Elders in the Bible

Here is a lengthy essay I wrote as I search for a clear biblical model of elders. I currently am ministering at a church that does not have elders and sometimes putting thoughts onto paper forces us to really think about vital issues that face God's church.

About Elders: A Biblical Perspective and Nuanced View
by
Jimmy Hinton
September, 2009

Introduction
Elders are well known throughout the Bible, both in the New and the Old Testaments. Somewhere along the way, with corruption in the church, secular governments and institutions having influence on the church, and the natural human tendency to grab for power, the biblical model of eldership began to evolve into a tradition that no longer resembled the biblical model. Seeking Scriptures for a clear biblical model of church overseers became of minor importance and the quest to fill a position within the church government became primary importance. For example, many churches who search for elders will likely quote from 1 Timothy 3 (while the content of 1 Timothy 5 is largely ignored) and Titus 1, known commonly as the “qualifications of elders.” Ask these same people who it was that helped guide Moses, Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu when Moses received from God the commandments and they likely will not be able to mention that 70 of Israel’s elders were working side-by-side with these men (see Exodus 24). Our Scriptural knowledge on elders unfortunately is usually not what shapes our views on eldership. Our traditions and strongly held opinions are generally what guide our views.

The purpose of this study is to avoid any misfortune of beginning an eldership which does not grow out of a biblical model of what God calls us to do. Too many churches have fallen into the trap of rushing the appointment of elders in order to “fix an existing problem” or to have a more controlled or systematic governing system for the church. Others have done so because they believed that God commands us to appoint elders but then they have not built their eldership on a clear, well thought out biblical model, which results in confusion, distortion, quarrelling, and retardation of church growth and productivity. It is not only vital to church growth to clearly define a biblical model for elders before their appointment, but it is responsible and wise to do so as well. Proverbs 19:2 says, “It is not good to have zeal without knowledge, nor to be hasty and miss the way.” Everett Ferguson is correct when he says that “Christians should not select or approve a man as elder unless they are willing to yield to him in matters of judgment. They should appoint only one whom they respect as a spiritual leader and whom they are willing to follow. After a man is appointed is the wrong time to express reservations or declare misgivings.”[1] It is possible to move forward, vote, and appoint elders without establishing a concise biblical model for the elders. It is also irresponsible to proceed in such a manner. If all the leaders in the church are not unified on what the eldership looks like, a tug-of-war type leadership is the effect, resulting in a stagnated, confusing, and turbulent church atmosphere.

The thesis of this essay is that the command to appoint elders must not dwarf or surpass God’s purpose for having elders. In other words, having elders is not of primary importance. The primary importance, as the body of Christ, is to seek God’s will for the church and determine how a group of shepherds will better care for the flock within the framework of God’s plan of salvation for mankind. I will define, to the best of my ability, the biblical purpose for having elders, what the roles are of the elders, how authority was established and is defined by Scripture, the qualifications of elders, and the way to proceed in the appointment of elders. This is by no means an exhaustive study but is only an introduction to the process of moving forward in the discussion of eldership as it pertains to the Church of Christ in Somerset. I pray it will be a study taken seriously by others and as we search God’s will for the church at Somerset I pray that we always put service, worship, and prayer before opinions, tradition, and business.

Biblical Purpose for Having Elders (Reasons People Needed Elders)
I must begin by saying that it is vital to turn to the pages of God’s Word to find out what God’s purpose is for having elders. We also must recognize that the quickest way to stunt spiritual growth among our leaders is to perceive “eldership” as an office or position that needs filled. As I mentioned before, our views of what an eldership is have often been shaped by what we have seen other churches do, what we think it ought to look like, and a long tradition of dialogue—dialogue without the presence of open Bibles before us.

As I study Scripture, I see that people have always needed an older (hence the word elder), wise person in whom they trusted, respected, and could lean on to lead them in a godly direction. We can take God’s harsh words about Israel’s shepherds in Ezekiel 34 and learn that God has a clearly defined purpose for the shepherds. Ezekiel states:
“Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel; prophesy and say to them: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Woe to the shepherds of Israel who only take care of themselves! Should not shepherds take care of the flock? You eat the curds, clothe yourselves with the wool and slaughter the choice animals, but you do not take care of the flock. You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured. You have not brought back the strays or searched for the lost. You have ruled them harshly and brutally. So they were scattered because there was no shepherd, and when they were scattered they became food for all the wild animals.”[2]

The first point is that people need shepherds who take care of the flock first through service. Again, if eldership is viewed as a position and not service for others, it will fail from its conception. It will fail because service (taking care of the flock) is not a job description; service is what needs to flow from one’s heart. Peter says to “be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve.”[3] If a person does not have the gift of service, a church should never consider him for an elder. One cannot hope that a person will automatically become a servant once they are appointed an elder. Yet this seems to be the model that many churches adopt. God was clearly angry with the shepherds of Israel because the sheep were not taken care of by the shepherds. Be it they were too busy, too involved with their own families, or what have you, the fact remains that they did not take care of the flock first. Service to others is what God calls elders to do; they are not called to take care of their own needs while neglecting those of their flock.

Second, shepherds have always been needed to take care of the weaker members, though they still must take care of the entire flock. Too often, churches have built an eldership based on the false assumption that the minister needs a panel of men to answer to. Nowhere, by any stretch of the imagination, is this idea even eluded to in Scripture. That is not to say that elders can’t hold an evangelist accountable, and vice versa. In the New Testament the elders always worked together with the evangelists for the good of the flock. In Acts 15, there was an issue over whether Gentiles had to be circumcised or not. Neither the elders or apostles “pulled rank” and made a corporate decision on their own, but rather “the apostles and elders met to consider this question.”[4] Also, the church worked together with the elders in this process. Decisions were never made behind closed doors and then presented to the church. Rather, the decisions were made along with the church, though the elders and apostles did have a more prominent role in decision making: “Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas.”[5] Paul reinforces the idea that shepherds must take care of the weaker members as well as the entire flock when he spoke with the Ephesian elders on the beach: “Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.”[6] In this speech to the Ephesian elders, there is nothing about having meetings, taking care of church “business,” or the like. Paul’s focus is on taking care of the flock and protecting them.

Third, the sick and injured also need the attention of the shepherds. Part of service to others includes praying and healing. We often think of healing as a miraculous gift bestowed upon a select few, but such a narrow definition neglects the fact that healing includes physical, emotional, and spiritual needs, all of which an elder has the ability to heal in some fashion simply by being present. Praying with a dying patient, reading Scripture with them, or even being near is far more healing than having that same patient wonder where the church leaders are in their time of need and despair. I once spoke with a couple who said that the day their teenage child died, not one person from their congregation called or visited. Not one. They told me, “We just wanted to know that somebody cared.” If one elder had showed up, called, or prayed with this couple, that would have been a tremendous step in helping them heal. James asks a valid question—“Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up.”[7] When is the last time we saw a group of elders anoint a sick person with oil? I confess that I’ve never seen it. Why—because we don’t anoint people any more? Because we don’t have the gift of healing? Or because we have a skewed concept of eldership and meetings must take priority over praying for the sick? Or do we appoint elders who don’t think it is their responsibility to pray over sick people? I don’t know the answer to these questions but I believe they are questions we must be asking if we are serious about God’s purpose for elders to heal the sick and bind up the injured.

A fourth purpose that I see for people needing elders is that the strays and the lost need a leader who will bring them back. People throughout the Bible have always needed someone to lead them. When people sin and fall away from church it is the responsibility of the caretaker(s) to guide them back to the rest of the flock. That does not mean to call that person whenever an elder gets a chance or to shoot them off an e-mail saying, “We miss you.” Rather, it is a genuine concern for the wellbeing of that person’s soul. Bringing back the strays and finding the lost means getting to know that member’s struggles and helping them through those struggles. James says, “My brothers, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save him from death and cover a multitude of sins.”[8] Shepherding does not mean belittling a person or shaming them out of the church and into the streets. Rather, it requires the wisdom and patience to actually pursue a member who has fallen with love and kindness. This does not mean to avoid correction of any kind but it does mean that a genuine concern for the souls of the flock is the chief matter of the shepherd’s heart.

Finally, elders have always been needed to protect the flock. Ezekiel 34:5 tells us that since there were no shepherds, the sheep became food for all the wild animals. Shepherds live among their sheep and fend off any animals that the sheep are vulnerable to. The Bible consistently speaks of people coming in and distorting the minds of God’s people with lies in order to drag them away from God. It is the duty of the shepherds to defend the congregation from false teaching which will entice and drag people away from God. Paul warned the Ephesian elders about false teachers: “I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard!”[9] After describing to Titus what the elders’ character should resemble, Paul told Titus that “there are many rebellious people, mere talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision group. They must be silenced, because they are ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain.”[10] A major purpose for appointing elders on the island of Crete was to protect the Christians against the rampant heresies being taught by the Jews. Sadly, in Scripture we see times when it is the shepherds themselves who feast on the flock. God says of the corrupt shepherds, “I will remove them from tending the flock so that the shepherds can no longer feed themselves. I will rescue my flock from their mouths and it will no longer be food for them.”[11]

In conclusion, it is clear from Scripture that God’s people have always needed guidance and leadership in order to remain faithful to Him. There is divine purpose for elders and it is necessary to seek God’s will for His people without being blindsided by tradition.

What Are the Roles of an Elder?
Let me first illustrate a point that, generally speaking, we are more in tune with the “qualifications” of elders than the roles those elders are to have. See if you can list as many qualifications of an elder off the top of your head as you can. Now, turn to 1 Timothy 3, then to Titus 1. Compare the lists and see how you did. Now, list all the roles that an elder should have off the top of your head. Next turn to the Scriptures that support these roles. If you can think of the roles as easily as you did the qualifications, you have obviously put a lot of thought into the roles of an elder. If you struggled defining the roles of an elder according to Scripture, it shows that we have been programmed to focus more on the process than the ministry. What we think an elder’s roles should be and what Scripture says concerning the roles of elders are two completely different things. Sometimes we get so caught up in the process of appointing elders that we miss what the elders’ roles are altogether. If an elder’s roles are not defined by Scripture, it would be fair to assume that any congregation could define these roles on their own thereby fashioning an elder who looks just like the elder they want. A comical analogy is the teenage boy who cuts-and-pastes pictures of the “perfect woman.” He takes an arm from one magazine, the chest from another, the head from yet another, and so on, until he has created the perfect babe. Unfortunately, the woman he created is based on his own desires and preferences and does not resemble reality. This is exactly what happens to the church who defines an elder’s roles based on their preferences and preconceived notions of what an elder should look like. It is dangerous not to allow Scripture to shape the reality of what an elder actually does.

First of all, it is important for us to notice that the term “eldership” does not appear in the Bible even once. The Greek New Testament never refers to elders as holding an “office.” This may seem like an insignificant point. However, I believe it is very significant because it tells us that we create terms to place emphasis on a role that is not meant to exist. The words used to describe elders are always about people, not an office or position (“eldership”). Lynn Anderson says that “biblically speaking, bishop (elder, shepherd) is a function, not an office; a task, not a position. This phrase in 1 Timothy 3:1 might more accurately be translated, ‘if anyone desires to bishop.’”[12] I must clarify here, so that I am not being misleading. There was a prominent Jewish view that an elder was an official, denoting that he did have a specific role within the Jewish community. We will look at the word presbuteroi (elder) below in more detail but it did have a double meaning, one for an older person and one meaning an official. Jesus and others had to answer to the Chief priests, elders, and teachers of the law (cf. Matthew 16:21). These were officers in the Jewish synagogue but there is no word used in Greek that places emphasis or even describes the office proper of the presbuteroi. The terms used are always descriptive of the person and his function, not the office or position. This is not to say that the elder does not hold a specific office, but certainly we must recognize that the terminology in Scripture emphasizes the person and his ministry, not the office he holds.

There are three Greek words used to describe these leaders in 1 Peter 5:1-4 and Acts 20. The words offer a description of these people and present us with a glimpse of who God intended them to be. As previously mentioned, the first word used is presbuteroi, or elders. Remember that elders are servants. Peter reminded the elders that they needed to be willing to serve. Service, though, takes on several different roles. The first role, according to Scripture, is that of judgment and example.[13] This is the Jewish pattern for elders. The older, more experienced, wise men of the Jewish community would sit at the city gate in Jerusalem (or whatever town they lived in) where people would bring questions to them. They were there for guidance and they served as a model for how to live for God. The “wife of noble character” in Proverbs has a husband who is one of these elders: “Her husband is respected at the city gate, where he takes his seat among the elders of the land.”[14] In Deuteronomy, the elders at the city gate were to have a rebellious son brought to them where they could make judgment calls:
“If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.”[15]
It would be mighty ironic if an elder (older wise person) was to assist people in matters of judgment but did not live as examples for them himself. The two go hand-in-hand. If an elder is to act in matters of judgment, he must be an example. Peter tells the elders they were not to be “lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock.”[16] The first Christians, many of them being Jewish, adopted the Jewish model for elders. The word presbuteroi (elders), in context, tells us that the meaning of being older was not the only meaning intended. Though “older men” was meant, so was the idea that their role included being examples and being able to handle difficult judgment calls. Paul says that “the elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching.”[17] Directing the affairs of the church does not include dealing with the church “business,” as if they were the corporate managers of it. Rather, Paul is talking about dealing with peoples’ souls. With age and wisdom come responsibilities. Those responsibilities in the Jewish and early Christian communities included the ability to live as examples for others and to make wise judgment calls that average or younger Christians might not be as apt to make.

The second word used is a metaphor and so describes a second role the elder must have. It is the word poimaenoi (pastors or shepherds).[18] I stated earlier that there are several purposes for people needing elders. Therefore, a role that these elders take on is that of a caretaker, pastor, or shepherd. We commonly refer to a minister in most other denominations as “pastor.” If we are being true to the roles of a preacher, he rather should be called preacher or evangelist, as preaching is his primary role, though he certainly can help pastor the flock. However, one of the primary roles of an elder is pasturing, or caring for the flock. God says that “as a shepherd looks after his scattered flock when he is with them, so will I look after my sheep. I will rescue them from all the places where they were scattered on a day of clouds and darkness.”[19] Part of pasturing would include physical needs but obviously the shepherds are “soul servants,” or people who care for the spiritual needs of the flock. Jesus certainly provides the model for how a shepherd takes care of the spiritual needs, for he is called the “Chief Shepherd” in 1 Peter 5:4. Peter also says of the Christians, “For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of you souls.”[20] John also gives, in my view, the clearest example of the role of the shepherd or caregiver. He is recording a speech given by Jesus about Himself being the “good shepherd.” Jesus says, “just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.”[21] Jesus provides the perfect example for how to care for the flock. Our shepherds are to follow the example that Christ gave as they care for the church. The metaphor used to describe elders as shepherds is not only a proper attitude in which they must approach people within the congregation but is also descriptive of a role as caretaker. They are responsible for making sure the needs are met (physical and spiritual) and that no sheep are falling behind the rest. Part of this role as caretaker is to run protection. Too often, based on a completely corrupt view of eldership, elders embitter members of the congregation. They believe that since they wear the shiny badge that reads “elder” people are now in submission to them. I have mentioned before a group of elders who made my friend publicly apologize for singing “Jesus loves us” instead of “Jesus loves me.” He was shamed, embarrassed, and publicly humiliated because a group of elders thought their role was that of corporate masters and did not see themselves as guardians and caretakers of the flock. Anderson is correct when he says that “good spiritual leaders know full well that they are only shepherds, not saviors; they know they are leaders, but not lords; they understand that they may be skillful guides, but they are not gods.”[22]

The third word used is episkopoi (overseers or bishops). We will discuss authority below but I will briefly state that the role of overseeing a congregation does not mean to rule over them. There are seven times this word is used in the New Testament and once in the Old Testament. Timothy uses it twice in the beginning of chapter 3. He also uses it in Titus and states that an “overseer is entrusted with God’s work.”[23] Peter calls Jesus the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls in 1 Peter 2:25 and he uses the term again in chapter 5—“Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers.”[24] In Philippians 1:1 Paul addresses the saints in Phillipi “together with the overseers and deacons.” And finally Paul uses the term in Acts 20:28. Overseeing is not a position but an important role that an elder must take on. He has souls indebted to his care and overseeing those souls is as important, if not more important, than the evangelist who instructs them with the Word. Too often people see overseers as a cop with a whistle in his mouth, a gun in the holster, cuffs on his belt, and a billy club on his side. After all, isn’t it the cop’s duty to oversee the town and be there when people mess up? I think a better analogy is that of the guardian angel. The angel is present, not intimidating, and provides comfort as he looks after our well-being. Overseeing is a role that can be easily abused if it is not well thought-out.

Finally, the role of teacher is important for the elder. Not only is he to have wisdom to make judgment calls and lead by example, shepherd the flock, and oversee them, he must also teach them. Paul says that the overseer must “be able to teach”[25] and he says that elders directing the affairs of the church are worth double honor, “especially those whose work is preaching and teaching.”[26] It also follows that if an elder is responsible for leading the flock and he is to protect them from heresies, he must also not only know the Word, he must be willing and able to teach it. This is an area where I take serious issue with some elders whom I’ve met. They knew just enough Scripture to take passages out of context in order to belittle church members and make them feel guilty. It should become apparent to us, after speaking with someone a few minutes, whether or not they frequent the Scriptures. I think it is irresponsible to go down through the qualifications, as if it were a checklist, and appoint an elder who does not read Scripture daily and make it a central part of his life. The role of teacher should be taken very seriously and if a person is selected as a likely candidate but does not rely upon Scripture to shape his life, he has no business accepting a role where he is responsible for the direction of an entire congregation.

We will now look into the subject of authority, what the biblical model is as it is applied to the elders, and some common misconceptions on authority.

The Authority of Elders
The way that we define authority as it pertains to elders has an enormous effect on the minister and the entire congregation. Our definition of authority can potentially allow elders to turn themselves into leaders with unchecked power, wreaking havoc on every soul with which they come in contact. It is unfortunate that this even needs mentioning. However, we are humans and it is tempting to define and establish authority apart from Scripture. It is not responsible, whatsoever, to adopt a business model of authority, or to envision a hierarchy of command, to define a model of authority that we feel an elder should have, or to make any fabrication or speculation about authority apart from Scripture. Anderson is correct when he says that “the authority of an elder grows, not out of a title emblazoned across a church letterhead, but out of the quality of the elder’s life.”[27] People not only need, but they deserve to follow a leader because his character is shaped by the cross, not because they have to answer to a higher power. If people feel that they have to submit to an elder because he now has power or authority that he did not have before he was appointed, may God help us.

Many will use Hebrews 13:17 as their proof text to “prove” that elders have authority and lay members are to submit to them. It reads, “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.” Many well-meaning Christians have stripped this Scripture from the context of the New Testament in order to elevate their position so that the elder is the authority figure of the church. The argument states that all members, including deacons and ministers, must be in submission to the elders. I have been to churches where I felt uncomfortable and even intimidated speaking to the elders. My sister worked at a restaurant when I went to college and she said that the rudest, most demanding people to her were usually the elders from a large church in Searcy (they wore name tags with their title “elder” on their suit jackets). Is this really how God intends their authority to be used? The use of this Hebrews passage will be discussed in more detail below.

Lynn Anderson mentions several unfortunate words that are used to describe the authority of elders, which are damaging and distort our view. He states that “some unfortunate vocabulary has inflicted long-term damage to our understanding of spiritual leadership—words like rule, authority, submit, and obey. . . These bruising words didn’t come from the Bible, however. That language was actually coined by seventeenth-century Anglican ecclesiastical tradition and was passed on to us through the King James translators.”[28] Anyone with a history of biblical languages will find that Anderson’s analysis is accurate. There is nothing in the Bible anywhere that attaches these meanings to elders. These meanings are the direct result of interpretations of the translators during a time in history when Roman politics were at their peak. We must be careful not to rely on one translation of Scripture. For instance, the King James version of 1 Timothy 5:17 says, “Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor.” The Greek word used is proistotes and it literally means to exercise a position of leadership, to be at the head of, or to show concern for. Ferguson says, “The word literally means ‘to be out front,’ ‘to be at the head of,’ and so ‘to manage.’ Thus it is used of a father managing his household (1 Tim. 3:4, 5, 12), but even here in parallel with ‘caring for.’”[29] The NIV translation is probably the closest to the original meaning of the word: “The elders who direct the affairs of the church well.”

Ferguson describes the Hebrews passage, mentioned previously, in the context of biblical leadership—“Leadership in the New Testament is based on service. Hebrews 13:17: ‘Obey your leaders and submit to them.’ Because of the office they hold? Because of authority given to them? Not at all, but because of the ministry they perform—‘For they are keeping watch over your souls.’”[30] Ferguson is correct that leadership is based on the ministry one performs, not on authority or office. We must not use one verse to establish a theology of authority, while ignoring the context of the rest of the New Testament. Furthermore, the English words (obey and submit) used in Hebrews 13:17 do not give us a clear picture of the color of the Greek language. One of my Greek professors told us students to keep in mind that any time a language is translated into another something is always lost in translation. The following block quote is lengthy but must be quoted at length to get the full scope of Ferguson’s point about authority:
“Jesus’ principle concerning leadership among his followers is stated in Matthew 20:25-28: ‘You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you; but whoever would be first among you must be your slave; even as the Son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.’ Jesus uses the same word that Peter uses in 1 Peter 5:3 in admonishing elders to lead by example and not to domineer or “lord it over” the flock.

The kind of authority which is denied to the elder may be seen from the use of this word in other contexts. It refers to man’s dominion over the earth (Gen. 1:28); Israel’s rule over Palestine (Num. 21:24); dominion of sin over man (Ps. 19:13; cf. Rom. 6:14); death’s rule over man (Ps. 49:14; cf. Rom. 6:9); the rule of a king (Ps. 72:8); the authority of the law over a person (Rom. 7:1). Paul renounced the position of lording it over the faith of his converts (2 Cor. 1:24). Jesus’ “exercise authority” expresses the rule of Solomon over other kingdoms (1 Kings 4:21); the authority of governors over the people (Neh. 5:15); the authority of kings (Eccl. 8:4; Neh. 9:37). . . Jesus’ illustration pertained to government officials. Elders do not have coercive authority—political, military, or legal. This is demonstrated by the fact that words expressive of such authority are absent from New Testament texts about elders. They do not have controlling authority (exousia), power (dynamis); their position is not that of a master (despotes) or ruling official (archon).”[31]

The question remains, then—if elders do not have controlling authority, power, authority of a master, or ruling official, what authority do they have? The answer is quite simple if one recognizes that an elder has a headship role. The Jews worked from a system where the male acted as the head of the family. He was responsible for instruction, guidance, caring for, and leading by example. This type of headship was to be rooted in honor. Headship had nothing to do with one’s title as father, elder, or any other type of leader, but rather the role he had within the oikia (household). We see this play out several times in Scripture: “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. ‘Honor your father and mother’”[32]; “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.”[33] We westerners see the word “submit” and run with it. Headship roles were not roles where the husband or leader ruled over those under him. Headship roles were roles where he ruled in front of those whom he honored and loved—“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her. . . In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.”[34] The Jews understood headship roles to be positions of honor and responsibility. To be head was to be responsible for the direction of one’s family. Headship had deep roots, not in control, but in love and honor. Christ did not embitter people but served them—even to the point of dying for them. Headship means that you put your family first and give yourself wholly to them. Headship does not give the leader power, control, or allow them to rule with an iron fist. This is evident in the same passage—“Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord.”[35]

Submission to the head, then, had to do with respect and willingness to yield to the head. It was not because of one’s title or position that others yielded, but was because of honor, trust, and respect. Jesus Christ himself had his prayers answered because he was in submission to God the Father: “During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission.”[36] Jesus, head of the church, still maintained faithful submission to the Father, not because he was afraid God would exercise control over him, but because he had a relationship with Him. Furthermore, neither the high priest nor Christ, both whom were in a headship position, would have dreamed of taking it upon themselves to be appointed to that position. It was not for the purpose of claiming authority or control, but because they were called by God: “No one takes this honor upon himself; he must be called by God, just as Aaron was. So Christ did not take upon himself the glory of becoming a high priest. But God said to him, ‘You are my Son; today I have become your Father.’”[37] If a father was controlling, demanding, and believed that the buck stopped with him, do you really think the wife and children would willingly yield to him? They may for a time, out of fear or spite, but they also may be looking for the first window of opportunity to leave that household. However, if a husband loved and served his wife and children as Christ loved the church, there is now a new type of “authority” whereby the family will honor the father and yield to him in matters of faith.

In conclusion, we must be very careful how we define “authority.” God set the record straight in Ezekiel because there were some among the group of Israel that thought that others should be in submission to their authority—“Because you shove with flank and shoulder, butting all the weak sheep with your horns until you have driven them away, I will save my flock, and they will no longer be plundered. I will judge between one sheep and another.”[38] We must understand that elders are in a headship role and the flock will yield to them based on service, honor, love, and character, not because they’ve been appointed to a higher position and now magically possess some power they did not possess before.

Qualifications of Elders
I will begin by stating that the term “qualifications” is a most regrettable term that we use. The introduction and use of this term has completely diverted our focus from the ministry of elders to the process of initiating elders. I mentioned in the introduction that we seem more in tune with the 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 passages on the so called “qualifications” than we do the purpose for having elders. Most colleges have Fraternities and Sororities. At Christian colleges they are called “social clubs.” They are just that. They are clubs where each “pledge” (someone who has not been initiated yet) must go through a series of tests to “prove” they will be loyal to that specific club. During “initiation week,” the sole focus is on doing things to meet the approval of the club “brothers and sisters” whom are already members. Impress them, you are in; disappoint them, and you are out. The pledges are given a list of things they must do, most of which are insanely absurd. At the end of the week the members of the club vote on who is in and who is out. Though the social clubs do a lot of good ministries for the community, the process to get in becomes so important to the pledges that they lose sight of why they even want to join the club. All that matters for that one week is making the cut; meeting the approval of the members.

My point is that sometimes churches make the mistake of focusing so much on the criteria that a pledge (elder-to-be) must meet, that the ministry of the elders is just something lurking in the shadows. Priorities become a matter of how to get elders, not a matter of what role the elders will have in ministering and caring for souls. We Christians sometimes combine 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 to come up with a “super list” that we call qualifications. I promise I am not exaggerating when I say that I just now thumbed through the book Introducing the Church of Christ, assuming that I could easily find the chapter on elders without looking at the table of contents. The book is 256 pages and it took me less than 2 seconds to find the chapter on elders. How did I find it? I assumed that the “qualifications” would be some master checklist with either bullets or numbers. I’ve never read this chapter before so it was a shot in the dark. Sure enough, pages 77-79 have two lists titled Qualification of Elders. There is a list of negative qualifications—#s 1-8—then a list of positive qualifications—#s 1-16. This process, as sad as it is to admit, is easily predictable and just as easy to demonstrate.

We must be careful not to make a master checklist and dub it “qualifications.” Otherwise the elders-to-be may become pledges who are trying to win the approval of their club brothers and sisters. It may well be that their focus could shift from serving to “making the cut,” campaigning for a position. Obviously I’ve somewhat overstated my point here. I purposely overstated it with an analogy from Freshmen college kids to make a point. However, if we are being honest with ourselves, we find that there is much truth to what I have said. If 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 are used as a checklist for the initiation process, mark these words: You will see people serving the congregation in ways they have not been serving up to this point. Be very wary of people who are in the running and all of a sudden seem interested in ministering to the flock.

If a church appoints elders, they should simply be publicly appointing someone who has already been filling the roles mentioned in Scripture that we already mentioned. It is borderline sinful to assume that an elder whom has not been very active in serving the church will somehow have an epiphany and begin serving once he officially holds the title of “elder.” We should, instead, be asking serious questions about how we should view the passages in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. Before we do so, I just wanted to be very clear that it is reckless to combine the two into one list and go down through them as if we were checking off, point-by-point, the “qualifications” of an elder while neglecting altogether his ability, willingness, or responsibility to serve. In fact, Lynn Anderson is correct when he says, “Paul would likely be shocked to see his material used as a checklist.”[39]

He then goes on to say that Paul was using a literary device common in his time whereby the Greeks would broadly sketch a person’s character through a series of qualities in that person’s life. Anderson demonstrates that a well known secular Greek source (Diogenes Laertius’ sketch of the stoic’s concept of a good man) has many of the same things mentioned by Paul in 1 Timothy and Titus.[40] Anderson’s point here is well noted:
“When Paul used this literary form, he did not intend to provide a complete and absolute list of qualifications. He simply broadstroked two character sketches. The one in Titus pictures the sort of men who would make good shepherds among God’s flock of Christ-followers on the island of Crete, and the other in 1 Timothy sketches the sort of men who would make good shepherds in the city of Ephesus. That explains, at least in part, why the two sketches differ: the two widely different settings required different leadership traits and qualities.”[41]

Paul is not the one who turned 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 into a legalistic method for initiating elders. That came later with appealing to opinion and tradition rather than Scripture and prayer. Anderson is correct that what Paul intended were not checklists of qualifications, but broad sketches of characteristics that show the quality of the person’s life. These people must have a good reputation both among the local congregation and among outsiders: “He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.”[42] It is important that the elder have a good reputation, character, and certainly being able to manage his own children is important, for “If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?”[43] We could go down through everything Paul mentions, but we must not take these “lists” either as legalistic checklists or as exhaustive. 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 obviously offer sketches of the quality of one’s life as a proclaimed Christian. Paul wants Timothy and Titus to make sure that there are men worthy of honor to serve as God’s shepherds. With shepherding comes big responsibility and Paul is ensuring that both young Timothy and Titus understand that the quality of one’s service and commitment to God matters. Nobody in any church can be expected to take an elder who is in a headship role seriously if that elder doesn’t take his relationship with God seriously. Remember, he has no more power, controlling authority, position of master, or position of ruling official than does the 90 year old woman sitting beside him. The flock must yield to him because he is serving them, guiding them with wisdom, and is worthy of honor and respect because of who he is (character).



Appointment of Elders
We have no crystal clear examples in Scripture of the process of appointing elders. Perhaps this is why Christians have, for centuries, fallen into the trap of giving entirely more attention to this process than the actual ministry of shepherding. Paul’s instructions to Titus are probably the clearest example we have. Paul told Titus that he left him on the island of Crete to “straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.”[44] It is apparent from this text that Paul thought it important enough to leave Titus behind in order to “straighten out what was unfinished.” We know that the island of Crete was a cesspool for corruption among the islanders. Paul mentions that “Even one of their own prophets has said, ‘Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.’” Then Paul affirms this fact when he said, “This testimony is true.”[45] If that weren’t challenging enough for Titus, there were Jews on the island “ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach.”[46] This was not a good combination for an evangelist who is left behind with a fairly new church. Titus had to choose shepherds who would help him in his ministry, people who would protect the flock from the ravenous wolves who were living among them. As to the actual process of ordaining the shepherds, Paul is silent except that Titus was to do it “as I directed you.”[47] Unfortunately, Titus was privy to information that Paul did not pass on to us. Therefore, as to the actual process, we are open to speculation. We can be certain, however, that these men were seasoned Christians, possibly from another geographic area. They were mature in their faith, were “blameless,” and their children were not only believers, but were not to be open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.

In Acts 14 we get another clue into the process of appointment. Paul healed a crippled man in Lystra and the locals were trying to worship him and Barnabas. Some Jews came down from Antioch and Iconium and “won the crowd over.” They went from worshiping “Zeus and Hermes” (Barnabas and Paul) to stoning them and leaving them for dead. Paul and Barnabas then went back to Antioch and Iconium, where the nasty Jews who had taken part in their stoning had come from. Ironically, Paul and Barnabas actually fled from Iconium to Lystra (where they were stoned) because they found out that if they stayed in Iconium the Jews were going to stone them there. Their first round in Iconium was a bust. They had worked long and hard, spending “considerable time there” only to have the Jews working hard against them so that “the people of the city were divided; some sided with the Jews, others with the apostles.”[48] After Paul and Barnabas were stoned in Lystra and had returned a second time to Iconium and Antioch, they strengthened the disciples and “appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust.”[49] It seems that in both cases—the island of Crete and in Iconium and Antioch—Paul appointed or had appointed a heavy population of elders in order to combat a losing battle. On Crete, Titus did the appointing “in every town,” and in Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, Paul and Barnabas did the appointing “in every church.” Both geographic areas, unfortunately, had Jews who were working feverishly against Paul and his fellow missionaries. It was the duty of the elders to protect the flock from these wolves in ways that Paul, Barnabas, and Titus simply could not do on their own. Furthermore, when the Jews came from Judea to Antioch and were stirring problems for the Gentile converts in Acts 15, we again see that Paul was able to find a plurality of elders to help combat this problem and protect the Gentile converts. Paul, Barnabas, and other believers were sent to Jerusalem to discuss this issue with the elders and apostles.

Paul’s letters to Timothy and his letter to Titus are classified as the “Pastorals.” This term was dubbed in the 1700s. It is not a completely accurate description because Paul does not attach the pastoral duties to Timothy or Titus. Rather, Timothy and Titus are to appoint elders who will take on these pastoral roles and Paul does spend some time laying out for Timothy and Titus what those roles are. However, we are still at an impasse because we do not know by what process they went about appointing the elders. We know that Paul gave them character profiles by which Timothy and Titus were given freedom to distinguish a more mature Christian from the rest. There also is an emphasis in these letters on protecting the congregations against false teachers, specifically Judaisers. Of course, this was not their only role, but we seem to find a pattern of appointing a large number of elders where internal conflicts within the church were prevalent.

We also must recognize that the church has a significant place in the selection of elders and deacons. There were 7 deacons chosen in Acts 6, though there is dispute over whether they were really deacons or not. The Greek word used was diakonein (transliterated deacon but meaning to serve, or in this case “to wait on tables”). At any rate, these 7 were chosen to do works of service, more specifically to take care of the daily distribution of food. “So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, ‘It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables (diakonein). Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom.”[50] We can make a few observations here. First, all the disciples were called together. The Christians were involved in the discussion of choosing certain men from among their church. Second, the Jesus-followers were the ones who were instructed to choose the seven. The only way that the Twelve were involved was to tell them the number (chose seven men). Other than that, the disciples had full control over who got chosen. And finally, the Twelve placed focus on the quality of these men: “Choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom.” This is a recurring theme when choosing leaders. There is little to say about the process. There is a lot to say about the character and gifts of these men.

A further question arises, is it sinful not to have elders? I think that in order to make this claim we would have to read a lot into Scripture that simply isn’t there. There is no direct command that explicitly states that we must appoint elders in every church. We know that Paul and Barnabas did so but the command did not mandate others to do likewise. Luke records that there was a deep rooted problem going on in Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch and context allows that the appointment of elders in every church in that area was to help regulate this problem. The same is true in Titus. Titus was left there with specific instructions to appoint elders in every town. When Paul left Crete, it was in shambles. We have to imagine what would have happened if Titus had not appointed elders. It’s quite plausible to recognize that the church may have fizzled in a matter of a few years. Interestingly, neither of Paul’s letters to the church in Thessolonica mentions elders. We know that the church was fairly new and that Paul had every opportunity in either letter to greet the elders but he did not. We also know that the church was one of the strongest at that time. Paul commends them in 1 Thessalonians for their steadfast faith and said of their faith, “your faith in God has become known everywhere.”[51] There was very little opposition to these Christians (though there was some opposition lead by the Jews) and the church was growing. They most likely appointed elders at a later stage but the point is that it certainly did not appear on Paul’s radar that this church needed elders, for he never mentions them. Furthermore, the Thessalonian church did not lose sleep over how and when they would appoint elders. Their focus was on godly living and modeling the Christian life to others. And because this was their focus, they grew like wildfire. Paul does, however, mention leaders in 1 Thessalonians 5 and the attitude members should take toward the leaders. Whether they were elders is debatable; I would not take 1 Thessalonians 5:12ff. to mean elders. This does not mean that there were not leaders functioning as shepherds, but it does not appear that there was yet a formal appointing process to identify these leaders as elders.

Again, everywhere the church is susceptible to extremism by false teachers, elders are called upon to protect the flock. Falsehood and persecution dominates the discussion by Peter in his letters and chapter 5 is dedicated to instructing the elders. Peter even appeals to the elders as “a fellow elder.” I am not prepared, at this point in my study, to make the bold claim that a church is in the wrong for not having elders, though I do see the significance for having mature Christians in a headship role whereby they help lead, serve, and protect the flock, especially for churches that are vulnerable to attack by falsehood.


Finally, I will agree with the words of Lynn Anderson:
“The process of appointing elders is simply the process of acknowledging those who have been shepherding a long time. It is recognizing those who have attracted flocks through the genuineness of their lives, the consistency of their service, and the authenticity of their relationships. A person officially becomes an elder when through one means or another, his flock says to the rest of the congregation, ‘You too need this man as your shepherd.’ And the rest of the congregation says, ‘Shepherd us also.’”[52]
Anderson demonstrates what this process might look like by giving us an exercise that he uses when he travels to different parts of the country. He begins by asking people to imagine facing a serious struggle or major decision in their lives. They are in need of wise council for the direction they must pursue:
“Where will you turn for help? Who are you most likely to turn to when your back hits the wall? What specific names come to mind? Jot down the names of the first three people you think of. Do it now. Okay. Stop and ponder. Why did you select these particular people? I have worked this exercise with a lot of people around the country and have kept mental notes on the reasons they give for selecting specific names. Maybe some of their reasons match yours.

“I know _____, _____, _____ well. I already have some relationship with them.” “I see _____, _____, _____, as experienced and competent enough to give wise counsel.” “_____, _____, _____ are available. I can always find them.” “_____, _____, _____ are approachable. I find it comfortable to be open with them.” “_____, _____, _____ are hospitable, express love to me in several ways, and often create opportunities for conversation.” “I have watched _____, _____, _____ make sound spiritual decisions in their own lives.” “_____, _____, _____ know the Word of God.” “_____, _____, _____ are respected by the people I most admire.”

This little exercise is one of the most practical ways I know to define what an elder is. . . An elder is the kind of person you would choose in a crunch: an elder has the experience, character, and vision to guide, comfort, and advise the sheep of his flock.”[53]

Conclusion
The purpose of this essay was to delve deep into Scripture and open dialogue that will be healthy and help bring clarity into the discussion on elders. Hopefully this study provided a nuanced view of appointing elders and helped us to recognize common pitfalls so that we may learn from the mistakes of those who have walked before us. It is my most honest opinion that healthy biblical discussion on the ministry of elders must take place before appointing elders. Leadership is not something to “feel our way through,” as if we can gamble with the direction of our members’ lives. It is, on the other hand, something that we should not only study seriously, but we should be modeling seriously.

Furthermore, I do not see any examples from Scripture where a church is in the wrong for not having shepherds. In fact, we see just the opposite case when God took the shepherds away in Ezekiel 34 because it was better for them not to have any shepherds than to have shepherds who were damaging the flock. We must be careful, then, not to let our desire to appoint elders become greater than our desire to accomplish the ministry of shepherding the flock. We also must make honest evaluations along the way as we move forward and be unified as a group of disciples. If some leaders are in strong disagreement with other leaders, yet those peoples’ voices are not heard, we must truthfully ask what kind of character that leader has who feels he has the authority to override the decisions of the leader with whom he disagrees. Eldership is not a power grab. It is a ministry.

We also must be willing to ask the members to evaluate the men of the church (not criticize, but answer the questions Anderson asks). If the members do not feel comfortable coming to certain men for direction, or if they do not feel a man is experienced enough, respected enough, or approachable enough to shepherd the flock, we must seriously examine our lives and involvement with the church without being defensive or offended. We also must ask how we can effectively shepherd a flock that does not trust us enough to do so. To ignore the sheep and “vote” men into that position regardless of what they think is a pretty shallow gesture and we should not wish to put ourselves in a position to have to answer to God for pushing our agendas. A good leader is one who recognizes his shortcomings and will let the vision of appointing elders rest for a period of time while he sets new goals and works on his ministry to the flock. Then he should come back and be willing to allow the members to evaluate again. On this point I may have people who disagree but if we are honest with God, Scripture, and each other, we really cannot “take matters into our own hands” but must follow what we believe to be the best biblical model for moving forward. Only then will God bless the direction of the church.

[1] Everett Ferguson, “Authority and Tenure of Elders” Restoration Quarterly 18 (1975):147. Italics mine.
[2] Ezekiel 34:2-5.
[3] 1 Peter 5:2.
[4] Acts 15:6.
[5] Acts 15:22.
[6] Acts 20:28.
[7] James 5:15.
[8] James 5:19-20.
[9] Acts 20:29-31a.
[10] Titus 1:10-11.
[11] Ezekiel 34:10.
[12] Lynn Anderson, They Smell Like Sheep: Spiritual Leadership for the 21st Century (West Monroe, LA: Howard Publishing, 1997), 189.
[13] Cf. Ferguson, “Authority and Tenure of Elders,” 144.
[14] Proverbs 31:23.
[15] Deuteronomy 21:18-21.
[16] 1 Peter 5:3. Italics mine.
[17] 1 Timothy 5:17.
[18] Cf. Anderson, They Smell Like Sheep, 128.
[19] Ezekiel 34:12.
[20] 1 Peter 2:25.
[21] John 10:15-16.
[22] Anderson, They Smell Like Sheep, 74.
[23] Titus 1:7.
[24] 1 Peter 5:2.
[25] 1 Timothy 3:2.
[26] 1 Timothy 5:17.
[27] Anderson, They Smell Like Sheep, 128.
[28] Ibid., 188.
[29] Ferguson, “Authority and Tenure of Elders,” 146.
[30] Ibid., 143-44.
[31] Ibid., 144-45.
[32] Ephesians 6:1-2.
[33] Ephesians 5:22-24.
[34] Ephesians 5:25, 28.
[35] Ephesians 6:4.
[36] Hebrews 5:7.
[37] Hebrews 5:4-5.
[38] Ezekiel 34:21-22.
[39] Anderson, They Smell Like Sheep, 130.
[40] Cf. Anderson, 130-31.
[41] Ibid., 131.
[42] 1 Timothy 3:7.
[43] 1 Timothy 3:5.
[44] Titus 1:5.
[45] Titus 1:12-13.
[46] Titus 1:11.
[47] Titus 1:5.
[48] Acts 14:4.
[49] Acts 14:23.
[50] Acts 6:2-3.
[51] 1 Thessalonians 1:8.
[52] Anderson, They Smell Like Sheep, 126.
[53] Ibid., 124-25.