A church has a good eldership, except one elder really doesn’t belong. He should never have been ordained. Experience shows that he really doesn’t have the qualities of a shepherd/overseer/elder and the giftedness from the Spirit for the task.
Most elderships naturally prefer to act by consensus. This man’s worldliness constantly hinders the process. Time is wasted and energy consumed because he has a strong personality and is a master of argumentation.
The other elders will ultimately outvote him, but they feel that he’s entitled to be heard — and so his presence makes meetings miserable. Worse yet, he often acts unilaterally, announcing positions as though coming from the “elders” when he really only speaks for himself. This causes no end of embarrassment.
The other elders consider laying a charge against him, following the text cited in the last post, with two or three witnesses, but would prefer a less formal, kinder way to deal with the problem. After all, this isn’t so much a sin issue as a not-qualified-to-be-an-elder issue.
What do they do?
Here are some thoughts —
* Ask him to resign. Frankly, if I were the bad elder, I’d far rather my brother elders look me in the eye and ask me to resign. If they would man up and do this, I’d resign.
* Of course, some bad elders are just arrogant and stubborn enough to refuse to resign. I find that attitude incomprehensible, but I’ve seen it happen (not at my home church).
In one case, the other elders responded by resigning — leaving the church with just one elder, who lost his office because a church can’t have just one elder! I thought it was pretty smart — and a great example of the power of humility. If you’re willing to give up your office to protect the office, humility defeats arrogance.
* Some elders have brought in outside conflict resolution experts to help them work through the problem. The universities affiliated with the Churches of Christ often have conflict resolution experts who will gladly help a church work through these kinds of issues. I know that Pepperdine, Abilene, and Lipscomb offer this service. Maybe others do as well.
It’s surprising how the presence of an out-of-town expert can sometimes bring a man to see reason even though he’s unwilling to listen to his own fellow elders. After all, he may have built up a defense mechanism assuming the other elders were biased. An outsider can sometimes take the local politics out of the equation.
Of course, the problem is much more difficult if most or all of the elders need to be removed. This is, quite frankly, a very tough case.
I have the advantage of having first learned about church politicspractical ecclesiology in a church where the only two elders both needed to be removed.
This was many years ago, and so the issue was dealt with in a “men’s business meeting.” The leadership scrupulously refused to hear any charge that had only one witness or that was solely rumor — regardless of how credible.
They narrowed the accusations to serious sins against the church with two or three witnesses. They then met with the elders and began the Matthew 18 process.
Very quickly, the elders saw that the congregation would surely vote to remove them. Matthew 18 triggers not only a public rebuke but disfellowship! (Which is why Matthew 18 doesn’t really apply to a non-qualification issue — it’s not grounds for disfellowship.) The result was a series of discussions that led to a much healthier eldership and the resignation of the minister, who’d used his influence to put these unqualified men into office.
Two of the ablest men in the church refused to participate in the Matthew 18 process. They knew that they would be candidates to become new elders, and so for the sake of appearance, stayed entirely out of the process. I think this was uncommonly wise.
It worked, and it was not easy. It took rare courage for a couple of younger men to organize the business meetings (there were several) and confront the elders despite the support the elders enjoyed from the minister. But the actions of these men dramatically changed the church, and transformed a very unhealthy congregation into, eventually, a great congregation.
The talent and potential was there. All that was missing was the leadership. And godly leadership could not step in until inadequate leadership was removed.
You put forth some very practical ideas for very difficult situations. Smaller congregations with bad elders are even more difficult to move forward positively because so many of the members are related to each other by blood or by marriage. So more often than not they simply wait for the elder(s) to die. The problem with that is that the congregation can effectively die before the elder does.
Jay,
In light of your comments about the young men who took the lead in that situation where there were 2 bad elders, what role do you think age plays or should play in determining who should or should not be appointed an elder?
Grizz
There was also a teaching since the days of Moses, before whom it was not codified, that said to respect one’s elders. However, respecting one’s elders can only go so far. However, at some point the children who “should be seen but not heard” get to an age where they are sick of being told to stay quiet. Some will argue with me on this, and the age of the person will directly correlate to the bitterness of their argument. First, though, the term respect has to be defined. This gets back to the conservative/progressive discussion. Does respect mean “yield at all cost even if the person is running the church into the ground” or “do not cause too much trouble while diplomatically presenting evidence to the person that his actions are causing problems for the congregation and the consequences of his action(s) will be x and y quickly leading to z”? The end result is the same if he stays in charge. The only question is how much one does about it. Young people, much to the dislike of older people, will likely be quick to call someone down and say he or she is not competent. While some do it too quickly and in improper ways, older people seem to never do it at all, since the older person is likely their personal friend. Sadly, some give up and walk out, wait a bit, and say “I told you so.”
This gets to the extremely volatile topic of church politics. Most ordinary people do not know what is going on in a congregation or why they can’t be allowed to participate. This is more like who is permitted to teach a sunday school class on various topics, go to the pulpit on Sunday morning or even lead the annual charity drive (progressives only). This is not even getting near the knowledge of the factions, voting blocs, and unsettled, decades-old arguments between people. Only a complete understanding of these by a long-time member and a good working knowledge of the unwritten rules (as crazy as why a particular song Is not to be sung) can allow one to decently lead a congregation. Failure to understand and follow these rules has led to ministers being fired, elders forced to resign, and no one knowing why. Extra-biblical perhaps???
Glenn asked,
It’s unmistakable that “elder” implies “not young.” I mean, the literal meaning is “old man.” In the ancient Judean villages, “elder” probably meant “family patriarch,” that is, the oldest living male of a given household. Middle Eastern culture greatly honors age. Indeed, attaining great age gave one honor in the shame/honor sense of that culture.
In Jerusalem, the Sanhedrin included the “elders” of that city, but we have no knowledge of how they were selected. It was unlikely to have been any sort of democratic process, because democracy was unknown outside of Greece and not part of the Middle Eastern culture. Probably, the high priest and the rabbis controlled the process — that’s speculation, of course, but it seems likely to me.
Paul assumes that an elder will be the head of a household with believing children, but that gives very limited guidance. One could argue that means children age 21 or older, since the Jews, following the Torah, treated 21 as the “age of accountability” — able to distinguish right from wrong. /2011/06/an-email-about-romans-5-part-3-the-age-of-accountability/
Since Jewish men married at that same age, we can push the age of elder to no less than 40 — not as a rule but as likely practice. (And I know this is a thin logical thread).
The elders of my church who preceded me, wise men who taught me a lot, adopted the policy (not doctrine) that an elder should have put at least one child through the teenage years. There’s something about raising a teenager that both teaches wisdom and patience (the KJV’s “longsuffering” is good word for the thought!) and tests the candidate’s parenting skills. Anyone can have an obedient 10 year old, but you’ve not really proven that you can raise a child until you get past the teenage years.
In addition, being an elder takes a lot of time and a lot of emotional energy. It’s unfair to the children to ask the parent of multiple children still at home to also lead the church. We likely all know children who resented the time their father dedicated to the church because of becoming an elder too soon.
Hence, personally, I’m inclined to say that elders should have survived at least one child’s teenage years and shouldn’t have too many children still in high school. When I became an elder, I had two children in high school, but they were both very close to graduation. I’d also already two other children in college away from home. In fact, I put my ordination off for two years in part to avoid taking too much time away from my two youngest sons.
But this is a matter of prudence and wisdom, and not doctrine.