So what do we do with bad elders — men who have no business being elders? And how should the congregation respond to a bad decision by good elders?
Bad elders
No elder is perfect, and all elderships will make mistakes. But sometimes a man is ordained when in fact he has no business being an elder. He simply is not gifted to serve in that role — at all.
He may be domineering. He may act without concern for the flock. He may undercut the other elders. What should the church do?
Sadly, the Churches of Christ have very little teaching on how to deal with truly bad elders. We just let them get in the way, running off members and destroying God’s congregations. After all, there’s no denominational hierarchy to remove them, and the church has no right of recall.
In my congregation, we require new elders to sign a pledge to quietly resign if the other elders ask him to do so. We take that pledge with the utmost seriousness, and we’ve never had an elder even pause before signing. So far, the men we’ve ordained have so respected the other elders with whom they serve that they gladly make such a pledge. And this pledge makes the elders truly accountable to one another.
Other congregations adopt a rule that elders must stand for re-affirmation every so often, maybe every five years. In fact, some churches require an elder to take a year off every so many years and then be re-nominated and re-ordained to serve again.
Dub McClish, a Memphis preacher, has declared elder re-affirmation apostasy, but it’s an absurd argument. He says the practice is unauthorized because the scriptures are silent on such a process. But McClish thereby makes elders into monarchs, with lifetime appointments, regardless of conduct.
After all, elders must meet certain qualifications — not just those in the lists but also those denoted by the terms used for them — shepherd, overseer, and elder — and by the Spirit’s gifting of these men. If a man ceases to be qualified or is shown to have never been qualified, what’s the process to remove him? There’s no authority for leaving him in place! Indeed, to do so is to violate the scriptures — which is far worse than violating a silence — as though such a thing could be done. It’s a strange doctrine indeed that overrides specific instructions with a silence!
Another alternative is found in the scriptures —
(1Ti 5:19-20 ESV) 19 Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 20 As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.
The church has the power to try an elder for a sin persisted in. Domineering is a sin, because it violates the very words of Jesus. Not all decisions that the congregation might disagree with are sin, but where the sin is evident and not repented of after proper warning (see Matthew 18), the church may well formally rebuke an elder.
Indeed, under Matthew 18, the church could go so far as to disfellowship him. And if the church can disfellowship him altogether, surely the church can take the lesser step of removing him from office.
But this is a rare and very difficult thing to do. Speaking as an elder, I’d far rather be asked to quietly resign than be charged with sin before the entire church.
I can relate. However, that is simply substituting a plan of our design for the plan we read in scripture. The scriptures *do* instruct the evangelist to rebuke the elder who persists in sin. If instead we allow him to simply resign as a sort of plea bargain, we don’t carry out the commanded public rebuke. And the others are not quite so afraid.
Maybe it would be better just to do what the scriptures say. We take a pretty hard line on that sort of thing in other areas.
Jay, I appreciate so much your point that domineering is a sin. Pride and bullying has not yet made the top 10 list of sins in many, especially legalistic, churches. But that is what law keeping does…it ignores what we are supposed to be within.
I do think it needs to be pointed out also that the fear of the other elders, and members, that keeps the domineering leader from being confronted contributes just as much to the destruction of the congregation. Too often does an individual who is not as bold as others, who has been run over or pushed aside, have to hear from the other leaders, “Well, there’s nothing we can do about temperament or personality”; there are many leaders who keep this handy little reason very close for just such occassions.
“Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth”, is not just a nice little saying. Jesus was by-passing the religious leaders of his day to tell those who were seen as weak, who felt weak, that the Father had given to THEM all things; not to those who hold that pride is acceptable as long as one “boasts in the Lord”.
Jay, sometime when it’s convenient and in the flow of things, I’d like to hear your thoughts on why you think Paul put so much authority in the Preacher (Timothy) and is that an “office.” I find it odd that Paul would put the authority to publicly rebuke an Elder in the hands of a Preacher instead of the group of Elders… Most Preachers I know of in the CoC aren’t “allowed” to be an Elder and have zero authority. Influence, yes but no authority… Deacons have authority but not the Preacher who is the one to rebuke the Elder and put fear in the hearts of the other Elders ? I can’t reconcile that with my experiences… but then, who am I right ?
“If a man ceases to be qualified or is shown to have never been qualified, what’s the process to remove him? There’s no authority for leaving him in place! Indeed, to do so is to violate the scriptures — which is far worse than violating a silence — as though such a thing could be done. It’s a strange doctrine indeed that overrides specific instructions with a silence!”
Amen!
In my congregation, we require new elders to sign a pledge to quietly resign if the other elders ask him to do so.
“And this pledge makes the elders truly accountable to one another.”
It seems to me that anyone could fill the office of elder at your church, as long as he did what he was told. Please explain how I am wrong.
Does becomming an elder exempt one from Matt-18, or does that just apply to members.?
Mat 18:15 ¶ Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
Mat 18:16 But if he will not hear [thee, then] take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
Mat 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell [it] unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
When they quitely resign, do they also have to lie about the reason, like “I need to spend more time with my family” That is totally horriable, it shows mistrust from the beginning. I believe anyone who would sign your pledge of allegeance to the eldership thinks more of the job, than his beliefs.
But Alan, are you saying the elders are exempt from Mt 18? So if I sin against my brother, I may have the “easy” out of only being rebuked by him; but if an elder sins against his brother (or congregation), the only option for him is a public rebuke? He IS still a part of the body; I don’t understand why they are not subject to the same disciplines as the rest of the body…
Price makes a good point. (a common occurrence!) I also find it a bit odd trying to reconcile 1 Tim 5:1 with 1 Tim 5:20. Some have said that 1 Tim 5:20 refers to rebuke of any member who sins, not specifically elders. I’m not sure that’s correct, given that the immediate context speaks of accusations against elders. However that is difficult to reconcile with verse 1, where Timothy is commanded not to rebuke an elder (generally understood to mean any older man, not specifically one in the office of elder). If he is supposed to exhort an older man as a father, how much more respect should be given to one who has been selected and appointed as an elder?
The NIV, which is notorious for concealing difficulties like this, does so in this case too… saying those who sin “are to be rebuked publicly” without saying who should do the rebuking. But as far as I can tell (and based on multiple other translations) the Greek does instruct Timothy to do the rebuking. OTOH, Acts 20 places the responsibility on elders to be on their guard and to protect the flock from bad leaders arising from their own number. That seems to me to be a better option when it is possible.
Note also that the text says nothing about removing an elder from office. I agree with Jay (if I understand him right) that when an elder falls to the point of being disfellowshipped, he is obviously also removed from office. Short of that, I am less certain. Where there are several other elders, it seems that one rogue elder could not cause too much trouble without entering into the category Acts 20 warns about.
In any case, public rebuke and/or removing from office should be done only in the most extreme circumstances — certainly not to change the balance of power between two dissenting groups of elders on some contentious subject.
Brad, I agree that the Matt 18 process applies equally to elders and to other members. But I think elders are held to a higher standard, which is why I think 1 Tim 5:20 gives specific instructions on how to handle a sinning elder. A public rebuke would only be appropriate for persistent, unrepented sin, and only after private efforts fail to bring about repentance.
Actually, Alan, Timothy was an apostle (see I Thess 1:1 and 2:6). That aside, I think that Paul’s counsel to him was not just a format for removing an ordained elder, but of addressing accusations within the basis of a relationship first.
When we speak of the “evangelist”, what do we mean? That 25 year old Sunset graduate these same elders just hired and can fire tomorrow for any reason or none? I was once asked, as a young preacher, to get involved in a burgeoning church split in my hometown; to come back and ordain one of two competing slates of elders. Only the grace of God kept me (and my youthful arrogance) out of that disaster with nothing more than a letter asking them not to be divisive. What kind of gravitas or authority does the “preacher” have here? Is he long-tenured, mature and respected in the community? Or something else… like a green employee with a new baby who owes his next house payment to these men you want him to correct? I think here you have made a bad legal process out of a good piece of advice.
The difficulty with the autonomous local congregations we Protestants have invented is that there is no real authority. Everybody ultimately votes with his feet. Those who experience “bad elders” have to form some sort of ad hoc council outside the input of the elders, to try to address the problem. No outside wisdom or input is allowed, lest we vote in a Pope as a result.
Jay reports in an earlier post of an ugly, Spiritless process of trying to save a local congregation from a combination of leadership mendacity and weakness, trying to negotiate an agreement between the coyote and the sheepish shepherds in such a way as not to violate some vague biblical standards of submission. I am glad that these folks eventually came out the other end of the tunnel, but the whole process he reported reflects little of God’s leading and much of trying anything to keep our local club from going under.
Bad elders are a direct result of congregational autonomy. And the more I look at that sentence, the more I believe it is true. Any safeguards or avenues of recourse are sawed off in a thoughtless effort to avoid at all costs the involvement of anyone outside the club. This does not mean religious hierarchies cannot ill-suited or even evil leaders, but this requires political manipulation on a much larger scale.
I would suggest that the agreement that Jay’s elders make to “resign quietly” works like any contract. That is, it works until someone decides to breach it. If an elder is somehow innocently unaware of his incapacity, such a device should effectively deal with it. If the elder does not wish to resign, and thinks the other elders to be in the wrong, then I suppose all the recourse that is left is for the remaining elders to drag his dirty laundry into public view, to shame him for not keeping his promise to resign, and if said pressure does not work, to form an ecclesiastical council to oust him.
If a bad elder had arisen in Thessalonica or Ephesus, I suspect someone would have just called Paul or Timothy in to settle the matter. In Crete, perhaps Titus. In Antioch, it took James et al to get changes to stick. But since we have foolishly decided that the apostolic gift to the church is dead, we are left with a choice between local politics or religious hierarchy. Bad substitutes, both, in my opinion.
Wow, a lot of conclusions being jumped to.
First in ALL conflict situations Matthew 18 applies. So I don’t think anyone would suggest otherwise. What we are discussing here, or what I perceive us to be discussing here, is what we do when that process has not resulted in reconciliation and we are dealing with an elder. There are no clear instructions for how to proceed at that point in the text – though you can see God’s attitude in Ezekiel as making it clear that abusive elders whould not stay in place.
As for an elder entering an agreement to resign if he gets crossways with the rest, I think that is very wise. And if it results in men merely doing what they have been told you have placed the wrong men in the eldership to begin with.
I was teaching a class on 1 Timothy once, and when I came to 5:20 I asked, “What would happen to the evangelist who did this?” One of the elders replied, maybe with tongue in cheek, said, “Why, he’d be fired, of course!”
More seriously, some of the comments above fail to recognize that it is the elder who persists in sin who is to be rebuked publicly. This is in line with the Matthew 18 passage about going to a brother privately and even with one or two others before telling it to the church. Paul is not contradicting Jesus.
Charles,
Autonomy comes from two Greek words, autos or self and nomos or law. Literally, autonomy is a law unto one’s self.
Do we really, in sticking up for autonomy in the local congregation, intend to maintain that each local group is a law unto itself? In some ways we act like it at times. At other times we see one congregation trying to meddle in the affairs of another autonomous body of believers!
There has to be a happy medium between an authoritarian hierarchy and congregations claiming autonomy while going around anathematizing other sister groups. I wish I knew what that happy spot is! I suspect, though, that it lies in the idea of mutual submission and love in the brotherhood of believers. If I am so autonomous that I cannot even listen to someone from another congregation who has difficulties with my words or actions, chances are I do not have that humility and love in my heart. On the other hand, if I go around speaking ill of other congregations without ever talking with them I exhibit that same lack of humble submission and love for them. I guess what I am saying is that lack of harmony between congregations needs to be handled in somewhat the same way that lock of harmony between individuals within a congregation is handled.
A very weighty subject indeed!
My wife and I were just discussing the subject of removing from office by force and execution a leader of the countries of the world. I pointed to David’s response towards the one who killed Saul. The man was put to death. I surmised that he was put to death not for the execution of a leader, but rather his attitude in the process. He did not have a deep respect for the office regardless of the quality of the officer.
God places all of those in authority in authority. It is a grievous thing to undo what God has done. It is to be done with a great deal of fear and trembling.
I have been asked, as a deacon, this question about how to do it. I rejected the notion on the lack of scriptural authority. There is no way to remove by force an elder or elder-ship, Period!
However, an elder-ship and an elder’s office is one of mutual respect. The honor and adherence to the authority or lack there of will be evident. The elder and elder-ship would be wise in paying attention to how the congregation responds to their example and teaching.
I have seen one elder-ship removed in my life. It was done by a very wise minister. He simply preached on the subject of elder-ship from the pulpit and talked with them privately. They as a group acquiesced over time, but it was a very peaceful as far as the public’s attention was concerned transition.
I think the bottom line of his wisdom came from having a great deal of respect for the babes in Christ. He did not want them to be dis-heartened in the process. At the time, I was one. I had no idea there was a problem. They one day resigned and we moved on. I am sure the strong in the faith knew what was happening for this minister has never acted alone and without lots of prayer in any thing he has done.
god be with us as we choose and take to heart what Paul’s word to Timothy was, to not make that decision lightly. The placing into office an elder is one of serious outcomes and responsibilities. It should not be entered into lightly by the congregation nor the individual in question.
Pray for them to lead in wisdom from God.
We have the reaffirmation practice where part of the eldership is reaffirmed about every two-three years. This also gives elders who feel they need to take a break to request a sabbatical. Since we often need new elders at that time it is also when new ones can be selected and installed which could include an elder who had taken a sabbatical, re-desires and has been reselected.
Fortunately we have never had to ask an elder to step down but we have begun developing polices to help us handle issues should they arise. A few may ask why a set of policies. Some issues that occur day to day cause unintended consequences (they could also be intended by a domineering elder/staff member). For example when an elder says something to a staff member is he speaking as a member of the body or for the eldership. It may not be clear to staff/person being spoken to and it may contradict an opinion another elder has given. Other, more serious issues, often involve a lot of emotion (often ignoring hoping it will go away or division) and this gives us a guideline as we “go” to that brother or sister.
I must add in light of our history. Policy and rules make for doctrine and false teachings. I am not condemning the practice of wise actions. We just need to make very sure these well intended measures do not become doctrines of divisions in about 20 years. The word of god is sufficient, in my humble opinion.
Pardon me for posting a third time. I can’t help but meditate on things that were said above.
One of the statements as to the frequency of our choosing s concerns me. During sabbaticals and other time outs for what ever they are called matters not. The need to fill the vacancy brings forth the call to do so. I find this an interesting process. One that brings to mind:
Eph 4:11 It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers,
Eph 4:12 to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up
Eph 4:13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.
The key in here is that Christ Jesus our Lord gives us who and in what capacity we need.
The question I have in my mind is the discernment of and timing of accepting what God has given us. I do not think that we must go out side our autonomous congregations to find it. (partially another subject all together for another time.)
I cannot say I find comfort in the limited terms some churches are placing on their elders. If these relationships are what they are supposed to be, this is like having to renew your marriage license. If they are not, should the church suffer while they wait for Bad Elder to expire?
As too often is the case, we reveal our vision for elders as business managers when we think a rotating directorship with recurring proxy votes fits the dynamic of leadership we have.
Jerry, I agree that there is another way besides autonomy and hierarchy. I have seen a better way done in several congregations, where relationships between local elders, local fellowships and extralocal apostles provided a good balance of humility and authority and kept the focus on relationship and prayer rather than on expediency and protecting ourselves from one another by policies, by-laws, and elder “pre-nup” agreements.
Jay, it seems like you mentioned in one of these articles that there may have been at least a 1,000 members in some of the cities mentioned in the first century churches… One would have to wonder what Paul would have thought about having 15 different churches, all with their own Elder groups, who refused to cooperate with each other over the number of cups used in communion, varying support for the poor and whether there was one bathroom or several… One has to wonder if the words of Paul in Philippians 4:2 “I plead with Euodia and I plead with Syntyche to agree with each other in the Lord.” wouldn’t today be adapted to admonish ABC Street Church of Christ and XYZ Street Church of Christ… I think it’s time for the Elder groups in the various cities to come together.. Unity is a priority of the church and if the Elder groups can’t agree to lead in that direction then perhaps they shouldn’t be recognized at all…
The concept is that the eldership is for the whole city-wide church. LaGard Smith made an excellent study on this in “Radical Restoration” linking the NT elders to the OT elders who sat in the gates of the cities.
While each house church will be led by gifted teachers or evangelists, the church as a whole is led by the elders – and it was a natural development that from among these elders one spokesman was chosen that later became called “bishop”. This threefold model of church leadership is first mentioned in Asia Minor where the Apostle John lived until the days of Trajan. Only a few years later in the letters of Ignatius we find this as a well established system (not a novelty invented by Ignatius). In these letters we see the presbyters and the bishop as safeguards for unity.
Inspite of later abuses of this position I believe that the threefold leadership (bishop-elders-deacons) is as apostolic as the twofold (bishops=elders – deacons). The size of the city wide church determines it. Think about it: Even though Jerusalem had many elders, James was the recognized spokesman there – early church history calls him the bishop.
Our dilemma is our disunity as churches in a city. We (all churches) truly would have to die to ourselves in order to restore a truly apostolic city-wide church under one leadership.
Alexander
I have a couple of comments. First, I think it very unlikely that any CofC evangelist or preacher is going to challenge the authority of an Elder unless they have already determined that they are ready for a change of ministry. Most CofC preachers I know are very careful about challenging anything at all about the eldership… for good reason. Some will not even respond to even the most non-controversal emails. I assume because they don’t want any of their thoughts to be captured in print.
Second, I have been on the receiving end of a non-renewal vote. This was as a deacon not an elder and it was a result of actions I took as the Church treasurer not as a deacon. It all stemed from a decision to take a offering to help the minister with Hospital bills he had as a result of an auto accident. Some people made their checks out to the minister directly instead of to the Church. As the treasurer, I contacted them and told them I could give their checks to the minister but if they wanted a tax deduction, the checks would have to be made out to the church. All agreed to exchange their initial checks and gave me new checks made out to the church. But, they then got together and decided that I had somehow over stepped my responsibility. I knew nothing about this and thought I was in good graces with everyone until the annual meeting where we voted on elders and deacons. I was voted down. I was absolutely blindsided and stunned by the vote… my wife was crying. For awhile, I felt that I was absolutely justified in never going to church again. So yes, I would have preferred that the charges had been identified to me before I voted out. I would have preferred that the entire conflict be talked about in private and if it still seemed likely that I would still be voted down, I would have resigned rather than subject my wife and family to the humiliation of being voted down. I still feel that I did nothing wrong in that I merely pointed out the fact that I couldn’t deposit a check made out to the preacher in the church bank account but never-the-less you can’t account for people’s actions when they get together and decided they have been wronged somehow. And if they decide to take unbiblical action, it can result in great personal injury.
Alexander, the difference I would pose to the model you suggest is that it fails to recognize where these elders come from. They are the shepherds in these homes and small groups. That role does NOT get handed over to “gifted” (read “professional”) persons, indeed it is the role of the elder in caring for individual sheep in his small circle that qualifies him to be considered one of the elders in the city. This reality is what keeps the council of elders from becoming a detached political body of representatives. Deaconates would arise as functional necessities– both at the small and city-wide level.
Where there arises a need for leadership among the elders, this, too is functional. I also believe that the role of the apostle is to bring about a stable dynamic of this sort in a city. Until there is a unified council of godly elders, the apostle serves as an external “binding agent” of sorts, a point of accountability for elders. After the eldership coalesces, apostles are available for help and advice and for accountability in times of crisis, but are mainly called to other places where the church is at a less-developed state, or where it needs to be planted.
So, I guess I see a two-layered approach, but one that envisions apostles developing a network of elders. One of the reasons we cannot escape our current small-club model and on to something like is being described is that our club recognizes no one outside our club to have enough spiritual gravitas to help break us out of the mold. Until elders start recognizing, and receiving, and submitting to apostles, I fear we will never be able to get over the wall and out of the box.
Absolutely, Charles! They were not seminary trained professionals, but grew up in the church, were raised, nurtured and discipled by the elders and brothers and sisters of the former generation. The elders of a city-wide church are a sort of a a council of the house church leaders. The way it is in Vienna: Each of the leaders is also presiding a house church – I think this keeps both feet on the ground 🙂
Me too.
That’s at least part of the truth. I think all of us should study “The Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery”. Yesterday we started a new Bible Study that is not a “CoC”-group – I’m not sure what shall become of that; it was the desire of a brother who has so many Christian friends here and there (churched and unchurched alike) to bring them together at one table.Pentecostals, Charismatics, 7th day Adventists and “Churchers of Christers”. It was a nice first meeting, but also a bit weird – each one brought along his and her hobby horses … I’m not sure where God might lead us in this, but I’m resolved to stay open minded. And even if it turns out to be a dead end road, it is worth the effort to get acquainted with brothers and sisters of differing traditions.
Alexander
Alexander–
I can identify with a diverse group like you describe. Here, many charismatic groups emerged in the 70s and 80s due to people in various denominations having new experiences in the Spirit, and consequently having some bad experiences in their demoninations. So, the retelling of “war stories” from our past churches was a natural event that had to be tolerated for a while while those experiences cooled. Then, we started realizing that such things held us back, and we set our war stories aside.
Might be a similar thing with your diverse folks. Bringing a few old “hobby horses” is almost unavoidable, but what can help offset this is to press people to report, “What are you hearing from God these days? Like, this week?” And let study grow out of some of these experiences, whether they come from life in the world, or prayer, or from study of scripture.
Sounds like my kind of group, honestly.
Charles
Jay,
Are you going to answer this question:
“And how should the congregation respond to a bad decision by good elders?”
i dont get yall church of christ people. in my town they are going nuts cause of a radical church of christ preacher. look on this site how its been hijacked. http://www.topix.com/forum/city/martinsville-va
Dwayne, just curious, what is a “bad” decision?
By “bad” do we mean morally wrong?”
By “bad” do we mean “misguided” – wrong facts, or lack of understanding in the process?
By “bad” do we mean “That just didn’t work the way we thought it would, even cost us members?”
Or, by “bad” do we mean that they made a decision that I am personally uncomfortable with or which I believe may have been unscriptural?
There are great differences in how you deal with each possibility that range from “run away” to “hit your knees and pray for your shepherds.”
If we are going to look at how to respond to “bad” decisions, how about looking at the simplest form? That is, a decision that was neither intrinsically right or wrong, nor even doctrinal in nature. “The elders decide to buy a tract of land on the outskirts of town for future building. Without consulting anyone, they buy the land and mortgage the present building to finance it. Turns out nobody else in the congregation likes the idea at all.” How do the members respond to this?
Wow. OK, that is a “bad” decision. I am not sure it would cause me to walk away but a decision of that magnitude that is going to require the membership to pony up the dough over the next decade or so needs to be discussed with the folks footing the bills.
And it is not a “power” thing but a “respect” thing. There is no way I would trade in our car without consulting with my wife even though I manage all of the financial affairs of the household. The same would be the case for these shepherds. Sure you are the “overseers” but you need to have a bit of respect for the sheep.
How does such a decision fit to the requirements for elders?
Which of these has any connection to “strategic investments”? None; so elders who focus on such matters entirely miss the point of their calling. Elders are not called to manage the business affairs of a church, that’s not their business. And therefore nothing in the requirements for this “noble task” even hints to such.
Aside of that Christians are called to avoid going into debt. We should teach more about that, maybe. So buying land or houses for money we don’t have, yet, is in itself questionable, regardless whether we speak of individuals or of churches.
Alexander
Alexander….perhaps the listing of various qualifications and gifting by the Holy Spirit speaks to the character and empowerment necessary to address a limitless number of potential needs in every generation… One would think that someone leader of the church should probably be designated to make sure the church is in compliance with various tax regulations, zoning laws, etc., etc., that might severely impact the church…
Elders shall be teachers of the church, teaching and exemplifying the Word of God
Elders shall be shepherds of the flock, guiding them spiritually, guarding them from wolves
Elders shall exercise oversight, admonish, encourage, exhort, uplift and rebuke where necessary
Elders shall see that each member of the body knows and fills it place according to the gifts the Spirit bestowed on them
Elders shall be held accountable for the souls entrusted to them by the Lord
(I’m sure you know BCV for each)
There are so many weighty and essential tasks, Price, that they should leave all this perishable and wordly things either to the world completely (which is my approach: Don’t bother with this or that, because of Mat 6:33 – God will provide what is necessary) OR entrust them to deacons who see this as their field of service. So we have a team in our church that deals with the finances in an orderly way, but the elders are not bothered by such issues (except for being asked for advice or confirmation when the sum is a bit higher than usual; e.g. we decided to support a sister fincially after a bike accident which made her unable to work for the last few months). Yet our leader’s meetings are normally freed from such things. They are (at best) at the fringes of our ministry.
Alexander
Alexander, I certainly understand your POV but it sounds to me like your limiting the role of the Elder to ONLY the things that you are specifically mentioning. Are these items of responsibility that you mention a BOX to stay in or just examples of what an Elder might be responsible for?
I guess I keep seeing “checklist” remarks and very little about the empowerment of the Holy Spirit. It seems HE might empower for the moment or for some other duration to address whatever needs to be responsibly handled by the church not only for orderly and effective function but as a public witness.. My experience suggests that HE doesn’t think much of “the box.”
Alexander, your general objections are well-noted, and point out a gap between eldership as it was likely practiced early in church history and how Christianity has evolved. Early on, this was a community which wound up with some limited community “business”. Today, we are religion businesses trying to figure out how to be a community.
But I would question one underlying idea I read in your post. You seem to be applying the regulative principle to the work of elders; that is, what an elder is not commanded to do, he is forbidden to do. I find no reason –biblical or rational– to apply that standard. The apostles did not say that it was inappropriate for them to serve the widows, but that doing so in that place and time would take them away from a specific task that required their attention. This was a matter of practical delegation, not a matter of separating spiritual leaders from other sorts of leadership.
I am a leader of production in a small printing plant, Charles. I can operate all machines, print, cut, fold, bind books, make the parcels for delivery … and there is always the tempteation to do it myself rather than make my colleagues do it. Last Fall there was a dramatic shortage of workers, and I had to fill in the gaps with the result that I was unable to do my own tasks of supervising, planning ahead, quality control and that sort of things. I nearly was caught up in my second burn out.
I don’t need a “regulative principle” to understand what the Spirit laid upon the elders and what not. Just reading the key functions of Biblical eldership makes it obvious. And understanding the calling of the “called out/together” people of the Lord rules out any ambitions to work as an institution or a business. Churches who are organized that way have left the simplicity of Christ and suffer from their own wring decisions, and the eldership groans under burdens that are not meant for them. I am not content with accepting things they way they are. If something is wrong or missingthe point, it should be changed. The way many churches are structured or organized today is more a hindrance than a blessing; the fruit is not as it ought to be.
Alexander
Discussions of what Elders should be doing are fruitful, but back to the question of what to do when good Elders make bad decisions…
What does the congregation do when the Elders make this financial decision per the example?
One answer is that the “majority of the congregation” leaves those Elders and starts a new congregation.
Another answer is the majority of the congregation tries to legally force out the Elders and place the financial debt on those individuals, not the congregation as the congregation did not agree to the purchase.
Another answer is…
.
Live with it and do all you can to help work it out without hurting anyone.
All of us make bad decisions and elders are no exception. That’s why it is so hard to get someone to take the position, anyone qualified has had a pretty uneventful, no bad decisions or happenings in their life in most cases and doesn’t want to take the chance of goofing that reputation up.
There is no bible example of kicking an elder out.
I have so many questions. It’s like there are theorems on what’s supposed to be, but I can’t see how to substitute real numbers for the place-holding variables.
For example, what are elders saying that needs to be “obeyed”? I picture my shepherds encouraging me to think in some specific new way or to take some specific new steps if my marriage is struggling or if I can’t manage my finances or if I need help coping with an illness in my family. I picture them challenging me to follow Jesus more closely in all facets of my life.
Are sheep, though, bound to elders’ well-intended guidance even when it appears to be detrimental? It seems to me that in a case like this, one’s obligation to his elders might run contrary to his obligation to his family.
Or, if elders are making decisions that lead sheep to “vote with their feet,” is that a warning sign that elders could be tackling the wrong set of questions?
And how do elders respond to those who don’t follow in matters of opinion offered for the church’s good? Do they feel threatened and take steps to enforce compliance (such as ostracism) or do they seek ways to honor other opinions?
I’m so glad I found this thread.
I am an elder in a church that presently has one rogue elder that has the idea he is the head rooster in the hen house. I understand he has been an elder forever, his father, grandfather, and great grandfather were also elders and founding member of the church back in the 1800’s.
He runs rough shod over the church staff, bullies the rest of the elders and has even stooped so low as carrying out hallway intimidation and threats against anyone who apposes him on issues.
Some of the newer elders are not afraid of him and will challenge him on doctrinal issues that he sees fit to freely violate and when challenged it sends him into fits of rage. The other elders are afraid of him and will not challenge him at all.
The board of elders know that he is not biblicaly qualified to be an elder but are at our wits end as to how to remove him from this position.
Halson,
Thanks for your notes. Here are some additional posts that may be of value to you:
Further on Elders (Getting Rid of Bad Elders: Cure, Part 1) /2013/08/in-reply-to-patrick-meads-the-problem-with-elders-part-8-getting-rid-of-bad-elders-cure/
Further on Elders (Getting Rid of Bad Elders: Cure, Part 2) /2013/08/in-reply-to-patrick-meads-the-problem-with-elders-part-9-getting-rid-of-bad-elders-cure-part-2/
You can all the posts on elders by clicking /category/index/leadership/elders-leadership/page/4/
May God bless your service to your congregation.
Halson,
See also /2008/07/on-bad-elders-removing-lousy-elders-toward-a-solution-part-2/
In the real world, folks just leave, join another or if a group leave together, they start another congregation. The one controlling elder they left will say to his congregation that “they have gone out from among us”.
Lessons will be taught on how wrong they were to leave and how they are in error, sinning, and prayers will be said for them to repent and return. They won’t. The elder will continue the same but with fewer and fewer members until finally that church will be sold for lack of income to continue.
Pretty common story around here.
From where I sit the elders have too many things to do that don’t fit what they are supposed to be doing and this gets them into trouble. They should be protecting the sprititualness of the people, not the business, the building, etc. and in doing so they easily lose focus. I think Alexander is right. The more I study the more the scriptures point towards the elders reigning over a city, which is how when elders were appointed this refers to. If this is not the case, then every househould had elders, which is logistically impossible. If this is true, then elders were over people and not groups or denominations. Elders should be worthy of honor, but once they themselves cross over into sin we are told to do with them as a brother…two or more witness, then before the church, which is the people. Elders are not autonomous from Christ and neither are we.