Ruling Elders

[JM]

OF RULING ELDERS:

​

Ruling Elders are such persons as are endued with gifts to assist the pastor or teacher in the government of the church; it was as a statute in Israel, Exo. 18. Deut. 1:9–13. The works of teaching and ruling belong both to the pastor; bu t in case he be unable; or the work of ruling too great for him, God hath provid ed such for his assistance, and they are called ruling elders, I Tim. 5:17. helps, I Cor. 12:28. governments, or he that ruleth, Rom. 12:8. They are qualified for, and called unto, one part of the work: and experience teacheth us the use and benefit of such rulers in the church, in easing the pastor or teacher, and keeping up the honor of the ministry. Their qualifications are such as are requisite to rule, as knowledge, judgment, prudence, &c.; and as to the manner of their ordination, it is like ordination unto other offices in the church, with fasting and prayer, with imposition of hands. Their office only relateth to rule and order, in the church of God, and doth not include teaching; yet if the church findeth they have gifts and abilities to be useful in teaching, they may be put upon trial, and if approved, they may be called and solemnly set apart by ordination, it being wholly a distinct office from the former, which was only to rule well, and not to labor in word and doctrine.

- Benjamin Griffith

 

[JM]

OF RULING ELDERS

1. Concerning the divine right of the office of ruling elders, there has been considerable doubt and much disputation. We, therefore, had a thought of passing it over in silence; but, on farther consideration, concluded to state briefly the arguments on both sides, then subjoin a few general observations, and so let the churches judge for themselves, and practice as they shall see fit.
2. The scriptures usually adduced to prove the right are the following:
(1.) He that ruleth, let him do it with diligence, Rom. 12. 8.
(2.) God has set in the church governments, I Cor. xii. 28.
(3.) Let the elders that rule well, be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in word and doctrine, I Tim. v. 17.
(4.) Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves, Heb. xiii. 7, 17.
From the two first scriptures it is argued, that the ruler mentioned must be an officer, because he is mentioned with the other officers, and in contradistinction from them.
And from the last two it is observed, that there must be two kinds of elders, one that rules only, and another who, besides ruling, does also labour in word and doctrine.
3. But it is objected,
(1.) That there is nothing in the two first scriptures but may be accommodated to ministers.
(2.) That the two last may mean the same officer, i. e. a minister, who is said to be worthy of double honour, especially if he labours in his work.
(3.) There is no description given of the qualifications of persons for the office of ruling elders, as there is of bishops and deacons.
(4.) There are no directions how they are to be put in the office.
(5.) It would seem there were no such officers in the church of Ephesus, Acts xx. 19, 28. and of Philippi.
Phil. i. 1. nor in those of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. I Pet. i. compared with Chap. v. i. ii.
The observations we meant to make are these:
1. It must be confessed there are some appearances in scripture favourable to the office.
2. If there were none it would stand on a footing with some other things left to human prudence.
3. There is the same necessity for the office, as for that of a deacon, namely, to ease the minister of part of his burden.
4. By means of the office, the minister may avoid some hard thoughts and ill-will, which is very desirable.
5. It is of material advantage to a church, to have at least one among them, capable of bringing matters forward, stating them clearly for consideration, summing up the arguments on both sides in order for a vote, and presiding and maintaining order through the whole.
6. All ministers have not a turn or talents for it, in the degree that might be wished.
7. Some that are not ministers have, in a good degree.
8. Appointing such to this service, will not only invite them to come forward by making it their business, but will also give them a more particular right, and enable them to do more good, by cloathing them with a measure of authority.

- Samuel Jones

 

[JM]

A plurality in the bishopric is of great importance for mutual counsel and aid, that the government and edification of the flock may be promoted in the best manner. At stated meetings of the bishopric, the members would report their separate doings, and confer together upon the teachings of scripture, which they would bring forth to the church for its consideration and adoption. Such a body would constitute the proper council of advisers to the church collectively, and to the members individually. Interchangeably each would aid the other in his department, and when necessary, would unite in any one department. Oh, what a blessing would such a bishopric be to a church! But ah! where are we to find men, whose gifts fit them for composing such a bishopric? The answer is given in the passage above referred to. "When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men,—some apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers." To the ascended Redeemer and Head of the churches, must we go for these gifts. For he will be enquired of for them. The churches must desire them. They must understand this part of their divinely instituted order, and must earnestly wrestle with their Lord for the gifts that are necessary to carry it out.

They must be willing to do another thing. This is to afford these gifts a liberal support. The divine command is, "let the elders that rule well, be counted worthy of double honor, especially they that labor in the word and doctrine. For the scripture saith, thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And the laborer is worthy of his hire." I Timothy v: 17, 18. The principle on which compensation is here required to the elders, is obviously correct. It is payment for work done, for service rendered. For "who goeth a warfare at his own charges? Who planteth a vineyard and eateth not of the fruit thereof? Or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk there-of?" The principle of compensation for service rendered, admits of graduation in the amount, according to the extent and quality of the labor performed. The duties of those elders who do not "labor in the word and doctrine," might be attended to by some, without interfering with their avocations in life, or by others in so small a degree, that a moderate compensation would be sufficient for the service done, whilst a larger remuneration would be necessary for those, who do "labor in the word and doctrine," since such should give themselves wholly to the work, in a profound study of the Bible, and in actual preaching "the truth as it is in Jesus."


Whilst a plurality of bishops is required for each church, the number is not fixed, for the obvious reason, that circumstances must necessarily determine what that number shall be. In a church where more than one cannot be obtained, that one may be appointed upon the principle, that as soon as another can be procured there shall be a plurality. And when, from the poverty and fewness of the members, it may be impracticable for them to afford a support to the ruler or rulers they may have, let the members faithfully do what they can, and let the rulers imitate the example of Paul, who "ministered with his hands to his necessities, and to them that were with him."


- William Bullein Johnson

 

[cubanito]

Fidel and now Raul Castro are excellent examples of ruling elders.

JR

 

[abacabb3]

One thing I wonder is why reformed churches are so quick to presume an "overseer/bishop" is the same as an "elder." What in the Scripture says this?

 

[JustAsIam77]

My father took his position as first a deacon and then an elder very seriously, he was a devout man of God.

Thanks JM for this post.

 

[Simon Peter]

OF RULING ELDERS:
Ruling Elders are such persons as are endued with gifts to assist the pastor or teacher in the government of the church; it was as a statute in Israel, Exo. 18. Deut. 1:9–13. The works of teaching and ruling belong both to the pastor; bu t in case he be unable; or the work of ruling too great for him, God hath provid ed such for his assistance, and they are called ruling elders, I Tim. 5:17. helps, I Cor. 12:28. governments, or he that ruleth, Rom. 12:8. They are qualified for, and called unto, one part of the work: and experience teacheth us the use and benefit of such rulers in the church, in easing the pastor or teacher, and keeping up the honor of the ministry. Their qualifications are such as are requisite to rule, as knowledge, judgment, prudence, &c.; and as to the manner of their ordination, it is like ordination unto other offices in the church, with fasting and prayer, with imposition of hands. Their office only relateth to rule and order, in the church of God, and doth not include teaching; yet if the church findeth they have gifts and abilities to be useful in teaching, they may be put upon trial, and if approved, they may be called and solemnly set apart by ordination, it being wholly a distinct office from the former, which was only to rule well, and not to labor in word and doctrine.

- Benjamin Griffith

There's so much wrong with this quote that I barely know where to begin!

1. This quote uses the word 'rule' ten times, 'serve' is not even used once.
In the scriptures you'll find the word 'serve' is used.

2. 'Pastor' (spiritual shepherd) is not an office it's a gift.
Some translators added the word ‘office’ (it’s not in the original Greek) to support their belief in a priestly class.

3. ‘Pastor’ is only mentioned ONCE in the whole Bible. It’s mentioned as a GIFT.

4. Jesus came – among other reasons - to do away with the priestly class, to do away with a priest between man and God.

5. The Roman Catholic Church reintroduced priests between man and God.

6. The Reformation – among other things – attempted to do away with priests between man and God.

7. Protestant churches have turned Pastors into top-down rulers of the church, again reintroducing another kind of priest.

8. In the early church every man of a certain age and maturity was an ‘elder’ in the church.

9. The elders are supposed to serve the church. This means each using their gifts to edify the body; which may include teaching, prophesying, helping, praying and guiding.

10. The chances of hearing this from a church pulpit are pretty slim.







peace,
Cross

 

[abacabb3]

8. In the early church every man of a certain age and maturity was an ‘elder’ in the church.

Where do you get that from? There are criteria to be met to be an elder or deacon, you don't become one by default.

 

[Simon Peter]

Where do you get that from? There are criteria to be met to be an elder or deacon, you don't become one by default.

I didn't say it was by default. Perhaps you didn't read the sentence carefully: In the early church every man of a certain age and maturity was an ‘elder’ in the church.

As I'd already referenced age, 'and maturity' was a reference to spiritual maturity/character. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

One thing I wonder is why reformed churches are so quick to presume an "overseer/bishop" is the same as an "elder." What in the Scripture says this?

In Paul's letter to Titus, he outlines some of the maturity he should look for in elders. But also, to answer your question, Paul lumps 'overseer' and 'elder' together in this passage. Like using the words pastor and vicar, or pastor and reverend, in the same paragraph. It's a different word for the same role.


Titus 1:5-9 ESV

(5) This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you--
(6) if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination.
(7) For an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain,
(8) but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined.
(9) He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.




peace,
Simon

 

[cubanito]

There's so much wrong with this quote that I barely know where to begin!

1. This quote uses the word 'rule' ten times, 'serve' is not even used once.
In the scriptures you'll find the word 'serve' is used.

2. 'Pastor' (spiritual shepherd) is not an office it's a gift.
Some translators added the word ‘office’ (it’s not in the original Greek) to support their belief in a priestly class.

3. ‘Pastor’ is only mentioned ONCE in the whole Bible. It’s mentioned as a GIFT.

4. Jesus came – among other reasons - to do away with the priestly class, to do away with a priest between man and God.

5. The Roman Catholic Church reintroduced priests between man and God.

6. The Reformation – among other things – attempted to do away with priests between man and God.

7. Protestant churches have turned Pastors into top-down rulers of the church, again reintroducing another kind of priest.

8. In the early church every man of a certain age and maturity was an ‘elder’ in the church.

9. The elders are supposed to serve the church. This means each using their gifts to edify the body; which may include teaching, prophesying, helping, praying and guiding.

10. The chances of hearing this from a church pulpit are pretty slim.

peace, Cross

Thank you for your clarity. It is amazing to me how so many people in the clergy are on power trips. How many more scandals must we endure before the saying that power corrupts sinks in? The very presbyterean form of Govt is meant to reign in this innate corruption in ALL men (save Christ and those in Heaven of course.) In fact I would say that many who have a tendency to like power gravitate towards the ministry.

Any elder should have the right to teach even if they have not been to seminary. Was not the Reformation fought so that as Tyndale stated in defense of providing an English translation: “I defy the Pope and all his laws, if God spare my life, I will make a boy that driveth the plough know more of the Scripture than thou dost.”

And what of these honorific titles like "Reverend" and "the Westminster Divines?" Are they any less contrary to the spirit of Christ's teaching to call no man on Earth your father than the clear violation of this by the Roman papists?

It is right and proper that a teaching elder (TE) should be mainly responsible for teaching, I have NO quibble with the usefulness of rigorous seminarian study; as a layman in the PCA I am thankful that my denomination places a high bar of knowledge for those ordained as TE. But how DARE anyone "put on trial" a Ruling Elder before he can teach? I understand by trial they mean simple an examination of aptitude, not an adversarial prosecution. Yet some RE with no knowledge of languages, Church History can better teach than most TE. A man like DL Moody had almost no learning, yet look what God did through him!

It astonishes me how arrogance creeps into the clergy. Remember all you clergy, Jesus had few condemnations for thieves, murderers and prostitutes; but He had many curses for the clergy of His day.

JR

 

[JM]

Let's quickly point out that arguing against Elders in the Calvinist/Reformed context is contra the Reformed Calvinist Confessions. Elders in both Baptist and paedobaptist churches have been installed since the beginning so lets not pretend you are arguing from a Reformed Calvinist perspective, you are arguing in a forum against the rules of that forum.

1. This quote uses the word 'rule' ten times, 'serve' is not even used once.
In the scriptures you'll find the word 'serve' is used.

Rule in this case refers to governing or directing, both of which are done to serve the church. You didn't make your point.

2. 'Pastor' (spiritual shepherd) is not an office it's a gift.
Some translators added the word ‘office’ (it’s not in the original Greek) to support their belief in a priestly class. 3. ‘Pastor’ is only mentioned ONCE in the whole Bible. It’s mentioned as a GIFT.

From the first line, " Ruling Elders are such persons as are endued with gifts..."

Elders are gifted men who are given to the church to lead and we should, "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you." Hebrews 13

4. Jesus came – among other reasons - to do away with the priestly class, to do away with a priest between man and God.

Elders are not a priestly class in a Reformed church. They are men given by God to shepherd the church. Like the Mormons you believe (8.) "every man of a certain age and maturity was an ‘elder’ in the church." Nonsense. Not every man may be an Elder. abbacabb asked...where did you get that from?

5. The Roman Catholic Church reintroduced priests between man and God.

So? What does that have to do with Reformed Elders? Unless you misunderstand what an Elder is and it is pretty clear you do, the RC priesthood has nothing to do with this thread Simon Peter.

6. The Reformation – among other things – attempted to do away with priests between man and God.

What does, "among other things" refer to? The Reformation was a return to the biblical definition of the Gospel and wanted to rid the church of corrupt clergy, but not Elders entirely. That would be unbiblical. You are in the wrong forum if you are promoting the radicals that existed during the Reformation who wanted no clergy at all, reintroduced polygamy, pretended to receive direct revelations from God, etc.

7. Protestant churches have turned Pastors into top-down rulers of the church, again reintroducing another kind of priest.

Too vague to comment on.

9. The elders are supposed to serve the church. This means each using their gifts to edify the body

No argument with that. That is exactly what the Confessions teach. It seems you have an issue with authority in general.

; which may include teaching,

Yup.

prophesying,

If you mean giving new revelation, nope. If you are using the old English term for preaching the word of God, yup.

helping, praying and guiding.

Yup and yup. So in essence the Elder is to rule or direct the flock with proclaiming the Gospel, teaching God's people and governing church for God's glory by helping people, organizing worship and prayer services as well as offering guidance.

10. The chances of hearing this from a church pulpit are pretty slim.

Again, too vague and all condemning to be of any real meaning.

Thank you for your clarity.

The only thing that was clear is Simon Peter's dislikes of church authority.

It is amazing to me how so many people in the clergy are on power trips. It astonishes me how arrogance creeps into the clergy.

You're a Calvinist right? It shouldn't amaze you at all.

The very presbyterean form of Govt is meant to reign in this innate corruption in ALL men (save Christ and those in Heaven of course.)

Which of course includes a plurality of Elders (Ruling and Teaching).

In fact I would say that many who have a tendency to like power gravitate towards the ministry.

If our experiences are equally valid I would say it's the opposite. Even the Arminians I know tremble before preaching the word of God and it's not just nerves but the idea of their duty before God to minister.

And what of these honorific titles like "Reverend" and "the Westminster Divines?" Are they any less contrary to the spirit of Christ's teaching to call no man on Earth your father than the clear violation of this by the Roman papists?

If you attend a Confessionally Reformed church you should speak to your Elders about your views. They would not be in line with historic Presbyterianism. If you are a member you could be disciplined for holding to Anabaptist or Independent Baptist views of the church.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[abacabb3]

I didn't say it was by default. Perhaps you didn't read the sentence carefully: In the early church every man of a certain age and maturity was an ‘elder’ in the church.

As I'd already referenced age, 'and maturity' was a reference to spiritual maturity/character. Sorry if that wasn't clear.





In Paul's letter to Titus, he outlines some of the maturity he should look for in elders. But also, to answer your question, Paul lumps 'overseer' and 'elder' together in this passage. Like using the words pastor and vicar, or pastor and reverend, in the same paragraph. It's a different word for the same role.


Titus 1:5-9 ESV

(5) This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you--
(6) if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination.
(7) For an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain,
(8) but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined.
(9) He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.




peace,
Simon

Thanks for clarifying!

 

[JustAsIam77]

We should also acknowledge that Paul & Barnabus ordained elders in all the churches in Lystra, Iconium and Antioch. Acts 14

 

[Simon Peter]

Let's quickly point out that arguing against Elders in the Calvinist/Reformed context is contra the Reformed Calvinist Confessions. Elders in both Baptist and paedobaptist churches have been installed since the beginning so lets not pretend you are arguing from a Reformed Calvinist perspective, you are arguing in a forum against the rules of that forum.

This is a strawman argument. Of course I'm not arguing against elders. My argument is clearly against pastors as an authoritarian top-down priest.

It seems you have an issue with authority in general.
...

The only thing that was clear is Simon Peter's dislikes of church authority.

If you attend a Confessionally Reformed church you should speak to your Elders about your views. They would not be in line with historic Presbyterianism. If you are a member you could be disciplined for holding to Anabaptist or Independent Baptist views of the church.

Wow...let me guess, you're a 'ruling elder'.

I'm reminded of this passage:


(25) But Jesus called them to him and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them.
(26) It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant,
(27) and whoever would be first among you must be your slave,
Matthew 20:25-27 ESV


Should elders lord it over people, and discipline me for Biblical (and Calvinist) views, or should they lead through love, sound teaching, persuasion, and servant-hood; so others would choose to follow them?


peace,
Simon

 

[JM]

Simon Peter,

I am not a Ruling Elder but find comfort in church as defined by scripture. I'm all for Elders using their individual gifts to preach the Gospel, build up the church, guide it, direct it, teach and if need be, discipline.

It is clear you are reading into the name "Ruling" as "Lord Over" when I have explained that isn't the meaning.

jm

 

[cubanito]

As a member in the PCA I obey my elders gladly. On 2 occasions I have come to them due to conflicts with other believers, obeyed their instructions exactly, and both times been blessed with outcomes that were decisive and beneficial. I will mention one of those 2 times: my first wife's affair with my best friend, all calling themselves Christian and claiming to believe in Biblical inerrancy. Instead of clearing me for a divorce, my elders those 30 years ago said I had to be willing to reconcile and sent me to counceling to help that occur. I did not want counceling or reconciliation, but I obeyed. After some months where I attended every session and did everything asked, and my ex wife not once showing up, the councellor sent me back to the Church with a note that there was nothing he could do as my wife was totally resistant to change. I was then granted by the elders the right to divorce, which I did. I went home, asked my parents to find me a wife (since my own attempt had ended badly) and married the first truly Christian woman they brought to my attention 5 months after the divorce. I have 30 years of a very happy marriage and 4 exhuberantly Christian Biblical inerrant Christian children. The outcome of my obedience could not have been better.

If you wish to speak to my current pastors and elders, with their permission, I will give you their phone numbers. emails whatever. You may ask them if I am on the whole obedient. I certainly question authority, and hold them accountable to what I understand the Bible to say, but please, ask them if when they speak to me I obey. In fact you and they have my permission to speak on any private matter about me, including my sins. I am not perfect by any means, but feel free to inquire about me so that the ad hominem attack you launched on Simon can be fully satisfied.

I have personally never experienced it because God continues to shower undeserved blessings of me, but I have seen it occur many times to others. I left my previous 2 churches because of repeated abuses of power by elders who did lord it over people I was close to. Having done what I could and been told to shut up and not concern myself with other people's business I obeyed and left. On one ocassion the abuse of a Pastor was of a public nature: he forged the signatures of elders and his srcretary fabricated an entire meeting of the elders so he could get himself a Church credit card. There were other financial irregularities, but I think what I cite is sufficient. On that occasion, as the session and presbytery became involved, I did draft a letter stating some things which I personally had observed, and sent it to the pastor for comment. Receiving no comment after a week, I gave the letter to the elders so that it would not be some who-said-what but a public document. I did not give the letter to anyone else, and while it is public it was not disseminated. To this day that pastor continues to speak ill of me, though whenever his name comes up I try to speak only of the good things about him. I know this because someone (an aquaintance of one of my daughters) whom I took into my home when he was homeless 20 years ago and is now very financially succesful happened to be dealing with this pastor and for no good reason he brought up my name as a traitor. My friend said to the pastor that I am the only man he would take a bullet for, and that if he had a problem with me, the problem was him. That conversation ended quickly.

Now that you have been premptively disarmed of your ad hominem, try to listen to what Simon and I are saying: there is much abuse and corruption of elders who misuse their power. The quote you put is very much in that manner of thinking. Simon's answer to you was brilliant in it's thoroughness and conciseness. Ad hominem from you and a veiled threat to Simon is below the usual wonderful posts that I have come to expect from you, JM.

Clearly there is a danger of not affirming Biblically sound Church authority and discipline, and today that is all over the place. However, there are so many scandals of out of control pastors and elders that really, we need to be very careful to strike an appropiate balance. That is what Simon and I are saying. Your reponse JM to Simon was uncalled for. You have a better nature than that, examine yourself before examining Simon. Oh, BTW, first time I hear of or read any post by Simon is this one. He's not my buddy, and perhaps there are other posts by Simon I would take exception to. But this one was dead on.

JR

 

[JM]

Yes, please pass along your Elders information...haha.

Actually, its up to your Elders to know you well enough and to discipline according to the standards or covenant of your church.

Thank you.

jm

 

[JM]

And just so we are clear on what an ad hom is, because there seems to be some confusion between disagreement and a personal attack...

Definition of AD HOMINEM

1
: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect

2
: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

Folks, you need to separate your emotions from the argument. If you can't do that everything written against your views will be viewed as ad hom when in fact, by definition, it isn't.



Have a nice day.

jm

 

[gord44]

Folks, you need to separate your emotions from the argument. If you can't do that everything written against your views will be viewed as ad hom when in fact, by definition, it isn't.

Well put!

 

[gord44]

The church I used to attend lacked elders and it was clear in the troubles the church had that it was something that would have helped. They were a small Baptist congregation, but struggled with some small issues that I am sure could have been remedied with a few elders.