Elders for the pastoral ministry!
The Reformed Baptist (RB) churches in Malaysia usually ordain a pastor who is qualified for the job to take charge of a local church, if there is none qualified then they would appoint an elder. In the minds of the RB, there is a distinction between a pastor and an elder. The pastor is either “called” by God whereas the elder is not, or the pastor is called by one calling and the elder by another calling. The chief difference between the two is that the pastor is a full time job, whereas the elder is not. A full time elder is called to be a pastor, but a non full time elder is not called to be a pastor. The position and the authority of the pastor precede that of the “ordinary” elder. Similarly,, when a full time elder and another non full time elder are appointed to two different assemblies, their working relationship and the recognition by the churches are not the same. This practice is observed in the Serdang Grace Church, Puchong Grace Church, Johor Bahru Community Church, and Miri RB Church, Melaka RB Church, and Singapore Woodlands church.
Interestingly, there appears a different practice recently where the elder, who is not a full time pastor from Kuala Kubu Baru Chapel, insisted that he should be recognized and addressed as pastor of the local church, even though he was originally appointed as an “ordinary” elder. This insistent had actually caused two of his valuable members who disagree with this practice to transfer their membership to another church. According to this practice the appointment of the elder and that of the pastor are the same and with no distinction. This conviction seems to have gained momentum, most recently the PJ Tamil RB church has appointed an elder who is not a full time pastor, but would be recognized as a pastor, working side by side with the full time pastor.
Now, there are two different practices in the appointment of elder and pastor within the RB churches. This difference has somehow affected the working relationship among the elders/pastors within the fraternal. The reformed believers are so small in numbers and in strength, any doctrinal disagreement would reduce her strength and influence in the gospel ministry. Should this difference be left unsolved and become a burden and a thorn in the flesh in the body of reformed believers? Clearly, to allow an issue like this to divide the believers is very unwise and therefore the elders/pastors are obligated to reexamine the issue and find a solution to settle the differences. It is necessary not only for this present generation but also for the future generation of RB believers. The elders/pastors have to take a hard look at the issue.
Let it be clear that, this paper only provides an exegetical observation on the related texts and come up with suggestions that might point to the right direction, and hoping that eventually someone may continue from there by providing a more thorough exegetical work on the issue. Ultimately, the elders/pastors might be able to move closer to the biblical requirement and the local churches might benefit from a united leadership.
The elders and bishops:
In the book of Acts, after having made many new disciples in the city of Derbe, both Barnabas and Paul returned to Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, and had appointed elders in every church (Acts 14.20-23). The text shows that elders were appointed to every church. But the text does not show the reason why more than one elder was appointed. We may speculate that because of the large numbers of believers in the churches demanded more elders to carry out the job, or they simply followed the synagogue tradition. We simply cannot be certain about the reason.
Later Paul and Barnabas had a heated debate with the Jewish believers from Jerusalem who advocated, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” (Acts 15.1) Paul and Barnabas then led a delegation from the church in Antioch to meet up with the apostles and elders in Jerusalem about this issue (15.2). There were two kinds of leaders in the church in Jerusalem, as shown from the text, namely the apostles and the elders. The apostles should be understood as the 11 who were appointed by Jesus and Matthias who was chosen by the church to replace Judah (Acts 1.20-23). The apostles were men who have seen Jesus and worked with Him throughout His public ministry as His apostles, even Matthias had seen Jesus and accompanied Jesus and the apostles throughout. However, Luke did not make a distinction among the apostles, especially after Matthias was chosen to replace Judah.
Who were these elders? Could they be the 70 chosen by the Lord? (Lk.10.1) The present text does not provide us any information about them and on what basis they were appointed. We can only observe that, presumably, the elders were men who might have or might not have seen Jesus and who might have or might not have accompanied Jesus and the apostles throughout. There could be some differences in their working experience with Jesus and the apostles prior to their appointment, but Luke did not made a distinction among them on this basis. Luke also did not mention whether they were full time or non full time workers.
Luke again recorded that while Paul was hurrying back to Jerusalem before Pentecost and decided to sail by Ephesus, and “from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church” (Acts 20.16-17). Then beside many other things, he reminded them, “Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made (In Greek, the verb “made” means to appoint, to render, to commit) you bishops, to pastor the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.” (v.28) The elders were also referred to as bishops here, and they were “appointed” by the Holy Spirit to pastor the church of God. When Paul was back in Jerusalem and on the following day he and his team met with James and all the elders (21.18).
In his letter to Timothy, Paul gave him two instructions as how to handle the problems facing the elders. Firstly, he said, “Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine. For the scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out grain”, and “The laborer is worthy of his wages”. (1 Tim.5.17-18) Among the elders, as shown by the text, some elders have done a good job. The local assembly was asked to honor them with double honor.
Some interpreters made a distinction between “the elders who rule well” and “especially those who labor in the word and doctrine”. Much emphasis is made on the adverb “especially” as though it is there to mark a distinction between two types of elders. They made the distinction too by dwelling on the difference between receiving “double honor” and wages. So, according to this interpretation, there were two kinds of elders, namely the ruling elders and teaching elders. The ruling elders only received double honor, they pointed out, but the teaching elders were paid wages, because v.18 is tied up with the teaching elders. They argue further that the teaching elders must therefore be the full time pastors and the ruling elders were merely ordinary elders.
This argument sounds right, but unfortunately is artificial and reading way too much into the text. This is a good example of eisegesis. Actually, the word “honor” in Greek has a connotation of “value, estimate of worth, a price”, and when it is presented within the given context and especially with verse 18, this word “honor” and the word “wages” become interchangeable, and therefore suggests a form of financial reward. The context indicates that all the elders received the same honor due to them, but those who ruled well and those who labored in the word and doctrine suppose to be given double portion!
Then the adverb “especially”, which can be rendered as “mainly, chiefly, or unusually”, and it is an adverb of manner that modifies the verb “labor”. It answers the question “How do the elders perform?” and therefore the answer is “The elders especially labor in the word and teaching.” Thus verse 17 should be read like this, “Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, who especially labor in the word and doctrine”. In this manner, the elders who rule well and who labor mainly in the word and doctrine were the same persons.
If it was not a distinction among the elders, why did Paul highlight the elders who labored in the word and doctrine? The context shows that, it is more likely that Paul was helping the church to appraise the elders. He probably anticipated the question after he had highlighted the need for the church to honor the elders who ruled well. The question was how to appraise these elders? How to determine who have done a good job? He then told the church to look out for elders who especially labor in the word and doctrine. The elders were called to rule the local church by their teaching. Before the elders could teach they first of all must have a good grasp of the gospel message. In order to have a good grasp of it the elders have to work on this message. When they had a good grasp of the message the elders would definitely be in a better position to rule, to feed and to supervise the local church. Naturally, laboring in the word and doctrine was the chief criterion for the church to appraise the elders, just as it was the main criterion on which the elders were appointed.
When it is understood within the context, it was more of a difference in terms of fruitfulness and productivity among the elders than a distinction. This difference is similar to the fruitfulness and productivity in the ministry of Paul as an apostle as compared to the 11+ 1 apostles. It is obvious that Paul was more out standing with his fruitful ministry as compared to the rest of the apostles. But this does not make him more than an apostle and it also does not make the rest any less than an apostle, or vice versa. The appointment of the apostles demanded that they should be regarded as apostles. In the same argument, the appointment of the elders demanded that the elders be regarded as elders, and no more and less.
Does receiving financial reward or support from the church therefore indicate that they were full time workers? The text seems to suggest that possibility but it is not clearly stated. Or could it be that they were “tent makers”, providing for themselves with a trade or a skill? Paul himself was a tent maker, and he has shown a great liberty either in supporting himself financially or receiving support from the churches.
Secondly, Paul instructed Timothy, “Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses.” (v.19-20) The text indicates there was much communication between Timothy, the elders, and the believers in the church, so much so there were unsubstantiated accusations against some elders were brought to Timothy’s attention, or to Timothy’s and the elders’ attention. Timothy (with the elders?) was asked to put a stop to such accusation, by demanding for the presence of two or three witnesses. This practice seems to have provided some kind of protection for the elders by the elders themselves. Does not this practice of a collective leadership in dealing with problem facing some elders a good reason why elders were appointed to the local church and a good lesson for the local churches today?
In his letter to Titus, Paul gave instruction for him to appoint elders in every city, and he was asked to appoint men who were of good character and possessed good quality of a good teacher (1.5-9). This text provides us the missing link as how the first church in Jerusalem appointed her elders, and how Paul and
Barnabas appointed elders to the churches.
Paul used the word “bishop” (v.7) when he defined the character of the candidate that was to be appointed as elders. This confirms that the elders were also known as bishops or overseers. Paul did not make a distinction between the elder and bishop, but instead used these two words interchangeably.
The instruction given to Timothy (1Timothy 3.1-7) actually reinforces the idea that these words were used interchangeably. In his letter to the church in Philippi, Paul addressed the church together with the bishops (and not the elders), and deacons (Phil.1.1). If the word “bishops” is not used interchangeably, and when it is taken out of the context of Pauline terminology, Timothy and Titus would have to appoint bishops, side by with the elders, to every church. The word “bishop” or “overseer” was a pictorial term and probably it was used as an alternative word to describe the function of the elders. The word “elders”, besides providing the idea of being elderly, the readers would have difficulty in knowing the function of the elders.
In the letter to the Hebrews, the elders were mentioned in the context of a living faith (11.2), but it is not clear whether these were the elders of the old institution of worship of Israel or elders of the Christian assembly. If these were elders of the Christian assembly, then this will help us to understand that elders were men of faith and by demonstrating such quality they earned for themselves a good testimony.
James’ instruction to the church may suggest the same that elders were men of faith. He said, “If anyone among you is sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven” (5.14-15). The instruction shows that the elders ministered to the sick as a team. They were team players and no solo player.
Peter related to the elders in his first letter; “The elders who are among you I exhort, I am a fellow elder and a witness of the suffering of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed, shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly, not as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock, and when the chief shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that does not fade away.” (1 Pet.5.1-4)
It is quite clear that Peter was exhorting the elders, who were also known as bishops, to pastor the flock of God with the right kind of attitude and approach. Peter spelled out the quality of an elder by the three pairs of words, “not by compulsion but by volunteering, not greedy for money but cheerfully and eagerly, not as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock.”
The pastors:
On what other ground do we “ordained” pastors? In his letter to the church in Ephesus, Paul reminded the church, “endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit…..But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift……And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints….till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (4.1-13). We have to take note that, the text is talking about the various gifts or a team of people with the gifts of the Holy Spirit [i]that Christ has given to the church for the purpose of building the one body of Christ. It does not look like it is talking about the various appointments in the church. It is somehow different from the instruction given to Timothy and Titus pertaining to the appointment of elders.
These gifts were different type of teaching and communicating abilities. Some view these gifts as gifts given for the revelation of the gospel truth, and since the New Testament is completed, and therefore they are not available anymore. Some regard these gifts are still available, though not every one of them. The pastors and teachers could still be available, as some argued, as to establish a support for the ordaining of pastors. But the context seems to suggest that these gifts were given in the context that the gospel truth was still in the process of being completely revealed, and they were given as a package to the early church. So those who believe that the gospel truth has been completed with the closing of the New Testament will not consider this text as an appropriate support for the ordaining of pastors. Even those who believe that this text is applicable today will have difficulty in explaining why only the pastors-teachers are applicable and not the rest. The context indicates that either these gifts are available as a package or they are not available at all. One cannot break them up and decide which should be around and which should not be around. From the natural observation of the text, it is rather difficult for one to establish any basis for the ordaining of pastors.
If the scripture has not designated an appointment of pastors, on what basis do the churches carry out this practice? Unfortunately, its origin traces back only to a post apostolic practice and Roman Catholicism[ii]. Ignatius was responsible to place the office of the bishop in contrast with the office of the elder and to subordinate the elders to the bishop. The Catholics had later created a concept of the clergy and the laity, and the practice of one clergy one church[iii]. When the reformers left the Roman Church, they brought along with them many traditions and practices that are doubtful, and the pastor’s “office” was one of them. This Catholic practice is usually accompanied by the usage of the term “ordain or ordination”. This terminology is associated with the doctrine of the catholic priestly order and the doctrine of the undisrupted succession of the apostolic authority. The ordination service is a sacred and colorful ceremony to install a minister to the priestly order. This practice is running against the instruction of the scripture. The scripture merely instructed the church to appoint elders. The term “to appoint” simply means “to establish” and “to confirm”. By the meaning of this terminology, it is the duty of the local church to establish and to confirm the desire that has been expressed and the character and the gifts that have been demonstrated by the men, and thus appoints them as elders.
Summary:
1. The Holy Spirit had called the elders to pastor the churches.
2. The apostles had appointed the elders to every church and subsequently the new churches were reminded to do the same.
3. Elders, beside the apostles, were the only designated appointment given to the men who were appointed to the gospel ministry.
4. The elders were also known as bishops.
5. They were appointed to rule, to supervise or oversee, to pastor the local assembly by their teaching of the Bible and doctrine and by their examples in each local church.
6. They served and worked as a team in each local church.
7. Each local church had the responsibility to reward them or support them financially, but this does not automatically indicate that all of them were full time workers.
8. The Holy Spirit had given gifts of proclamation and teaching to the churches for the gospel ministry.
Challenges ahead:
1. If elders was the only designated appointment and the highest appointment that was known to the early church, and if it was the well honored appointment in the early church, then we have a problem. The problem is the appointment of the pastors. Our practice seems to be running in the opposite direction against the scripture. This is a challenge for us to think over again. We need to reexamine the practice of treating and addressing some elders as pastors. We have created an artificial distinction among the elders by addressing some as pastors.
2. If elders are the highest appointment and there can be no more appointment higher than this, we cannot create a new appointment that is higher than the elders. We cannot treat the appointment of the elders as second best- When a man is not qualified to pastor, then he can be appointed as an elder. According to the New Testament standard, if a man is not qualified to pastor, he is then not qualified at all. So it is our duty to appoint the right kind of men as elders. If our concern is about the quality of the elders, then let us be serious about appointing the right men to the office. If necessary, churches may have to undo the appointments that were intended to fill in the gap, in the absence of a pastor.
3. If the apostles did not instruct the churches to appoint pastors beside the elders, we should not appoint some elders as pastors. Such practice of addressing clergy men as pastors traces back only to Roman Catholicism. If it was created and perpetuated by the Catholics, why should we import and perpetuate this foreign practice in our churches? We should drop this practice and appoint only elders for the work! We have a duty to revert the office back to its original setting. We have to drop the practice of ordaining “pastor” which carries the wrong idea that it is superior to the elders.
4. If elders are to be appointed to every local church, then every local church must arm herself with this conviction and prepare herself to have elders to pastor the flock.
5. If the Holy Spirit has called the elders to pastor the flock and given many gifts for the gospel ministry (Eph.4.1-13), we should not be ashamed to tap these gifts from our elders. Though we cannot have the apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors-teachers with us in persons any more, but could these gifts not be given to the elders today? (see also Romans 12.6-8) Indeed it will be wonderful to see the elders using these gifts in every local church, “for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ”.
13.08.10
