Baptist Elders

[Hentenza]

My point too.

So why did we go away from it?

And would it be wrong for me to assume the duties of an elder even though my church considers me an elder?

And would it be proper for me to address you as an "elder"?

God Bless

Till all are one.

I don't think that, in general, we (Baptists) have moved away from it but we have modified it. Let me illustrate. You and me are ordained deacons. We are not elders from a biblical perspective. The role of deacon in the primitive church was one of servant tasked with servant duties such as taking care of widows, the poor, etc. Today our roles have expanded since we are now, for the most part, heavily involved in church administration and teaching. Committees have grown to be the vehicle of long and short term church administration defining the day to day activities of our respective churches. The main reason for the change is financial since congregations and church needs today are considerably larger.

That being said, in my church we had this debate a few years ago. The debate was intense and included the senior pastor, all other ordained pastors, and the deacons. We concluded that we had, in fact, changed the NT church model and we needed to do some changes to allow us to return to a closer (did not say equal) model that would reflect the NT church. In short, all committees are now headed by an ordained pastor (elder) but all subcommittees are headed by deacons (compromise). Classes are still being taught by both pastors and deacons given the size of our church. We got rid of the unscriptural office of head deacon and became a congregational church where issues are put up to a vote of the whole congregation. In addition, each deacon is now attached to a ministry so we have no deacons that solely head sub-commitees. This is the closest that we could get it taking into account the tremendous volume of work and financial impacts to our church.

So, in my opinion, you and me are not elders as was defined in the first century, when churches were smaller and required much less, but we are consider elders today because deacons assumed the role of teachers (and even preachers at times) and administrators. So our roles have not changed from the 1st century model but have expanded to fill the needs of the 21st century church.

 

[DeaconDean]

So, in my opinion, you and me are not elders as was defined in the first century, when churches were smaller and required much less, but we are consider elders today because deacons assumed the role of teachers (and even preachers at times) and administrators. So our roles have not changed from the 1st century model but have expanded to fill the needs of the 21st century church.

Brother, I don't about you, but I was ordained in the early 2000's. 2003 if I remember correctly, shortly after that at the request of my seminary teacher, I asked to be licesened to preach.

So the only difference between me and an elder is I have not been ordained as a pastor/minister per se.

And I know what you mean, I have filled all offices in my church except that of Associate Pastor.

Adult Sinday school teacher
Sunday school dir.
Brotherhood Dir.
Youth Dir.
Deacon
Chair of Deacons
Pastoral Care minister
Chair of so many committees it isn't even funny.

If I am going to do all that is expected of an Deacon plus that of an Elder, why not ordain me as an elder/pastor?

This is the question that has bothered me for 14 years.

Also, are the Presbyterians wrong in their use of the "presbyter" system, in your humble opinion?

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Hentenza]

Brother, I don't about you, but I was ordained in the early 2000's. 2003 if I remember correctly, shortly after that at the request of my seminary teacher, I asked to be licesened to preach.

So the only difference between me and an elder is I have not been ordained as a pastor/minister per se.

I understand. I was ordained in 1998 and have filled for the pastor in Saturday night and Sunday morning services on a number occasions but I am not licensed to preach. In my opinion, preaching the word of God should not require a license since that is part of our biblical mandate. But that is just my opinion and no insult is meant. I also believe that deacons, in our present role, are elders so I have no issues calling you an elder.

And I know what you mean, I have filled all offices in my church except that of Associate Pastor.

Adult Sinday school teacher
Sunday school dir.
Brotherhood Dir.
Youth Dir.
Deacon
Chair of Deacons
Pastoral Care minister
Chair of so many committees it isn't even funny.

Yep. Been there too. In fact, I was the last head deacon in my church. lol

If I am going to do all that is expected of an Deacon plus that of an Elder, why not ordain me as an elder/pastor?

This is the question that has bothered me for 14 years.

There are many Baptist churches that have ordained pastors that do not have university degree letters after their name. In my opinion, having the letters is nice but there is much more to it than that. I think you should be ordained as a pastor if you have the calling. However, for what I have seen, most pastors, at least in the SBC, need a seminary degree.

Also, are the Presbyterians wrong in their use of the "presbyter" system, in your humble opinion?

Yes, I do not consider it biblical since nowhere in scripture does it teach than an overseer is over more than one congregation (singular church). Not only that but the monarchical bishoptric has been a source of much corruption through the centuries.

 

[DeaconDean]

I understand. I was ordained in 1998 and have filled for the pastor in Saturday night and Sunday morning services on a number occasions but I am not licensed to preach. In my opinion, preaching the word of God should not require a license since that is part of our biblical mandate. But that is just my opinion and no insult is meant. I also believe that deacons, in our present role, are elders so I have no issues calling you an elder.

Yep. Been there too. In fact, I was the last head deacon in my church. lol

There are many Baptist churches that have ordained pastors that do not have university degree letters after their name. In my opinion, having the letters is nice but there is much more to it than that. I think you should be ordained as a pastor if you have the calling. However, for what I have seen, most pastors, at least in the SBC, need a seminary degree.



Yes, I do not consider it biblical since nowhere in scripture does it teach than an overseer is over more than one congregation (singular church). Not only that but the monarchical bishoptric has been a source of much corruption through the centuries.

Brother, may I ask what state you live in.

Here in North Carolina, most churches here won't even consider you for a Pastors position unless you have a minimum B.A. or M. Div.

Take a look at the positions section in the BiblicalRecorder.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Hentenza]

Brother, may I ask what state you live in.

Here in North Carolina, most churches here won't even consider you for a Pastors position unless you have a minimum B.A. or M. Div.

Take a look at the positions section in the BiblicalRecorder.

God Bless

Till all are one.

I'm not disagreeing with you brother. The majority of pastors these days do have a seminary education but this is a relatively recent development. The last time I went to a SBC convention in the early 2000's I met several wonderful pastors that did not have a master or a phd. Also, I have a friend that lives in a small town here in Texas that retired from his regular job and became a youth pastor without becoming a seminarian. I realize that he is probably in the minority but it can happen.

 

[SeventhValley]

Brother, may I ask what state you live in.

Here in North Carolina, most churches here won't even consider you for a Pastors position unless you have a minimum B.A. or M. Div.

Take a look at the positions section in the BiblicalRecorder.

God Bless

Till all are one.

At my parents church the Elders are all allowed to Preach. But they decided to hire a guy with a M. Div degree who they liked to preach on a regular basis to make it easier on them. But any Elder in their church can preach a sermon if they want to and none of the other elders other than the hired one have a divinity or biblical degree. So if you work your way up to being an elder they let you preach with or without a degree.

They have the Men only Ruling Elders, Deacon set up but are traditional Arminian not reformed Calvinist.

 

[rea98d]

I'm not a Baptist, but please don't interpret what I'm about to say as a debate, or a knock on Baptists. I simply wish to share the way my church is organized.

I'm a member of a mid-sized Church of Christ, and we have 7 elders who preside over our church. To my knowledge, none of them have degrees in bible or theology. One is a doctor, but the Medical kind, not the academic kind. In Baptist terminology, they would all be Pastors. We don't have a "Head Pastor" or "Ruling Pastor." They make decisions in committee by consensus, prayer, and fasting. None of them preach on a regular basis. The Church has hired a professional preacher with a Masters from Oklahoma Christian University to be our weekly preacher. He is subordinate to the elders, and considered an employee of the church. We also have a paid youth minister, a paid college minister, and a paid children's minister. All of them except the childrens minister have Masters Degrees in theology or divinity. (The children's minister has a BS in Biology, of all things. They sort of created that position based on what she was already doing before going to work for the church). We do not consider them ordained ministers, but rather professionals who have devoted their life to understanding & teaching the bible, trained counselor, etc. They answer to the elders, and if they ever started teaching anything unscriptural, they would be fired very quickly. Fortunately, they are all Godly men (and woman, our Childen's Minister), and I cannot fathom any of them doing that.

We also have a lot of unpaid deacons, with authority over committes like benevolence, building maintenance, and other varius and sundry things that always need to be done around a church.

A lot of our adult sunday school classes are taught by the elders, but not all of them. (I've taught a few classes myself, on occasion). Like with the ministers, all teachers are subject to the elders' judgement of what should or should not be taught. Even when the Elders are not directly teaching something, they are still responsible for ensuring proper doctrine is taught in the Church. The Churches of Christ have no formal organization analagous to the Southern Baptist Convention, so their is really no organization higher than the local congregations.

The elders are selected from among men in the congregation who meet the qualifications mentioned in scripture, and although no tenure for an elder is given in the bible, our church has a policy that no one will serve any longer than 7 years as an elder unless he is reaffirmed by the entire congregation. We just reaffirmed 5 of 6 existing elders last year (#6 voluntarliy stepped down to have more time to care for ailing parents), and installed 2 more at the same time.

Our church isn't run as a congregationalist democracy. We never vote on anything. Most decisions, if the elders don't make them, they delegate them to the ministry team, or the deacons.

Overall, I think the system works pretty well. I like the part of Southern Baptist doctrine that says the Southern Baptis Convention does not have primacy over the local congregations. That provides a more effecient vehicle for various congregations to work together in missions, schools/universities, hospitals, orphanages, etc, without surrendering local control of the congregations. In fact, over the years, the more I learn about Baptist doctrine, the less I find to disagree with the Baptists over.