Preface: This article is written with the believer in mind who has been a Christian for many years and cares about the church. We assume familiarity with certain books and material that we consider foundational (because of the effects of modern church thinking). He must care about the church enough to know God's Word well and follow God's Word above modern church ways. He must care about the church even if he is not allowed to be part of the leadership of the church because of conscience related reasons. ^{1.consciencereasons}  

Preparation: We would like you to be familiar with Alexander Strauch's "Biblical Eldership", John Piper's TBI teaching on "Biblical Eldership" from 1999, ^2.tbi   D. A. Carsons's talks on biblical eldership and NTRF articles on pastors/elders. ^6.ntrf   These materials should provide a good background and foundation for our article (with the Bible as the main foundation). If you are not familiar with these, we recommend listening to the TBI 4 part series by John Piper because it is easy and we have links. If you are very familiar with Alexander Strauch's book on "Biblical Eldership" and have read much of it, then the TBI 4 part series is recommended but somewhat optional. We still think you would appreciate this 4 part series by John Piper, unless you are sensitive because of your denominational background. Generally, the TBI presentation and Alexander Strauch's book are considered preliminary material for this article. Our thoughts on the church and eldership are not really at an introductory level (because of the confusions of modern church). We are reacting to how the biblical material is often at odds with modern church ideas of eldership. But some of the foundational biblical ideas we assume in our article have been discussed by these well known authors. We have respect for John Piper, D.A. Carson and Alexander Strauch for working hard at trying to get back to a biblical basis for eldership in the church. We suggest this material from respected teachers to make sure we at least have this as a base before you look at our thoughts on eldership. So in summary, we strongly recommend being familiar with the TBI teaching (John Piper/TBI), Alexander Strauch's "Biblical Eldership" and D.A. Carson's audio on eldership. Once we have this in common, we want to build some biblically based thoughts on top of these well known eldership teachings. We want to interact with these teachers and consider them in relation to what the Bible says.

If you skip this introductory material then we would not be surprised if you are not prepared for our article. It will probably not make sense to you unless you are more into the Bible as your guide than modern church ways.

Why care about the role of Elder?

Evangelical churches today are usually led by Pastors and Elders who are connected to a congregation of "members". The church is usually associated with a denomination but many evangelical churches are independent. Every church I have attended has had one or two or sometimes three pastors and a bunch of elders and/or deacons. The "elders" do not usually go by the term "overseer", but we know it to be an equivalent Biblical term. The relationship of "elder" and "pastor" is a bit more confusing and we will talk about that later. Usually when one is younger, there is not much thought about these roles of "elder" or "deacon", since these are leadership roles associated with age and experience. After being involved in churches for a number of years, however, the thought of being responsible and obedient to Christ along with the possible desire some may have to follow the patterns taught by the apostle Paul (especially) should make one consider these important Biblical roles. A local church's by-laws and "membership" rules ^4.membership   may not allow involvement, but one should find the desire to be involved in guiding the church based on scriptural motivations rather than actual local church situations. The Bible presents the role of "elder" as a position of honor, especially for those who "rule well" and who "labor in preaching and teaching" (1 Tim 5:17; 1 Thess 5:12), but the desire should not be for outward praise, but only out of an inner desire to please God. The high standard of "elder" should inspire any Christian man to secretly or even outwardly desire to be qualified for this role even if one does not actually intend to pursue this role. It appears that the Apostle Paul presents the role of elder as something that every man should aspire to.

What does Elder mean? An older man?

The word "elder" literally refers to an "older man" and sometimes is translated that way. We have disadvantages of understanding the original text of scripture if we think "Elder" is in the Greek text and "older man" is a separate Greek text word. We are in a disadvantage if we do not realize the Greek text underlying the words that turn into church "officers" and leaders. In fact, there are such "officers", but they are not so much official as we might assume. There is such a thing as an Elder in the New Testament, but this "officially" selected representative is not necessarily as official in the same way as we might think. If the author of scripture used the same word interleaved with older man, and is rather loose about it, then we should know that and integrate the same looseness into our modern churches.

Elder may very well may refer to spiritual "age" more than physical age. Physical age is often a noticeable factor in being qualified, but we must understand that there could easily be a 20 year old who has been walking with God for 15 years while a 50 year old man may have a much shorter history, and appear as if he is more qualified with his gray hair. No, the Biblical idea of Eldership seems to be more tied to spiritual age.

An important point about eldership is that the role of "Elder" should be something all Christian men desire (even if it is more theoretical). We should expect Christian men to be seeking to be living a life where they are continually moving in the direction of maturity so that our young men desire to have the Elder like qualifications in their character. The qualifications are not so high as some may imagine, but they are serious qualifications because some will not be qualified (1 Tim 3:1-7). The ability to teach for example, was originally normally done in a house church setting, not in a large church setting. Almost any man can feel quite comfortable teaching in a house church size setting if he knows God's Word well. The main requirement is knowing God's Word well. The gift of public speaking in a larger church setting is not a biblical Elder requirement, but is a modern church "pastor" requirement. Many things become a little different when we realize that the pattern and tradition of the Apostles way of doing church was normally to have a full meal Lord's Supper house church meeting and assume the church was considered at the town/city level. But even if this is not the case, we can try to relate the best we can in our pursing biblical eldership.

We believe it is wrong to elect men to "eldership" when there are other men more qualified and are willing. So theoretically, if someone has children who do not believe or who has been divorced (if this is the proper interpretation), then the man who has children who do believe and who does not have reputation issues (like a previous divorce/remarriage, assuming that is the correct view), should be considered before the other man. Of course this is very complex and there are other considerations, but character issues are more fundamental than a person's ability to teach. Ability to teach is only a consideration after character issues have been passed. Elders and Deacons are supposed to be tested. Character issues are a big part of the testing. Anyone who is a new believer or who is new to a congregation, needs to be proven. How are they proven? By looking into their life choices, by seeing if they know God's Word, etc.

We believe it is wrong to put any kind of burdens on being an Elder like requirements to attend regular special meetings when the biblical job is primarily that of being a wise older man who is ready to intervene when there is a situation. The Elder must primarily be willing to participate in thoughtful biblical discussion and have perceptive decisions on issues, but there is no biblical basis for requirements to attend special meetings. The Elder must fundamentally know God's Word well. When there are questions, one must know God's Word well to have a godly take on how to deal with various situations. Any preference for choosing men based on their social or speaking abilities over another man who knows God's Word equally or better is not the biblical way. Anyone who compromises God's Word with modern interpretations is a poor choice of an Elder. Unfortunately, many churches will make poor choices with their Elders. We should expect that by looking at the beginning of Revelation. But the Bible has ways for Elders to be booted out of their authority positions. They are only booted out if they are clearly not following God's Word. If there are two men (or more) who find something wrong with what an Elder is teaching, they are supposed to speak up about the issue. This way there is a refinement and review of the eldership. If the Elders are all very bad, of course, there will be whole church issues like some of the churches in Revelation. Peter also explains how there will be false teaching in the church. Many people will find teachers who agree with what they want said ("itching ears teachers"). But if the Elders are wise, the church will be blessed and will thrive (generally). One way to kill off the good elders however is to put heavy burdens of responsibility on the elders. That is not the biblical way. An elder is mainly someone who can speak to a situation with wisdom because he has seen a lot of issues in life and has learned to lean on God's Word for the solution to the issues of life.

Occasionally Elders may need to attend meetings outside of the regular church meeting. This should be unusual. When Paul called the Ephesian elders to travel to meet him, this was unusual. This may have been the only situation these elders ever did anything like this. But some churches will put burdens on elders so that mature godly older men will be worn out by the requirements. In the cities of Israel, the elders used to gather sort of like in a social club and discuss things "at the gate". We should take some hints from the biblical patterns of elders rather than assume the modern business man is the ideal elder type. It would be an anti biblical shame to have older men sitting in the pews who are wise enough to help with Elder type decisions and yet are not up for the job of attending long modern style business like meetings. Being an elder according to the Bible is mostly about your character qualifications. It is mainly about being a proven man who is qualified because you have been though more experiences as a Christian and have a confident reliance on God's Word to assess various situations. In Isaiah, there is the idea of shepherds who are not able to bark (Isaiah 56:10). This is the man who is a fine Elder by modern standards, but who cannot detect when something is going wrong. He does not know God's Word well and is not willing to speak up when he does see something.

What are Elders, Pastors, and Overseers?

Each church today typically has one or two or sometime three pastors and some have a bunch of elders and/or deacons. We think the Bible is very clear about the importance of having a plurality of elders, but how should churches think of pastors and elders? According to the Bible, an "elder" appears to be the same exact role as "pastor" and "overseer". They are exactly the same thing. Modern church ideas often present elders and pastors as very different. But according to the Bible, they appear to be the same. Elders are really just older men who have been chosen by the church to be responsible for the ordering and teaching and guidance of the church. New Testament churches were consistently considered at the city level, so the elder role would naturally apply to the city church. The word "pastor", is the same as "shepherd", and in some languages like Portuguese, they only use the one word "pastor" for both shepherds of sheep and of people. In English, we normally use "pastor" for leaders of the sheep and "shepherd" for literal sheep herders. The term "overseer" is just another word that describes the role of this responsible position. The position of Biblical Elder/Overseer/Pastor is to faithfully lead God's people according to the Bible. "Elder" and "pastor" are not two different offices. As John Piper argues in section five of the booklet "Biblical Eldership," they are simply two different words for the same office. He gives three reasons. First, in Acts 20:28, elders are encouraged in the "pastoral" duties of overseeing and shepherding. Second, in 1 Peter 5:1-2, elders are exhorted to "shepherd" the flock of God that is in their charge, which is the role of a pastor. Third, in Ephesians 4:11, the one time that the word pastor occurs in the NT, pastors are treated as one group with teachers. This suggests that the chief role of the pastor is to feed the flock through teaching, which is a primary role of elders (Titus 1:9). Hence, the NT seems to indicate that "pastor" is another name for "elder." An elder is a pastor, and a pastor is an elder. Desiring God - Elder Role - Matt Perman

How do we follow Elders / Pastors?

Anyone who takes on the role of "elder" or "pastor" and is faithful to the Bible should be respected according their seriousness in following God's Word. If the "elder" or "pastor" carefully follows God's Word, they should be respected as they seek to maintain spiritual order and teach within the church. They are not to be blindly followed! The biblical terms for "follow", "honor", "obey", relating to biblical Elders is an interesting study (peitho, etc). These elders are to be followed precisely because they are leading in accordance with the scriptures. All church members should see their faithfulness and follow them by helping them maintain the order in the church with a preference for some of their guiding ideas (if they are not making up their own ideas). Anyone who takes on the role of Elder but is not faithful to the teaching of the Bible should not be followed. The following is based on their faithfulness. We are instructed to follow Paul's guidance of not putting up with men who are not faithful in following the teaching and ways of the apostles who Jesus chose to lay the foundation of the church.

Elders are responsible for a town or city

According to the Bible, elders should be appointed in each town (Titus 1:5). Not much is said about the role of elders in the NT church. But what is said can be combined with some OT references to get an idea of how elders should guide the church. One thing that is clear from both the OT and NT is how the elders related to the town/city community of believers. For example, Joshua 20:4 speaks of elders governing a city. Deuteronomy 21 speaks of elders making important decisions and being responsible for the city. The goal of the elders being appointed (Titus 1:5) seems to be to have order in the church. Unfortunately our modern church is divided. Our modern church so divided that many non Christians think the different denominations are different religions. Yes, I had one Russian co-worker who asked what religion I was part of, "Baptist", "Presbyterian", "Lutheran", etc. He was confused, of course. But if a non Christian does not think that, he still knows there is no truth in Christianity because they cannot love each other evidenced by all the split up situation (John 17). We really need wisdom to understand how to apply the idea of elders to the issues today. The goal of the elders in Titus is primarily to have order, so the idea of individual local churches having their own separate sets of elders at least provides some order (although it may be promoting a more fundamental issue of disunity). We think the "city"/"town" based appointments are significant and should not be so easily dismissed because we happen to have such an overwhelming unity issue in the Church (1 Corinthians 3 and 12). (See D.A. Carson's mp3 below, or possibly his mp3 on Christian Leaders Carson mp3 for some good comments on the city-based-church in the early church)
More about the Biblical connection of elders and the city - cityelders.org

What about payment to Elders / Pastors?

Based on Acts 20, the role of elder/pastor is not a salary type paid position. We may have our modern popular view of the well paid salaried "pastor". But the biblical example is that these elders were men who worked hard with their hands. In Acts 20, Paul is both an Apostle and a travelling teacher (missionary type), so he is justified in collecting funds for his work. But he sets an example for the local elders by showing them that by working "hard" with their "hands" they "must help the weak" (Acts 20:34-35). Paul shows the Elders that they are supposed to work to help others rather than expect to receive a salary. ^6.ntrf   The elders were supposed to be in a position to give rather than to receive like all the other men in the church. The main difference is that the Elders are appointed to be responsible. The Elders need to speak up if there is an issue or a doctrinal confusion that needs clarification. The assumed church style in the early church was a home based one-another model like in 1 Corinthians 14. The Elders are ordinary men with extra ordinary responsibility. They should be given extra respect since they have the responsibility to maintain good doctrine and good order in the church. If someone said something to encourage the Christian brothers in the church meeting (think 1 Cor 14 style), then the elders would need to be ready to step in and clarify biblical truth or try to help settle possible disagreements. They were responsible if a "wolf" tried to get into the assembly to lead the sheep astray. The would be responsible to settle any kind of disorder that caused trouble just like the Apostles would have done. This would not mean blocking a rebuke (like when Paul rebuked Peter), but doing whatever would be right according to God's Word. The early church did not have sermons like our modern day churches so there was more freedom for men to participate in speaking. Because of this, elders were needed. In these modern days, most churches follow other ways, with sermons and paid professional pastors so things are quite complicated.

We speak from what we see in the Bible and we may be wrong, but we are just saying it like we see this in the Bible. We see no clear teaching that elders should be in regular secluded meetings. We see no clear teaching that elders should be paid a salary. We so no clear teaching that there should be classes or any kind of hierarchy of elders. We do not agree with the "first among equals" idea of Alexander Strauch and many others. We do, however, see an emphasis on elder character and reputation (related to marriage and children believing, etc). [NOTE: This topic is rather complex so we are always listening and learning so see what God's Word is saying and by listening to godly Christians.]

Since this is such a sensitive topic (we think), let us add some more thoughts on what we see the Bible teaching for how we should be using our money in the church. The Biblical teaching seems to be that of giving funds to help the poor (Christians) and supporting travelling missionaries ("apostles"). There are examples of "prophets" and teachers at Antioch, but they were not necessarily paid to teach. Perhaps some of these "prophets" doubled as Apostles of Christ (and had reason to be paid), but the record does not necessarily say that of Paul. However, when Paul left for missionary work, the implication is that he would be paid then. At that time however, it does not appear that he received a salary. He was given money by various churches to help with his missionary work, but for some reason he appears to not have established a "salary" system, even though he could have easily done so.

Back to Elders. Most likely, from the ideas in Acts 20, Elders held jobs just like the other men in the church. It does appear that some "travelling missionary teachers" (Apollos types) were funded just like the regular travelling missionaries (Apostles and apostles). There is an interesting consideration as it may have relevance to some of our modern day "Pastors". It appears that elders ("Pastors") who stayed in a particular church usually held regular jobs and were more in a position to give. Paul reminded them, "it is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35). However, when these same men began to travel, it appears that they became travelling missionaries in need of support. At this time they would be in need of being provided for. The way they would be provided for would have still been honorariums rather than salaries (according to the example of the Apostles, it seems). This is not to say salaries are wrong for missionaries, but just that there might be a danger in this method. We are still wondering why the Apostles did not setup steady incomes when this was done for the widows (it seems). Perhaps this was purely a matter of technology and these days they would have done so. So we are not arguing against salaries for missionaries, but rather, instead focusing on salaries for Elders. We do not see any kind of pay for Elders other than honorariums for those who labored at teaching. But if the idea of the modern sermon is in your mind, then we do not see that in the Bible. Rather, there might have been special meetings or special times when the church would gather to hear extended teachings. Our modern way is to make this a career. In the Bible, however, we do not see this as a pattern.

We know Paul worked hard to provide for his team even when they were travelling and needed money. We know he gave the example of always being ready to work a regular job as needed. But he also strongly encouraged the sending of workers to the mission field (along with the encouragement to care for the poor). But some may insist that elders were supposed to be paid because of the "double honor" of 1 Tim 5:17! That is debatable because there are Greek words that would fit "pay" that were not used (The NLT is a really bad translation on this verse). We have always assumed this is more likely referring to "honor" or possibly honor along with an "honorarium" at times. We were shocked the first time we heard the interpretation that "double honor" means they should be paid well ("salary"). If you take this literally, hard working Elders should be paid 2x the salary of the other elders (double honor). But this is not what Paul is getting at (See Acts 20). Sadly (from our perspective), this remains a debated issue. The vast majority of Christians follow the popular teachings of our day that insist that "double honor" for Elders means "paid" or "well paid". The logic is based on 1 Tim 5:18 and the comparison to the "ox". And the "worker deserves his wages". So the ox gets food and the worker gets paid and the Elder gets "honor". So therefore "honor" equals "wages". Yes, it is an argument, but in light of Acts 20, we think it is a weak argument. We think God would have provided more clarity if this was so since Elders were usually not paid in the Old Testament (it seems). The idea of paying some Elders also seems to go against the response Jesus had to the disciples always seeking "greatness" or the simple picture of the church meetings in 1 Corinthians 14.

Another aspect related to providing for the "travelling teachers" is our affluence in America. We have such a luxurious lifestyle (in America, and many other places), we can easily miss the difficulties and simplicity that was endured in the early church. We can easily miss how the disciples of Jesus would have been satisfied with the basic necessities of life. Instead, if we go to a Christian conference we tend to expect hotel room style comforts and privacy rather than being a guest in someone's home. We expect salaries and steady incomes instead of having a job and maybe getting an honorarium on occasion. We assume "honor" in the Bible means pay (e.g. NLT). It is not so much that money and comforts are bad. It is that we tend to assume our luxuries are normal and it gets worked into our church budgets. We don't have great solutions to this problem because we also like comforts and have gotten soft. We just want to warn (ourself included) that the sin of Sodom was "arrogance, abundant food and careless ease" without helping "the poor and needy" (Ezk 16:49-50). Surely we (ourself included) could do a little more for the poor and needy along with encouraging the work of missions to the nations.

We know this is radical and controversial. But we wonder if things would be completely different if we just followed the traditions of the Apostles more carefully. For example, if we allowed the men to speak in church instead of paying professionals to speak we would be following the traditions of the Apostles. We would have more of the biblical one-another idea. We would be encouraging men to speak. The budget might have double or triple the room for things like the poor and mission work. We have long suggested reversing the 80-20 rule from 80% for us and 20% for them (missions and the remote Christian poor) to the opposite. Because we are "sitting with the baggage" in an affluent country, we could easily endure using 20% and giving 80% (remote missions and the remote Christians poor). OK, so we know this is not going to happen. This would bother many people who run the budgets. But we have always been wired this way since coming to America and meditating on God's Word.

But all this talk about following simpler assumptions in paying for missionary work is missing the biggest reason to think differently about elders and "pastoral" salaries. The biggest reason is the way that we create our own traditions rather than following the traditions of the Apostles. If the Apostles were careful to "work with their hands", then that is the way. This implies "pastors" (also called "Elders") should be vocational. They should have a job. They should join the other men in waiting for a turn to speak in the 1 Corinthians 14 style meeting where each one who has a lesson or some encouragement is quick to wait their turn. The elders should only stand up and interrupt when there is a doctrinal issue (and they are not rude about it) or there is a troubling situation (Like someone trying to speak in tongues without an interpreter, etc. [Note: this may have been excusable for the Corinthians, until they got guidance, but after Paul's guidance, there is no longer an excuse for "speaking in tongues" type disturbances during the main meeting of the church.

[NOTE: At this point many of my fellow Christian friends are thinking, Wow, you are crazy! There is no church in this area that is anything like what you are describing! We believe the church evolves and has migrated to our modern way of doing things, sermon, pastors and all. Yes, we are processing all of this as we have for 30-40 years. Yes, we also find the difference disturbing. But we are also dreaming about the simple New Testament model of church and we do not want to compromise our vision and understanding of what we read about in our Bible reading, just because of modern differences. So we say it as we see it (from our Bible reading), yet we realize that we are speaking kind of radical (relative to modern church life).

We believe there is better way to use God's resources in advancing His kingdom. We have experiences from living among missionaries in Africa in the 1970s that have deeply affected our thinking. We cannot keep a clear conscience and agree with the modern church professional pastoral kind of eldership. We believe there are two big issues when it comes to money. The travelling teachers and missionaries who preach the true Gospel to every nation are not helped as much as they should be. The second issue is the consumer model of church where the laity sits passively in the pews.

What about the "Pastoral" letters to Timothy?

We know that most Christians think Timothy was a "pastor". But we don't see it that way. We see Timothy as an apostle worker and not so much an elder or pastor at all! We see Timothy and Titus as apostle helpers primarily. They were certainly involved in helping select and find "elders"/"pastors", for the new churches they were starting. But we think of them more as "travelling apostolic workers". Timothy appears to have assisted Paul as the missionary team travelled from city to city. In the New Testament, all missionaries seemed to establish city based churches.

The role of Peter is a bit more complicated but he appears to have been both an Apostle (focused on the Jews) and an Elder (at Jerusalem). He is probably not the best example to gather our ideas about how to apply things to the church today. But perhaps Peter is an example that shows there are no strict rules about these things. However, we find pretty clear teaching about some of these ideas in Paul's writings and example and we think it is right to follow the clear teachings and patterns that we see.

According to this view we are presenting, there are two ways for "pastors" to be paid. One way is for them to be travelling teachers (a missionary "shepherd" kind of like Apollos). You could say they are not really "pastors", however, and just call them "travelling teachers". The other way is to allow the local "pastor" who holds a job to be given an honorarium. But if the honorarium approaches the pay of a full time job, then that is no longer really an honorarium. Then the honorarium is a sneaky way of following the modern church model. We do not see the "salary" for "elder"/"pastor" model in the Bible. A true honorarium is just a bit of extra help for the man who normally depends on his full time or part time job. The honorarium just helps him out a bit even though he relies on "working with his hands". He might be able to spend a bit more time studying the Bible and coming to church prepared to be ready to encourage the assembly (a prepared teacher).

What do "Elders" do in the Worship Meeting?

We believe there is a fundamental right for all Christian men to speak in the church. This is based on 1 Corinthians 14, the synagogue, the home based churches in the NT, Timothy, etc. But the right to speak must always be done in a setting where there is an open forum and an opportunity for evaluation. This is straight from 1 Corinthians 14. Other than evangelical presentations and special travelling missionary presentations the Christian meeting is not supposed to be dominated by any one or few people. There should never be a man who speaks while the other Christian men silently listen. This may be acceptable during a teaching meeting, but this is not the regular assembly. There must always be an opportunity for instant evaluation. This is where the role of the Elder is special. The Elder is responsible to maintain this open forum when a trouble maker may want to ruin it. So the Elder must be given higher respect when he speaks out of concern. The Elder must know God's Word and use his wisdom at the right time to help keep a healthy open forum. An Elder should be given respect so they can maintain the order of the Christian meeting. 1 Corinthians 14 says that everything should be said for the up-building and encouraging of the attenders. A non Elder may expresses the same kind of peace restoring moderation. But God has setup the church so there is a responsible team of men who work together to maintain this order.

If some of these Elders try to put themselves into a special category however, there may be less teamwork and more of a one man show effect. There is no way to maintain a godly worship service like in 1 Corinthians 14 unless there is a very special Elder team in control. A congregation may have many wise men and may run smooth. But God knows and has setup a structure where men can speak without being interrupted by any other man. No woman may speak during this special and central meeting (according to the plain reading of 1 Corinthians 14). All men are free to comment on what is said to encourage. Elders make sure everything runs smoothly. This is the way. But given this freedom to speak, there will be situations when men will say something foolish. Even if Christian men are reminded to keep everything edifying and know there are Elders present, still there will sometimes be issues. So Elders must be bold and wise. They sin if they control and they sin if they allow foolishness to unchecked.

What is the primary agenda of Elders/pastors?

The church has a huge mission to reach the lost (Matt 28). It is an ambitious goal to bring the gospel to the nations. Elders and "pastors" are part of God's plan to help achieve that goal. Elders and "pastors" should not be advancing any ideas that slow down the gospel going to the nations (like consuming money that could be used for missionaries and the poor), but rather encouraging the church in the mission.

We see those of us in comfortable America (and other places) as being like the ones who stayed with the "baggage" in David's adventures. David said that those who "stay with the baggage" held an important role. Some "soldiers" for God may have had the feeling that the ones staying with the baggage were acting so soft that they should not enjoy the spoil. But David rightly saw that the ones who support missionaries are doing an important job.

So those staying home (sending missionaries), should be careful about how they act with the resources given by God so they do not become a stumbling block. The Apostle Paul sometimes refrained from rightful funds to avoid hindering the Gospel. He left a clear example of being ready to work on the side if needed. We do believe there is the role of the local missionary speaker like Apollos, and some "Pastors" today would certainly seem to qualify for that. But there is a danger of churches assuming that churches need to be led by "professional pastors". The biblical example is clearly different. The clearest model of the church meeting in 1 Corinthians 14 shows a different way. Instead, "pastors" and "elders" are supposed to be the ones who speak up when someone in the assembly defies or distorts scripture so the sheep are not misled. If the elders are quiet, something is wrong. This is one of the main duties of the elder. The Elder is responsible to ensure that the 1 Corinthians 14 type meeting is a safe place for expressions of up-building encouragement.

How long does an Elder or Pastor serve?

The New Testament speaks of appointing elders and does not speak of expiring terms. This is a controversial subject because of our modern "democratic" way of thinking. In our secular government, leaders are not allowed to serve more than 2, 4 or 6 years before being re-elected. This is supposed to be good because it forces corruption out of power. If someone is corrupt, then it is limited.

Now if we bring that same sort of thinking into the church we are basically saying that we cannot trust the model of cleansing that the Apostles set up (Not to speak against an elder except if there are 2 witnesses, etc). So to follow the Bible it appears there are not terms but rather a system of cleansing if there is corruption. The burden of proof is on the ones wanting "terms" and the expiring of the "office" of Elder.

We believe an Elder is an Elder for life, unless there is a cleansing situation or a resignation or a leaving from the area. If there is a leaving from the area, it should not be a sub-assembly but rather leaving the town/city area. Unfortunately, since our modern churches do not associate, this does not work since the elders and people do not know each other. We have cut off our Christian brothers by following the 501(c)(3) model that forces memberships to be separate per assembly. If one assumes this modern institutional kind of church, and a church grows "large", then it may seem to be the simplest to have Elder terms to ensure there are not "bad" Elders for very long. This ideas strikes us as a very "human" type of solution. This way of thinking is very far from following the biblical pattern.

"The husband of but one wife" means what?

What does "being the husband of but one wife" mean? We are surprised at the variety of opinions on this simple idea. We think it can be related to divorce and remarriage or the older practice of polygamy (many wives).

When I grew up in Africa, there was still a bit of a polygamy issue in the church. I knew the first Christian who was in his 80s at the time. It took a while for the influence of Christianity to affect the culture. But even in the church, if an important man become a Christian and had a few wives, he still might expect to be a leader. But God's church works in a very different way. So the early missionaries taught the early church that these men could not be Elders. Some people are so assuming of modern America that has been influenced by Christianity for so long that polygamy is rare. So interpreters might think that polygamy is not the issue in this passage about being the "husband of one wife". But polygamy was very common in history, as it has been in recent African history. We are not surprised at all to see this qualification for Elder being a guard for a broad application of time and cultures. The Bible is not focused only on modern America. So we are quite willing to accept this as a guard against the church being led by men who are the husband of more than one wife. God overlooked this practice in the Old Testament seems to care about this in the New Testament and the Elder is to be a role model.

Some may think this passage about being the "husband of one wife" is suggesting that a man must be married. We completely disagree. D.A. Carson also agrees that Elders can be single and was a single pastor for a while. Normally Elders will have children so the passage goes on to speak of Elders having children. But this is only because this is the normal way (1 Cor 7). ^{5.husbandonewife}  

The phrase "having children who believe", is said assuming most men will be married and will have children. The children's behavior and beliefs are a very simple and straightforward way of knowing the character of the potential Elder candidate. If a potential Elder has children, they speak for the man. Men who have obedient and respectful children will make it easier to judge the character of the man. Any man who has disobedient and disrespectful children might be disqualified. The evaluation and testing of a man must consider how he trains his children and their outcome.

FOOTNOTES