciple. One of the two times recorded where Jesus prayed all night was just prior to the choosing of the 12 disciples.

Let us also stop the misdirected, miserable moaning, ‘Where are all the men?’ Misdirected — for we are to ‘ask the Lord of the harvest’, not plead with the men of the church from the pulpit. Miserable — for we talk of the failure of men to ‘come forward’ rather than the failure of elders to actively discern, appoint and train new ones.

‘Where are all the men? God is good and has given us all the men and gifts we need in our churches, all that remains is for us to identify, appoint and train them’ (Richard Underwood, General Secretary, FIEC, introduction to Pwllheli Conference booklet).

‘Suppose all our churches were immediately to “set apart” every suitable man for the work of the gospel: within five years a large proportion of churches, now pastorless, would not be so!’ (Clifford Pond, letter, Grace Magazine).

‘While welcoming an enquiry into “the lack of men coming forward for pastoral ministry”, I wonder if too many of us are looking at this problem from the wrong end? In the New Testament young men did not “come forward” or “offer themselves” as a result of an inward conviction, a pulpit appeal, or even a survey. They usually seem to have been chosen by the local church. ...although much has changed in 2,000 years, it is to our great loss that we sideline or ignore the role of the prayerful congregation and its local leadership’ (Chris Idle, letter, Evangelicals Now).

Keller also observed another problem with ‘awaiting volunteers’ as against ‘proactive discernment’ of gifts — the volunteers will be the folk who feel most able to approach the current leadership. Hence: ‘If I don’t target and don’t go after people of other races and try to cultivate them as leaders, in a sense I’m not really creating a level playing field for the development of leadership across the ethnic spectrum’ (EMA, 2007).

Many see theological college training as essential, which also alters the playing field — unless a church both chooses and funds the man (and family) — and even then you may have people so involved in their locality that they feel it wrong to go.

Character of elders

A plurality of idiots who prefer quarrelling, getting their way or keeping traditions (rather than gospelling to the glory of God) would be highly unproductive. Thus we arrive at the biblical controls on the crucial character of an elder.

a. Gentle oaks, not young striplings

1 Timothy 3 is not talking about younger men, but those who are of an age where they could have raised a family that’s old enough to observe behaviour traits in their children which will indicate the competence of that man to lead. It is a curse when ‘mere children govern’ and ‘youths oppress my people’.

Spurgeon said that men who make no use of the free pulpit should not enter the paid pulpit. If they don’t bless folk in casual conversation, but seek to from the front, one asks, ‘Is that a shepherd’s heart or a desire for pre-eminence?’

Natural hierarchy, not forced hierarchy: he who is greatest among you will be least. Foreman of the church is a wrong view (the Gentiles lord it) — friend in church, stable solid guy, and servant is right view — a servant king — for no servant is greater than his master. The king is gentle, and rides a donkey. He lived and died entirely for the service of others. To appoint someone elder is to recognise what God has already given to a man.

b. Been with Jesus, not been to college

We tend to look for a man with a piece of paper from some man-made institution saying he knows about God — an ability to ‘teach’ according to the forms of our day. That’s neither enough nor required. The Scriptures have a deeper standard.

i. Taught by God, not by men/gifting of God, not learning of men. ‘The sovereign LORD has given me an instructed tongue, to know the word that sustains the weary’ (Isaiah 50.4).

Teaching is a spiritual gift given by God, and cannot simply be learned at college. If there were a few more Christians who had prayerfully read the whole Bible a good few times, morning by morning had their ear opened by God, then every group of local churches might become a heavyweight chamber of discipling (Latin for ‘learning’).

ii. Skilled in knowledge, not in speech. An intimate (not an abstract) knowledge of the Holy One produces an inimitable love of the gospel and joy in Christ:

‘Most churches make the mistake of selecting as leaders the confident, the competent and the successful, but what you most need in a leader is someone who has been broken by his or her sin and has even greater knowledge of Jesus’s costly grace. So the number one leaders in every church ought to be the people who repent the most fully without excuses (because you don’t need any now), the most easily without bitterness, the most publicly and the most joyfully — they know their standing isn’t based on their performance’ (Keller, EMA, 2007).

iii. A Spirit sword, not a clanging cymbal. ‘He made my mouth like a sharp sword... he made me a polished arrow’ (Isaiah 49.2).

In a man prepared by God, don’t look for eloquence, superior wisdom, or wise and persuasive words (according to the world’s idea of teaching), but a demonstration of the Spirit and of power. For the word of God is sharper than a double-edged sword and, in the hands of a man gifted in its use, your heart will be pierced and penetrated as you feel the sharp edge of iron striking iron, for the Kingdom of God does not consist in talk but in power.

By contrast the loveless will, at best, be able to deliver a blunt sword stroke.

iv. Rough ‘n ready, not prim ‘n proper/unschooled and ordinary, not academic. ‘Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated and untrained men, they marvelled. And they realised that they had been with Jesus’ (Acts 4.13).

If a college trained elder is looking for leaders like him, he’d pass these two by. Peter had been with Jesus for three years, yet remained armed and distinctly dangerous (ask Malchus). What kind of mentor could have so failed to impact a man given that time, and not only continued with such an inappropriate candidate, but built plans on him, called him ‘Rock’, and within two months had him leading the fastest growing church in history? Foolish God or Discipler of men?

Preaching is too precious, you have to be whiter than white, according to the traditions of the elders. We doubt Peter would have got a chance. John Bunyan, the tinkerman, wouldn’t be able to preach in many churches.

c. Pleasing pagans, not Pharisees

i. Jesus people, not church people. Sinners gathered round him. Pharisees plotted to kill him. The people heard him gladly, the Pharisees stopped up their ears and ran to stone him. It’s always been like this. Pharisees, not full gospel ministers, vex and burden pagans. The true gospel is wild and radical, lost people love it when they hear it, yes, they will oppose, but growing in favour with God and man when you walk in the true path is as inevitable as suffering persecution. Persecution most commonly comes from the religious and officious.

He must be of good reputation outside the church. If his name produces a ‘look’, or people think him a freak, then he isn’t your man — he can’t get on with ordinary folk. His ‘godliness’ is alienating, not trust gaining.

ii. People of their times, not their fathers’ times. We need men who can uncage the gospel from hampering traditions to make it freely available and easily understood in the culture of the next generation. Men who have learned well how to sermonise in ‘church language’ are not who we are after. They will cage the gospel. Inevitably there will be some legalists who will be upset by the life and teaching of a good candidate.

We get tricked into believing formalism and ritualistic styles are good, instead of the accessibility of God, of the carpenter, of the shepherd, and do not allow for the diversity of the messenger’s character that God has always shown.

d. Representative, not elitist

All of the above, taken together, tend to put people on a much more level playing field where it’s just about godliness and gifting, not about class, wealth, or fitting in with cultural systems — but here are two more specifically on this:

i. Dominance of the foolish, not the wise. ‘For you see your calling, brethren: not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth’ (1 Corinthians 1.26).

Yet conservative evangelicalism has arrived at a situation where it seems often dominated by the academic and the middle class. We know God is no respecter of persons and gives gifts liberally to all men. Thus, given the nature of our calling, we would expect to see a dominance of the disregarded. Yet there are few ‘London’ accents among the many London pulpits.

ii. From among them, not above them. ‘Their leader will be one of their own; their ruler will arise from among them’ (Jeremiah 30.21).

You are after one of the people — his character is known well, his knowledge of the flock deep, and because he is known to them he will also be more approachable. Can we say of our leadership: ‘There is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all — for the middle wall of partition has been broken down’? Or are our elders monochrome and unlike the diversity of our communities and churches? The NT elders were appointed ‘from among them’, whereas now standard practice is to bring in both the ‘top guy’ and ‘little guys’ (yoof workers, curates, etc.) from outside the church. What madness, the exception has become the rule!

Conclusion

You may not be in total agreement, but surely we have at least some truths here that need addressing? Reforming in the light of these in our varied situations is a complex and challenging task we cannot ignore — as part of the armies of God in the raging war against Satan.

God didn’t leave a structure of leadership there for a joke. Is Jesus Christ Lord over our churches in deed as well as word? Perhaps we ought to ask another question: ‘Where is the Lordship of Christ in the appointment of elders?’

Tom Seidler is a member of a small church in Streatham and works at the Good Book Company.

For the full, referenced article, see: http://www.harmlesswise.com/0708-elders.