AP
Reformed Thought for Christian Living
The office of elder is one of the primary components of Presbyterian polity. Importantly, this particular form of church government is founded upon the Scriptures contained in both the Old […]
The office of elder is one of the primary components of Presbyterian polity. Importantly, this particular form of church government is founded upon the Scriptures contained in both the Old Covenant (Exod. 3:16; 18:17-23; Num. 11:16-25) as well as the New Covenant (1 Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9; Acts 20:28-35).[1]
It also seems clear that the New Testament office of eldership is in continuity with the position of elders in the Old Testament. In fact, Murray Capill observes that “The Old Testament contains over one hundred references to elders, and the New Testament has some sixty references.”[2] The continuity between the two roles, therefore, is as unambiguous as it is significant. As Gregory Beale explains:
“In general, it appears that the office of elder in the church is the continuation of the position of elder in Israel. Whereas elders in Israel had both civil and religious authority, elders in the new covenant have full religious authority over the sphere of the new Israel, the church. Several observations point to this equivalence. Besides the use of the same word, “elders” (presbyteroi), the book of Acts repeatedly juxtaposes the phrase “rulers and elders” of Israel (4:5, 8) or “chief priests and elders” (4:23; 23:14; 25:15), or “elders and scribes” (6:12) with “apostles and elders” of the church (15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23; 16:4). Just as the Jewish “rulers and elders and scribes were gathered together in Jerusalem” to judge the validity of the emerging Christian movement (4:5-23), so too in “Jerusalem…the apostle and elder came together to look into this matter” about the Jewish-Christian teaching that new gentile converts had to keep the law of Moses (15:1-6). The function of the Jewish elders in Acts 4 and the Christian elders in Acts 15 appears virtually identical. Both are in an official position in their respective covenant communities to adjudicate whether a new theological teaching is valid.[3]
This is obviously a great strength as to how we operate as a local church as well as federal denomination, since it is the divinely revealed model of shared leadership and joint responsibility. However, the question arises: How long should an individual elder be appointed for? Amongst Reformed evangelical churches, there has been the practice of both ordaining elders for a limited period of time as well as permanently for life (until one is dismissed, retires or dies).[4]
I began this study thinking that term eldership is a good idea. But to my great surprise, as I sat down to seriously study the Scriptures I have changed my mind.[5] What follows is the theological and practical arguments as to why I believe the Scriptures teach that ordination to the office of elder is a lifelong appointment.
It’s important to begin with a proper examination as to what the office of elder is in Scripture. Especially when seeking to answer the question of term eldership, rather than focus on one or two proof texts, we need to step back and consider the topic more broadly. As John Murray writes:
“While the New Testament does not expressly legislate against term eldership, there are considerations which fall into the category of good and necessary inference, and which militate against the propriety of this practice. These considerations are derived from the implications which underlie or inhere in the acts of electing and ordaining to this office, implications which are incompatible with the idea of term eldership.”[6]
What follows then are several deductions from Scripture regarding the theological foundation underpinning local church eldership and why this is best expressed in a life-long commitment rather than a limited term.
The most important qualification for serving as an elder in Christ’s church is that of character. The only ability an elder must possess is being “apt to teach”. Every other area though involves one’s godliness and conformity to Christ (Titus. 1:6-9; 1Tim. 3:1-7; Acts 20:17-35). Character can only be developed, observed and proven over time both in the home as well as in the church. This truth alone lends itself to the nature of permanence.
One of the most important things which elders model for others is faithfulness to Christ and what it means to perseve in following him. We need men in the church whom the people of God can look up too, especially when times are difficult. A quiet word and consistent example can make an enormous difference in the lives of the saints.
Another aspect to consider are the many Old Testament antecedents which testify to New Testament eldership. Whether it be elders, prophets, kings, judges or priests, they were all appointed by the LORD for life rather than for a limited period of time. When the LORD called someone to this role, it was to last until they disqualified themselves from office. This is why, for example, the author of Hebrews writes:
“Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood.” Hebrews 7:23-24
One of the key functions of elders is to spiritually protect the flock from false teaching. This was one of the chief exhortations which the apostle Paul made in his farewell speech to the elders in Ephesus. Indeed, it seems to be one of the main things Paul had been preparing them for. As Paul writes:
“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. 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! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears. (Acts 20:28-31)”
This is a key component as to what an elder does, but sadly, it is often minimised or overlooked. Elders must guard Christ’s flock against the wolves who are servants of Satan. As Gregory Beale further explains:
“The origin of ecclesiology, particularly with respect to the hierarchical structure of the church, is to be viewed, at least in part, within this context of the latter-day tribulation of false teaching.[7] On the one hand, ‘elders’ or ‘bishops’ are needed in order to maintain the doctrinal purity of the covenant community, which is always either being influenced by or threatened from the infiltration of fifth-columnist movements. Titus 1:5-16 gives this as the formal reason from the establishment of elders throughout the churches of Crete, and the same rationale is apparent in 1-2 Timothy (cf. 1 Tim. 1:3-7; 19-20; 4:1-7 with 3:1-15; 5:11-17; 6:20-21; cf. 2 Tim. 2:14-18; 23-26; 3:1-13).”[8]
Beale later concludes:
“…the office of elder is not a response to occasional or temporarily unique conditions[9] but rather owes its existence to the ongoing, uninterrupted eschatological tribulation of false teaching and deception. In addition, we saw that the office was also created to protect the church’s doctrine so that it will remain healthy as it conducts its mission to the world to expand the invisible boundaries of the new creation. Such an office is needed until the time when the new creation is consummated.”[10]
When I was studying at Moore Theological College, Peter Jensen taught first year doctrine. One of the most memorable things he said was an off the cuff question which he posed to the class. Dr Jensen asked: “Is the church a business or more like a family? How you answer that question will greatly impact how you understand as well as perform your role as a leader of God’s people.”
I immediately appreciated the many implications of what he was saying. There is often a worldly ‘business’ model which comes into the church where its leaders are seen more as business managers than as under-shepherds of the Lord Jesus Christ. We might call this type of approach the ‘administrative’, in contrast to a ‘pastoral’, view regarding the office of eldership. However, this point in particular raises some significant biblical issues. As one author writes:
“It is difficult to imagine a true shepherd, in Biblical times, working an 8 hour shift, and then forgetting about his flock for the remainder of the day. Jesus, in John 10, called such a care-giver a “hireling,” and would not even dignify such a man with the term “shepherd.” But this would seem to be the inevitable consequence of electing elders to a 3 year term. Service in office as an elder is viewed as no different than service on the Christian school board. It’s a committee position. And once that notion sinks roots, it is almost impossible to cultivate a strong and Biblical view of an elder as a pastor, daily and deeply concerned about the spiritual life and walk of the flock of God throughout their long discipleship.”
Clearly, an elder is not a CEO or even a board member of a committee, but a shepherd who knows and cares for the sheep. They are to be men who are relationally involved in the people whom they oversee, searching for the strays, feeding the flock and binding up the injured (Ezek. 34:1-16). As such, the model of eldership for life seems to be the best reflection of the Biblical emphasis or focus on relationship.
In this sense being ordained as an elder is a bit like becoming a father (See 1 Tim. 1:2; 1 Cor. 4:15). The role might morph and change over the years, but one should always be active in how they fulfil their leadership role within the family. Indeed, it doesn’t ever end, although when a child leaves home it takes on a different form or expression.
Just think of how damaging it would be for a family then if the father ‘checked in and out’ depending on his work schedule? Actually, this is a sad reality which some families actually face! It is therefore ideal for an elder to grow old with the congregation in which he serves with the beautiful scenario of members in turn caring for him when he can no longer care for them.
Probably one of the strongest arguments in favour of term eldership is that it provides a polite social mechanism for removing someone from being an active elder without causing wider conflict within the congregation. But is this really honouring to Christ? Shouldn’t we rather confront the issue with integrity and grace rather than simply failing to have them re-appointed? As Stephen Kneale rightly argues:
“…if somebody has disqualified themselves or is incapable of serving, it does not seem prudent to wait until their term runs out. Instead, there should be clear mechanism for removal. In the first instance, a godly man – should a majority of the elders be clear that they ought to stand down – would take that advice. In cases where the elder is not behaving in a godly way, and is not responding to the recommendation of the majority of elders, the matter should be brought before the church members and he should be removed from office by the church in the same way as he was appointed.”
Church discipline is one of the defining marks of the church. And a truly healthy church should be able to model this within its own leadership. This is obviously a very painful thing to do because it involves engaging in difficult conversations rather than avoiding them. But ultimately, the spiritual health of the session, the congregation and individual members is best served if issues are honestly addressed.
One of the strongest arguments which John Murray makes against term eldership is the permanency of Christ’s gifts. As Murray states:
“There are a diversities of gifts in the church of God, and the gifts possessed dictate the functions which each person is to perform in the unity of the whole body. Now the gifts for eldership are not of a temporary character. If a person possessed them, the implication is that he permanently possesses them. Sadly enough he may through unfaithfulness lose them. But when a man possesses them we must proceed upon the assumption that he is going to prove faithful, and we may not entertain any suspicion to the effect that he is going to prove unfaithful. The simple fact is that when a man possesses certain endowments which qualify him for eldership, we must proceed on the assumption that they are abiding, and permanently qualify him for the discharge of the functions of the office.”[11]
This is an important point. God never gives gifts to his church in a random or haphazard way. Note the apostle Paul’s words in Ephesians 4 that it is the ascended Christ “…who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastor-teachers” (Eph. 4:11). This was his sovereign decision and as such, a work which God himself initiated and is committed to seeing bear fruit.
Following on from the previous point, Murray advances a second theological justification as to why eldership should be seen as being for life, and that is the sovereign call of Christ to the office of elder. As Murray writes:
“…this judgment on the part of the congregation and session involves more than the conviction that he is possessed of these qualifications; it is also judgment to the effect that, by reason of the gifts with which he is endowed, Christ the head of the church, and the Holy Spirit who dwells in the church, are calling this man to the exercise of this sacred office. In other words, the congregation and session ought to recognize themselves as merely the instruments through which the call of Christ and his Spirit comes to effect. The Church is acting ministerially in doing the will of Christ. The word of Paul to the elders of Ephesus is surely relevant to this fact: ‘Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to shepherd the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood’ (Acts 20:28).”[12]
Once again, this is an important point to take into consideration. Not only is there a permanency to the spiritual gifts which Christ gives, but closely connected to that there is also a permanency to Christ’s call. There is a profound symmetry here which finds its parallel in the nature of our redemption. As the apostle Paul writes, “…for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable”. (Rom. 11:29) Just as the LORD will not withdraw his grace from us in Christ for salvation, neither will he withdraw his grace from us in Christ for service (See Eph. 2:10).
Murray offers a third theological argument against term eldership and that is the parity between ruling and teaching elders. As Murray states:
“…there is [also] the argument that pertains to the unity of ruling office. In respect of ruling the church of God, the ruling elder and the teaching elder [pastor] are on complete parity. When the teaching elder is ordained, he is ordained to rule as well as to teach, and his ruling function is just as permanent as his teaching function.”[13]
Those who serve as teaching elders have traditionally understood that this is a calling for life.[14] Commenting on 1 Corinthians 9:16, John Calvin writes:
“This is a remarkable sentence. We learn from it, in the first place, the nature of the call which ministers receive, and how tightly they are bound to God; and, secondly, what the office of the pastor involves, and embraces within itself. Once a man has been called, then, let him get it into his head that he is no longer free to draw back, when it suits him, if, for example, frustrations take the heart out of him, or troubles overwhelm him; for he is dedicated to the Lord and to the Church, and held fast by a sacred bond, which it would be sinful for him to break.”[15]
If this is indeed the case for teaching elders (pastors) then shouldn’t it also be the case for elders who give themselves to rule? The divine call and gifting to shepherd Christ’s flock is the same even if it is to be expressed differently to those who labour full time in preaching and teaching and so are worthy of ‘double-honour’ (i.e. 1 Tim. 5:17-18).
What follows are several other ‘practical considerations’ which John Murray also adds to support his case against term eldership. While Murray only mentions them each in passing—with a one or two sentence summary—I have endeavoured to flesh out more fully what he means.[16]
Every man who is called to be a leader of God’s people should be tested and carefully assessed before taking up this holy responsibility (1 Tim. 5:22). Once a person is ordained and set a part for the task though, they need to commit themselves fully to the work and see it through to the very end. As the Lord Jesus Christ taught: “No one who puts his hand to the plough and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God (Luke 9:62).”
What’s more, finding new candidates for the eldership every three to five years can place a significant amount of strain upon the session. It is already a difficult process to raise up elders without having to do so on a regular basis.
If a man knows that he is able to step away from the role as Christ’s under-shepherd then it will unwittingly produce in him a decreased sense of commitment. There will always be a point on the not-too-distant horizon where the elder can easily step away. However, knowing that eldership is for life creates a wonderful sense of personal responsibility as well as sacredness for the office. Perhaps people today are not as willing to commit to social institutions as our forebears were, but as a community we are definitely the poorer for it. What the church needs are leaders who model ‘resilient perseverance’ – a stickability that endures both the good times as well as the bad.
Following on from the previous point, the session itself needs stability and continuity. There is a wealth of ‘corporate knowledge’ which is accumulated over the years of one’s service as to what has taken place in a local church. This wisdom cannot be short circuited but is gained often through painful experience.
By serving on a session for a while elders build up an intimate knowledge of denominational debates, church discipline cases within the congregation, as well as procedures for dealing with complex pastoral situations. If the session is constantly rotating through its members though, then this insight is lost.
One of the goals of term eldership is the removal of elders who have either grown stale or worse, unfaithful. I argued earlier under point 2 that this presents an opportunity for the eldership to act with Christ honouring courage. Sometimes elders have to make decisions which are deeply unpopular even though they are right in the eyes of God. This can lead to the likely dismissal of elders who are in fact faithfully fulfilling their roles. In this context, the apostle Paul’s words are all the more apposite:
“Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry (2 Tim. 4:2-5).”
Due to the nature of people’s hearts, it would be easy for faithful elders to not be voted back for another term if a sizable proportion of the congregation lobbied against them.
One of the things which eldership teams should zealously guard against are those who would seek to sow division. As elders serve alongside one another over many years, a fellowship, understanding, and hopefully love and respect develops between each of them. With term appointments though, there is a temptation for an elder to primarily seek to change the things which they are frustrated with but not also keep in mind the wider unity of the body.
Murray makes the provocative point about term eldership that, “It is rather liable to give the impression of representative government”.[17] This is a fascinating insight. The people of God are not ruled by majority opinion, but are overseen by men whom the Lord Jesus Christ has appointed to care for his church. It is one of the reasons why the writer of Hebrews states:
“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 (Heb 13:17).”
Elders in the church represent Christ, not the opinions of the majority of members within the congregation. This means that they have to be prepared to rebuke even their own family members and friends as they apply the word of God to their lives (Ezek. 3:16-21; Acts 20:26-27). Understood in this way, Murray is right. Presbyterianism is not a democracy but a rule through an appointed few who will accordingly be held to a stricter judgement (Jam. 3:1).
The calling to the office of elder is a sacred appointment and as such is never something to enter into lightly. Serving for only a limited period of time though, gives the impression that this is something which most men who are godly can “have a turn” at doing. While there are definitely some men who should be challenged to serve the church in this way—but for some reason are currently not—the role of elder is clearly not for everyone.
There is both a tremendous blessing of receiving an “excellent standing and great assurance in Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 3:13) as well as a tremendous burden in overseeing the people of God (2 Cor. 11:28). Anyone who has served in this capacity will enthusiastically acknowledge what this means. But as with marriage, this is not to be entered into lightly. The joys are immense, but so too are the heartaches.
Somone might legitimately ask: ‘Are we making the bar for eldership too high?’ After all, making a commitment to something for the rest of one’s life is huge, and won’t this burn out the elders who are there? A number of things can be said in response.
Firstly, if we really do believe that eldership is for life then we need to really care for one another as elders. One of the things my session clerk does is provide a meal for everyone before each session meeting. This is a wonderful act of service which greatly promotes our Christian fellowship and partnership in the Gospel.
Second, we must always keep in mind that any organisation never rises above the level of its leadership. Setting the bar high is actually a good thing then, for by the grace of God it provides a model for everyone else to aim for themselves (1 Cor. 11:1).
Third, none of this takes away from the opportunity for an elder to take a ‘sabbatical’ or even an extended period of leave. There are seasons in life which are especially difficult, and in those times having a break from the responsibilities of session is obviously a wise thing to do. But that is not the same thing as stepping down altogether. The spirit may be willing, but the flesh is weak (Matt. 26:41). And just as the disciples were tempted to withdraw from prayer in Christ’s greatest hour of need, so too is there a danger that elders in the church might not be there precisely when they are needed most.
Fourth, Ps Mike Brown argues that “…indefinite terms of service promote a lighter load of work for all.” As he goes on to explain:
“When qualified men remain in office rather than leaving the Consistory (session) or diaconate after a three-year term, it makes the work more manageable for all. A larger number of officers can share the burden of service. As the old saying goes, “Many hands make light work.” For example, a manageable elder district might be no more than twelve family “units,” that is, families and/or single individuals in the congregation. But when the elder-to-family ratio swells to 1:25 or more, it becomes very difficult for the elder to know the people in his district well and visit them in a reasonable and responsible time-frame. For churches without an abundance of willing and qualified candidates for office, indefinite terms allows for a larger number of officers to serve, keeping the workload manageable.”
There is a wonderful promise in Scripture that Christ will always sustain those whom he has called to be his. Dr. Ian Smith, Principal of Christ College Burwood, once made a speech in the Presbytery of Sydney about the increasing burnout he was observing of those in Christian ministry. The subject is an emotional and complicated one with many factors contributing to the increasing number of men leaving the pastoral work. Nonetheless, Dr. Smith argued that the words of the Lord Jesus Christ we especially pertinent:
“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light (Matt. 11:28-20).”
There is something profoundly freeing in Jesus’ promise that his yoke is ‘easy’ and his burden is ‘light’. Maybe one of the reasons why both teaching and ruling elders feel tired is because we’re tempted to sometimes depend upon our own strength (See 2 Cor. 1:8-11). What if then the current weakness we are feeling is part of the LORD’s sovereign plan to see his strength made manifest in us? (2 Cor. 12:7-10) As Mike Brown argues:
“Officers can burn out whether they serve for life or for a three-year term. The length of the term is not the issue. God supplies us with his grace in order to persevere in the callings to which he has called us – fiery trails and all. Paul exhorts elders to “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” (Acts 20:28). One of the ways in which officers can pay careful attention to themselves is by focusing on those specific tasks they have been given…and not taking on for themselves more work than necessary, especially when such work can be delegated to willing and capable people in the congregation.”
Ultimately, we can persevere in a life-time of ministry precisely because the Lord Jesus Christ perseveres with us (Phil. 1:3-6). His grace is all-sufficient to do the good works which he has prepared in advance for us to do. As the apostle Paul writes:
“Yet I am not ashamed, because I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him for that day (2 Tim. 1:12).”
– Mark Powell
[1] For an excellent overview of the New Testament office of eldership see Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology: Church and Last Things Vo. 4 (Crossway, 2024), 215-320.
[2] Murray Capill, The Elder-Led Church: How an Eldership Team Shepherds a Healthy Flock (Presbyterian and Reformed, 2024). Location 322 (Kindle).
[3] Gregory Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology – The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New (Baker, 2011), 822.
[4] For a good summary of the topic see https://www.christurc.org/blog/2011/06/24/should-elders-be-ordained-for-life
[5] It is noteworthy that the Scriptures do not prescribe a limited term of service. Instead, the question is left opened ended. However, the burden of proof rests with those arguing against life eldership as will be further argued below.
[6] John Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray. Vol 2: Systematic Theology (Banner of Truth, 1977). See in particular Chapter 29, ‘Arguments Against Term Eldership’, 352.
[7] In this respect, note the overt references in 1 Tim. 4:1-3; 2 Tim. 3:1 (cf. 3:2-9) to the inaugurated end-time trial of deception within the church community.
[8] Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 820.
[9] Contra Gordon D. Fee, “Reflections on Church Order in the Pastoral Epistles, with Further Reflection on the Hermeneutics of Ad Hoc Documents,” JETS 28 (1985), 141-151.
[10] Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 822. Beale goes on to write, “On the other hand, such an ecclesiastical authority structure ensured the Christian community that it was continuing in the truth and life of the kingdom, which would enable it to be strong in accomplishing its mission of witness to the world, which is also a significant theme in the Pastoral Epistles. This positive element of mission is part of the larger positive role of the church in its responsibility of carrying out the original Adamic commission to subdue the ends of the earth and Israel’s similar commission to be priests for and a light to witness to the world. Of course, Acts highlights this eschatology light-bearing mission of the new creation more than any other NT book. In fact, the mention of deacons in Acts 6 and elders in Acts 20 is, at least in part, to indicate their role in speeding on the spread of the kingdom, and in the latter case also to encourage elders to guard against false teaching.” 821.
[11] Murray, ‘Arguments Against Term Eldership’, 353.
[12] Murray, 353-354.
[13] Murray, 354.
[14] For an examination and defence of the subject of ministerial calling from a reformed evangelical perspective see Mark Powell, ‘Called and Sent by God: The Divine Initiative in Ministry and Mission,’ Reformed Theological Review Vol. 79 (December 2020), 1-29.
[15] John Calvin, The First Epistle of Paul The Apostle to the Corinthians, trans. John W. Fraser (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1960), 192.
[16] See Murray, ‘Arguments Against Term Eldership’, 355-356.
[17] Murray, 356.
