What’s the difference between a shepherd, overseer, and an elder?
I’ve had a number of questions in the comments and in private emails asking me to explain the differences among the three terms for elder:
* Shepherd or pastor (same word in the Greek)
* Elder or presbyter (same word in the Greek)
* Overseer or bishop (same word in the Greek)
For those of us who grew up in the Churches of Christ, it’s common knowledge that these three words are used of the same office in the New Testament, even though many denominations separate them today.
In fact, the Church of Christ view is shared by nearly all New Testament scholars. It’s nearly universally conceded that the separation of elders from bishops as two distinct offices happened after New Testament times.
This conclusion is reached based on such passages as —
(Act 20:17, 28 ESV) 17 Now from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called the elders of the church to come to him. … 28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.
(1Pe 5:1-3 ESV) So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: 2 shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; 3 not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock.
The three words carry different meanings with different histories. Each tells its own stories, as explained in the earlier posts in this series. But all three apply to the same office.
(I know it just freaks some readers out to say “office,” but it’s a fair interpretation. We just have to remember that the office doesn’t make the man. Rather, we ordain to the office those men gifted by God for the task. Thus, it really should be God’s decision who is ordained.)
What’s the scriptural method to ordain an elder?
The Bible gives precious little guidance. Implicit in Paul’s instructions to Titus is that the evangelist is to do the ordaining.
(Tit 1:5 ESV) 5 This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint [KJV: “ordain”] elders in every town as I directed you–
1 Timothy is bit more vague —
(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.
Paul certainly anticipated that Timothy might allow the church to charge and rebuke an elder, but it’s not altogether clear here or in 1 Timothy 3 that Timothy himself was expected to do this. Paul could easily have been giving instructions for how these things ought to be done. He wasn’t necessarily treating Timothy as a superior of the elders.
In his farewell speech to the Ephesian elders, Paul declares —
(Act 20:28 ESV) 28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.
Paul says the decision belongs to the Holy Spirit — which is not how we usually think of things. We Americans tend to think in terms of Roberts Rules of Order and democracy rather than the mystery of the Spirit.
But we see the same concept in —
(Act 6:3 ESV) 3 Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty.
The apostles charged the congregation to (somehow) pick to oversee the church’s benevolence program men “full of the Spirit.” Thus, the selection of deacons was by the church — but by the church recognizing the work of the Spirit within certain of its members.
Those who want to find a “pattern” will not have much luck. Those who seek the work of the Spirit in God’s church will find ample evidence of his work.
In a mission church, such as Titus’s churches in Crete, it makes sense that the missionary — who is better trained and has greater experience in the gospel than his converts — would ordain the initial elders. He’d be foolish not to hear from the church first, as they may know some things about the men he is considering that he does not. Thus, Paul’s instructions refer to, among other things, the reputations of the men being considered.
However, where the preacher is hired by the elders, he is not the “evangelist” in the same sense as a Titus. After all, he can be fired. He may even be new to the church.
Therefore, in the case of second and later generation churches, the selection process has to be by the congregation, as in Acts 6, based on spiritual giftedness — as described in previous posts — but with the wisdom that comes from having the process overseen by older, wiser men.
Who is the second-generation equivalent of a missionary? Who has the greatest training and experience in the gospel in a given church? Well, in theory, the elders. Indeed, when elders are appointed without the consent of the existing elders, the church misses the benefit of their knowledge of the men to be appointed and their knowledge of the office. After all, who understands what it takes to be an elder better than a serving elder?
The problem with the elders being involved in the ordination process is that domineering and unspiritual elders can hang on to power and continue their ungodly rule if they are given a veto over good, new men.
I’ve seen it both ways. I’ve been involved in an effort to appoint the Spirit’s chosen elders when the men in place rejected them in a brutal, arrogant fight over control. And I’ve seen successive generations of good elders appoint their own successors, based on congregational nominations and input — and I’ve seen the congregation thrive under the leadership of wisely chosen men.
And I’ve seen the harm that one poorly chosen elder can bring to a church and the heartache he can cause his fellow elders. Trust me, nothing would be more unfair to good elders and dangerous to a congregation than to impose an elder on a good eldership without their blessing.
A proper solution is to insist that the worldly elders resign by charging them before the congregation based on the the testimony of two or three witnesses (1 Tim 5:19). And I’ve seen that done, too — well, actually, threatened — with the result that the right men were ordained and the church’s leadership set right.
As noted before, I think churches have the freedom to set up other solutions. Some require all elders to stand for re-ordination every few years. It’s not a bad practice, but not as good a solution as you might think. You see, in a larger church, the membership often has little way to evaluate the elders. As a result, even in churches with formal re-affirmation processes, bad elders often remain in office.
But re-affirmation does get rid of notoriously bad elders. It helps, but it’s no cure. The best cure, of course, is to be very, very careful of whom we select — and to then insist that an elder resign if requested to do so by his fellow elders. They’ll know.
How do we avoid ordaining bad elders?
The traditional selection process is nearly guaranteed to produce bad elders. It goes like this —
* Ask for names from the church.
* Interview the nominees as to their willingness to serve and their “scriptural qualification” found in Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3.
* Announce those who survive the process and ask for any “scriptural objections” in writing signed by a member.
* If there are no objections, ordain the candidate.
Seriously. That’s how we normally do it. Notice what’s missing —
* Asking the church whether these men have been selected by the Spirit by gifting them for this task. (Evidently, we’ve written Acts 20:28 out of our Bibles.)
* Asking the existing elders whether these men are gifted for the task. Some churches appoint men without even consulting existing elders, presumably to limit their power. But shouldn’t they at least be asked?
And so, dear readers, what’s the solution? Is there one?
Some suggest placing a bishop over the church, serving in the shoes of the evangelist. And that works if the bishop is wise and knows the congregation very well. But who appoints the bishop? Who keeps him accountable? And how well has that system worked for those that have tried it?
Is there a simpler solution?
Well, sort of. I’m in between drafts — writing a sermon, writing about baptism for 
