Surely, one of the most fateful moments in a church’s history is when new elders are appointed. As new men are added to the mix, an eldership’s personality subtly, sometimes dramatically, changes. It’s essential that the changes be for the good.
Unfortunately, the Churches of Christ have developed some habits in elder selection that sometimes lead to poor choices.
We usually start the process with a sermon on the qualifications of elders. These sermons are nearly always built on 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 2, each of which is list of qualities to be sought in an elder.
The problem with this approach is that it overlooks much of the guidance the Bible gives on the subject (to be discussed in part 2), assuming that these lists are comprehensive. They are not. Worse yet, the way we read these lists tends to set the standards artificially low. Consider the list in Titus, for example–
(Titus 1:6-9) An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. 7 Since an overseer is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless–not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. 8 Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. 9 He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.
It has frequently been commented that every Christian should meet these standards, other than being married and having children. Moreover, it’s only natural to focus on the more tangible elements–married, with children who are well behaved–and overlook the more subtle requirements–holy, able to refute those who deny the “trustworthy message.”
And some elements listed here, taken out of context, establish an awfully low standard–not violent! not pursuing dishonest gain! Surely being a shepherd of God’s flock requires more than not being a criminal! But these are easily understood standards, and so we focus on them. The more subjective elements are harder to insist on, especially when reputations and feelings are at stake.
Once nominations are made, the church leadership typically asks the members to let them know if they have any “scriptural objections,” with a heavy emphasis on the “scriptural” requirement. No one may object if they can’t find the objection in Titus or 1 Timothy.
Well, what if the man is insufferable? What if he’s full of himself? Such problems plainly contradict that idea of being holy and upright, but we routinely ordain insufferable, arrogant men, because the rules aren’t clear to many members and because we feel pressure not to object unless the objection is very clear. It’s just so rude to complain about a nomination based on an interpretation!
What if he’s a legalist? Legalism contradicts the requirement to hold to the trustworthy message, which is the gospel (compare the use of logos, translated “message” here with its use in1 Tim. 1:1-3, where it’s translated “word,” for example). Legalism is not sound doctrine, but we often confuse knowing a lot with knowing the Truth.
You see, we are so hung up on interpreting the rules correctly–getting the right number of wives and children–that we forget to discover the heart of the scriptures. And these passages were written with more important concerns at the forefront. Words like “blameless,” “holy,” “upright,” “disciplined,” and “loves what is good” are rich with meaning and yet are vague. We want to find bright-line tests, but the most important tests are gray and smeary.
This is, I believe, intentional. This vagueness gives the membership considerable discretion to decide who really is suitable for this most-important position, and yet we get hung up on whether the elder has only one child. We are focusing on the wrong things!
The more spiritual the requirement, the more important it is. We should spend 100 times more sermon time on “holy” than on some of the more tangible standards. And we have to remember that you don’t have truly sound doctrine unless you have the same emphasis in your teaching and understanding as the Bible. A man who can can explain the meanings of psallo in depth but who doesn’t understand and live “love your neighbor” is no shepherd. A man focused on the sins of other congregations and denominations is concerned about the wrong flock.
In Part 2, we’ll consider the additional guidance to be found in other scriptures.
