BIBLICAL ELDERSHIP: QUALITIES OR QUALIFICATIONS?
“The reason I left you in Crete
was that you might straighten out what was left
unfinished and appoint elders (presbuteros) in every town, as I directed you.” (Titus 1:5). In
this passage and others in the New Testament, God
is providing a model to his church for church leadership.
Apparently, the normal mode of local leadership
God has in mind includes a plurality of elders in
every church with the maturity to have men who can
take that position. Recently, with the changes
blowing through our movement, the need to meet this
biblical requirement has been made even clearer.
This is a natural moment to pause and ask ourselves
two questions. Who should we appoint to the eldership
and how should they be selected?
The tradition of our churches,
largely handed to us through the doctrinal stance
of the Churches of Christ, is to take a conservative
view toward what are seen as the “qualifications”
of the eldership. One specific example—the one
which has had the greatest impact on our ability
to appoint elders—is our normal stance on the qualifications
for the eldership as it relates to the children
of those who are willing to consider as candidates.
The passage most germane to this issue is Titus
1:6. “An elder must be blameless, the husband of
but one wife, a man whose children believe and are
not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.”
(NIV) Our tradition has been to interpret this
passage fairly narrowly, in that we have said that
unless a man has children, and unless they are all
baptized and faithful disciples—members of the ICOC
fellowship—then the person in question is not “qualified”
to become an elder.
In this
essay, we propose to address the question of choosing
elders from two fronts. First, we would like to
do a thorough word study in the Greek of the qualities/qualifications
listed in the key passages in Titus and 1 Timothy.
What is the literal meaning of the Greek words used?
Should the word in Titus 1:6 be translated as believers
or faithful and why? What did Paul really have
in mind? What is denoted and what is connoted by
the qualities Paul lists for elders? What is the
background in the letters to Timothy Titus and 1
Peter which caused Paul and Peter to mention the
specific traits in these passages? How are the
qualities related, and why are they listed in the
order they appear? Are some more crucial than others?
Secondly,
we propose a change of overall perspective as we
view Titus 1:5-9, 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and 1 Peter 5:1-4.
We believe that, in general, these passages list
desirable qualities
rather than qualifications
for the eldership. This may seem like splitting
hairs over semantics, but we will show that it is
more than that. In other words, in asking who
we should appoint as elders, we should investigate
the lives of the men who are brought forward and
take an overall view of how well their lives exhibit
the qualities implied in these passages. Some may
have stronger qualities in one area above another,
but the man should be viewed on balance, taking
all the qualities as a whole into account. The
lists of Paul and Peter should not be seen as lists
of in-or-out qualifications, but as guidelines for
viewing the sum of a man’s character as it relates
to the crucial role of elder in the Lord’s church.
A
NOTE OF CAUTION CONCERNING TRANSLATIONS:
Before
we become embroiled in the useless and fruitless
debate over translation that has raged among and
split many religious groups let us provide some
observations.
First,
the accusation (sometimes subtle, sometimes not
subtle) that modern translations are too interpretive
as compared to the “literal” translations is misleading
or even deceptive. Every translator who approaches
the biblical Hebrew and Aramaic or Koine Greek must
make choices concerning word meanings and word order.
The idea the “literal” translations (examples: KJV,
ASV, NKJV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, and the recent English
Standard Version) are more faithful to the wording
and meaning of the original text is not necessarily
true at all. These making of these translations
involved hundreds of decisions about the interpretation
of the original text. In some cases, that will
require a choice of something as simple as word
order; in other cases, it could be a choice as serious
as a textual variant. Of course every translator
has personal preferences which affect the way he/she
chooses to state what he/she sees in the ancient
text. The point is that the choice of a literal
word-for-word translation (RSV) may actually provide
a less accurate sense of the original meaning than
a meaning-for-meaning (NIV) or a paraphrased (LB)
version. A good example of this concept is found
in Titus 1:6. When an evangelical translator chooses
the phrase “believing” children over “faithful”
children, the word “believing” has a much weaker
connotation for the evangelical than for us. This
fact can, in turn, have a large effect on how we
interpret this passage.
Many modern
translators have chosen to do a meaning-for-meaning
rather than a word-for-word translation and such
decisions are effected by the translators’ preferences.
The same is true of the “older,” “literal” translations.
Every Greek word carries a meaning which is to be
determined by the context in which they are contained;
even conjunctions (the small seemingly insignificant
words) have a variety of meanings that can affect
the understanding of the text. One who cannot read
the original texts must depend on a translation.
It is advisable, therefore, to compare a variety
of translations if one is to be involved in a very
detailed discussion concerning the interpretation
of a particular passage of scripture. Having said
this, it is important to remember that arguments
and debates over fine points of interpretation and
translation can cause one to cross the line of arguing
over unessential matters. Such fruitless arguments
the Holy Spirit strongly warns us to avoid (2 Timothy
2:14, 23-26). In the end, we may need to tolerate
different opinions on these unessential matters
in our fellowship. There is no perfect translation!
The honest
truth is that it would take a complete perversion
of the text to make our understanding of the important
and essential matters change. In all the translations,
Jesus is still the unique Son of the only God who
has brought the only hope of salvation to a lost
world, and each individual has the opportunity to
be reconciled by God’s gracious offer through the
obedience of faith and love in Jesus. In the end,
we will all agree that the elder or overseer fills
a crucial role of leadership in the church and that
the standards of spirituality for this responsibility
are very high. To take other matters, perhaps ancient
debates going all the way back to the days of those
who came after the apostles themselves, and make
them equal in importance to the faith, or the gospel,
is to create division in his church. God help us
to avoid that error, which has plagued the “Christian
era”.
OLD
TESTAMENT ELDERS
Just to
set the stage, let us take a brief side trip to
consider what we can see concerning elders in the
Old Testament. In Exodus 18 Moses received some
valuable advice from his father-in-law. Jethro
suggested Moses place qualified men in charge of
various groups to relieve him of the monumental
burden of meeting the vital needs of the entire
nation. In Deuteronomy 1:9-18, Moses explained
what took place in Exodus 18 as a reminder to God’s
people of how important this was to meeting the
needs of the people. In this passage, the appointed
men were called “tribal leaders” and “judges.”
This is not the first time we run into the concept
of elders among the people of Israel. When Moses
initially returned to deliver Israel from the Egyptians
(Exodus 3:18) the first people whom he gathered
together were the elders (Exodus 3:29). One can
see a list of names of the elders in Exodus 6:14-25.
In Exodus 17 the leaders gathered with Moses even
before Jethro arrived to advise him about choosing
capable men from among the people. So, it would
not be surprising to discover that those respected
by the people would become the “officials” judging
the nation. This seems to be the historical source
of “elders” in Israel. What qualities were they
looking for in the men who would settle disputes
among the people?
Exodus
18
|
Deuteronomy
1
|
Capable, God fearing, trustworthy,
and not corruptible
|
Wise, intelligent, experienced,
and not showing favoritism
|
Their responsibilities
were to settle disputes and disagreements among
the people of God. This should provide some insight
into the meaning of 1 Corinthians 6:1-8, and what
kind of people Paul was recommending as judges in
the church.
Those
who were chosen as elders of the people were prepared
for service as described in Exodus 18:20. Here
we see Moses teaching them the Law, providing an
example of a lifestyle worth following, as well
as instruction about their duties, and how to handle
judging disputes. This process was already completed
when Moses wrote the Law and when he provided (Deuteronomy
31:9) a copy for the elders of Israel. Israel was
not the only nation to have elders (see Numbers
22:4, 7 as an example). But Israel’s elders were
unique in that their judgments would be based on
the revealed will of God.
In Numbers
11:16-30 we see that 70 of the elders played a special
role among the Israelites and in this circumstance
were singled out from the other elders and leaders
when the Spirit of God came on them and they prophesied.
Their appointment became the basis in Jesus’ day
for the Sanhedrin, or ruling council of the Jewish
nation after their restoration to Jerusalem from
the lands of captivity. This was the official body
of ruling priests and elders that condemned Jesus
to death for blasphemy under the leadership of the
high priest, Caiaphus.
NEW
TESTAMENT ELDERS
Elders played an important
role in the history of Israel primarily in overseeing
local city government. They were only occasionally
asked to serve a larger role when God would call
the whole nation together, but their primary responsibility
was to oversee local justice from the days of Moses
to the days of Jesus and beyond. It should not
surprise us that disciples of Jesus who came from
a Jewish background would look for elders with qualities
that could fulfill such a familiar role. If we
compare the qualities of elders in Exodus 18 and
Deuteronomy 1 with those we see in 1 Timothy 3,
Titus 1 and 1 Peter 5, we will find some remarkable
parallels. What are the qualities Paul gave for
those who would serve as elders in the New Testament
church? As one looks at the list below, it is
worth considering the situations in Ephesus (1 Timothy),
in Crete (Titus) as well as in a world region which
includes many nationalities (1 Peter). The first
of these was written regarding a mature church with
a well established eldership, yet a church with
a number of problems, including false teachings
and factions in the church. First Timothy 3 will
tend to emphasize the qualities especially suited
for this situation. The situation on the island
of Crete was very different. Titus was being sent
into a situation with relatively young churches
which may have lacked mature leadership and probably
did not have any elders appointed up to that time.
The qualities mentioned by Peter will reflect the
situation he had in mind as well. Peter wrote to
Christians who were going through severe persecution
for their faith. Elders in such a situation would
require an extra measure of qualities appropriate
to that situation.
1 Timothy
3:1-7 |
Titus
1:5-9 |
1
Peter 5:1-4 |
(oregoo)
means: to stretch toward something. It is used
in parallel with (epithumeoo)
which means to lust after something, to have
a passion for something. The
object of their desire is (episkopos), a word which has an English parallel of “supervisor”
but carries the idea of watchful care and concern;
according to Paul this is a (kalou
ergou)
a good work, which emphasizes responsibility
over position and title. The candidate should
desire the good work of being an elder/overseer. |
|
(ekousioos kata theou)
means to be a willing shepherd the way God
wants it to be - (mee anagkastoos) not forced or an unwilling leader. Instead (allas)
he should be (prothumoos)
looking forward to the opportunity to serve
in this fashion. The
object of their desire is to be a shepherd of
God’s flock, an overseer (episkopountes).
|
(anepileempton)
means: literally to be someone who has nothing
held over his head; not open to bribery, manipulation,
favoritism, or blackmail. The person in mind
should not have a serious blemish in his past
which could be used against him by believers
or outsiders. |
(anegkleetos)
means: someone not accused of wrong or charged
with crimes. In Titus, this word is used twice,
once with regards to family matters, and then
with regards to relationships outside the family.
The reason he is to be blameless in his family
is so we can determine what kind of leadership
he will provide for God’s household (see verse
7 where he is called [theou
oiknomou
– he is God’s “steward”, the servant in charge
of household affairs]). |
|
(mias
gunaikos
andra)
means: literally to be a one woman man; a faithful
husband. This does not apply to a woman. |
(mias
gunaikos
andra)
means: literally to be a one woman man; a faithful
husband. This does not apply to a woman. |
|
(neephalion)
means: to be free from mental or spiritual
drunkenness and describes someone who is calm
and approachable. This is a person who is not
given to great swings of emotion. |
|
|
(soophrona)
means: a healthy thinker; a clear thinker |
(soophrona)
means: a healthy thinker; a clear thinker |
|
(kosmion)
means: worldly in the sense of order not chaos;
which means someone organized and respected. |
|
|
(philozenon)
means: someone fond of strangers and so hospitable;
taking care of people outside his immediate
family. |
(philozenon)
means: someone fond of strangers and so hospitable;
taking care of people outside his immediate
family. |
|
(didaktikon)
means: a teacher, not just a manager |
(didaktikon)
means: a teacher, not just a manager |
|
(mee
paroinon)
means: someone not hanging out by the wine;
so, one not looking to alcohol for comfort or
solutions |
(mee
paroinon)
means: someone not hanging out by the wine;
so, one not looking to alcohol for comfort or
solutions |
|
(mee
pleekteen)
means: someone not full of themselves, or pushing
themselves on others; not defensive |
(mee
pleekteen)
means: someone not full of themselves, or pushing
themselves on others; not defensive |
|
(epieikee)
means: a good listener; someone with an open
mind, continuing to grow and learn |
|
|
(amaxon)
means: someone not looking for a fight; literally
“not cutting others down” |
|
|
(aphilarguron)
means: someone not fond of money; so not greedy
(must handle money well) |
|
|
(prohistamenon)
means: someone who is in front of a group providing
an example worth following (used twice in this
context, once of his home, the other for the
church). And his children (whoever and how
many and age, etc. are not specified in this
context) are under his leadership and voluntarily
treat him with respect (they don’t take his
advice and lifestyle lightly). If a man doesn’t
know how to lead his family without resorting
to force then he has no place in leading the
church. The church is to be treated like a
family by her leaders and elders are to be those
who (epimeleesetai)
“are concerned for the welfare” of the church. |
(tekna
exoon
pista)
means: children regardless of age or quantity
as long as they are part of his heritage – could
include members of his household such as servants,
cousins, and people who have taken refuge in
his home. These children are described as having
faith or being faithful. The meaning of “faithfulness”
or “faith” is determined by the following descriptions:
(asootos) people not “wasting their lives”
or (anhupotakta)
“refusing direction”. This is to be understood
in the context of a society where fathers had
the right of life and death over their children.
The father could even force a divorce of one
of his children from their spouse, but an elder
in God’s church must not resort to such rights
to obtain compliance from his children. |
|
(mee
neophuton)
means: someone who is not a seedling or just
sprouting from the ground, so not a recent convert;
the reason: he will be full of hot air (literally
“full of smoke”) |
|
|
A good reputation with those
outside of the church |
|
|
|
(mee
authadee)
means: someone who does not please himself
at the expense of others. |
|
|
(mee
orgilon)
means: someone who is not irritable or easily
offended |
|
|
(mee
aisxrokerdee)
means: someone who is not profiting financially
in an illegal, manipulative, or improper manner |
(meede
aischrokerdoos)
means: someone not serving for financial gain,
acting like an employee |
|
(philagathon)
means: someone who loves good; impartial |
|
|
(dikaion)
means: innocent, not liable to be accused of
impropriety; consistent with his confession |
|
|
(hosion)
means: devotion to laws |
|
|
(egkratee)
means: someone able to take a personal stand,
not depending on others for restraint |
|
|
(antexomenon)
means: someone who holds on to the teaching
of Jesus against those who want to be involved
with theological speculations and philosophies
and is capable of convicting those who have
been led astray. |
|
|
|
(meed’ oos katakurieuontes) he must not be a person
who rules or lords his position over others
whom he has appointed to lead (kleeroon).
|
|
|
Instead of lording it over others he must be
an “example” for them to follow (tupoi). |
As mentioned
above, there are some likely reasons for the difference
between the listed qualities for the elders of Ephesus
as described to Timothy and those for Crete in Titus.
Ephesus was a city where the apostle Paul had spent
much personal time and built great relationships.
If the traditional date for 1 Timothy, in the early
sixties AD is correct, then Paul had already appointed
elders, and Timothy was responsible for finding
more elders who could help carry the load in that
city. It is even possible that some of those already
appointed as elders in the city may have been part
of the problems there. If 1 Timothy was written
prior to elders being appointed
[1]
, then Paul was telling Timothy what kind of
individuals to look for among those people who could
take care of the church and keep it healthy. Paul
would also be warning them of teachings that would
cause trouble in that city. And he would personally
follow up with this group of men in Troas (Acts
20). In Titus one finds a situation where the apostle
Paul spent little or no time at all. The society
in Crete at that time was criticized for a lack
of discipline that could easily influence a young
church without the advantage of an apostle’s direction.
In the churches in Crete, elders needed to be men
who could stand against the unruly society they
lived in and provide an example that would set the
church apart from their unbelieving counterparts.
They also had to be men who were capable of stemming
the spread of false teaching that would wreck the
faith of young believers. 1 Peter was likely written
toward the end of Peter’s life when the official
persecution of Christians had become a reality.
Peter was aware that he would soon no longer be
available to help the church in these regions, so
he wrote t hem reminders of the important matters
of the faith and charged the elders in those regions
to be faithful to their God-given charge to lead
the church. There were different needs in each
of these cities. Peter and Paul recognized this
and addressed them appropriately through the list
of qualities for elders which they mention. This
should not surprise us since the qualities of Old
Testament elders as described in Exodus 18 and Deuteronomy
1 are significantly different even though both of
these accounts refer to the same event.
QUALITIES
VS QUALIFICATIONS
Now that we have
a good background for the meaning of the words in
Titus, 1 Timothy and 1 Peter, let us turn to the
question of qualities versus qualifications. This
gets to the heart of the matter. Are we to interpret
Titus 1:6 as an in-or-out qualification for an elder
candidate? First, let us consider the phrase in
Titus 1:7, “Since an overseer (episkopos)
is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless—not
overbearing, not quick-tempered…” If Titus is
a list of qualifications for the eldership, how
could any of us be qualified on the grounds of being
blameless? Can any of us claim to never have been
overbearing? And what about “whose children believe
and are not open to the charge of being wild and
disobedient”? Can any of us who have teens claim
with a straight face that our children have not
been disobedient? Clearly, no disciple of Jesus
is blameless; neither do any of us have children
who have never been disobedient. Nevertheless Paul
lists these qualities for a very good reason. These
are the absolutely essential qualities that anyone
who would take on the shepherding, overseeing role
in the church.
Without a doubt, the quality of
a man’s parenting, as it is reflected in the lives
of his children, is a key aspect for those who would
take on the role of elder, which is why this quality
appears prominently in both Titus and 1 Timothy.
If we are looking at a quality of faithfulness of
the candidate’s children, then it seems that at
least one or two of the children should be old enough
for the fruit of the management of the home to be
born out. However, does this mean that one would
have to have all the children past the “age of accountability”
to judge this quality? If one is looking for a
list of qualifications, the answer is perhaps yes,
but if one is looking at qualities of the man, probably
not. Would all the children over the age of thirteen
have to be disciples to qualify? Again, we are
looking at the overall qualities of the man, so
such a “qualification” makes no sense. In other
words, what we should ask is whether the general
demeanor of the children shows evidence of love,
of good management of the family, of servant shepherding
and strong leadership? God will hold us accountable
for our stewardship of our children, but good shepherding
and leadership is not an absolute guarantee of one
hundred percent of our children being saved. Even
Jesus was not able to “save” all twelve of his apostles.
Nevertheless, no one would say Jesus failed in the
quality of being a great servant leader of the apostles.
If one is looking at qualities,
not qualifications, this will allow us to take a
more balanced perspective on all the qualities Paul
lists in the key passages on elders. No one has
ever seen hospitality as an in-or-out qualification,
but because “believing children” has been seen as
a qualification, that has tended to cause us to
not look as closely as we ought at how hospitable
those we nominate for the eldership are. Is “faithful
children” a more key quality than hospitality?
Perhaps so, but both should be considered. And
what about the quality of holding firmly to the
trustworthy message--of refuting those who oppose
sound doctrine? It is our perception that these
qualities have not been entirely ignored, but that
they have not been viewed with adequate weight in
our consideration of who should be elders. The
same could be said for the quality of being gentle
or of having a good reputation with outsiders.
Have we looked carefully at these qualities, or
have we fallen into the trap of almost, but not
quite, looking exclusively at a couple of the qualities
which God has in mind? It would be possible for
us to overstate the case, but it is hard to deny
that we need a more balanced approach to the qualities
we must look for in candidates for the eldership.
A
HELPFUL OUTLINE
It could get a bit daunting considering
the blizzard of qualities in the two passages above.
It will be helpful to attempt to generalize some
of the desirable traits of an elder so that we can
organize our thoughts. Of the two passages, Titus
1:5-9 lends itself more easily to a general outline.
The qualities in Titus seem to fit an ordered pattern
as follows:
- Titus
1:5-7a (blameless, one-woman man, faithful children—not
chargeable with being out of control, blameless
a second time and parallels in Timothy). These
qualities could be generalized as those which
would make the candidate for the eldership be
above reproach—not having any serious moral or
leadership blemishes which could be used as a
wedge to create division in the church or to cast
doubt on his authority to lead the church. The
role of elder, presbuteros, (as opposed
to shepherding or overseeing) seems to be emphasized
here.
2.
Titus 1:7b, 8 (not overbearing, temperate, not violent,
not greedy, hospitable, not easily offended, etc.
and the parallels in Timothy) These
qualities could be generalized as those which could
create a sense of safety, protection
and love for those who would be shepherded by the
men in question. The pastoring role, poimeen, of the elder is emphasized here.
Not surprisingly, these qualities are prominent
in 1 Peter 5 as well.
- Titus
1:9 (holding firmly the message, encouraging sound
doctrine and opposing false teachings and the
parallels in Timothy). These qualities could
be generalized as combining teaching and protection
to safeguard the church both from within and from
without against false doctrines and those who
would cause division in the church. The overseeing
aspect, episkopos,
of the potential leader seems to be in mind here.
Of course,
all these qualities are those which make for a great
husband and father—a spiritual leader of a physical
family which would qualify one to be a leader of
the spiritual family of God. John Calvin summarized
the second two sets of qualities, saying the pastor
must speak in two voices: one for gathering sheep
and one for driving away wolves and thieves.
Another
factor to consider in choosing elders is the local
situation. It would be wise to consider those qualities
which one could anticipate being particularly needed
in the local church. The local particular issue
may be perceived to be family ministry, persecution,
false teachings, major sin problems or whatever
the situation may present. It might also be helpful
to consider the elders in place: what are their
strengths and weaknesses in relationship to the
qualities needed locally? If their current strengths
weigh more toward shepherding, then it might be
wise to emphasize the teaching/protecting role in
choosing the next elder. Leadership qualities,
especially within the family of the potential elder
will always be extremely important, but certain
situations might call for a closer look at these
qualities. The point is: if we are looking at qualities,
not qualifications, it frees us to look at the whole
person and the situation at hand to choose those
men who God can use to take care of the local needs
of the church of Jesus Christ.
To summarize,
when a local church is looking for men to be appointed
as elders, each candidate should be examined in
light of all the qualities listed above. It might
be helpful to consider the three general areas of
blamelessness, shepherding and protecting the flock
as described above. Any one candidate may be stronger
in one area than another, but they must be at least
significantly strong in all three or they should
not be appointed. Bear in mind, however, that the
three categories mentioned in this paper are only
intended as a potentially useful constructs. It
would be a mistake to consider the three categories
alone without looking at the individual specific
qualities mentioned Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3.
A
PICTURE OF A MAN
Let us summarize by creating a
picture of the man of God who is willing and well-prepared
to take on the role of elder/pastor/overseer in
the church. He is a man who is not perfect, but
about whom no seriously damaging charge could be
laid. Anyone who knows this man would agree that
no one could believe he would use his position for
personal financial gain. His children are not perfect,
but it is reasonable to think, based on what we
can see, that they are stable enough and that they
show him sufficient respect that he will be able
to focus a great deal of attention on the family
of God. There is not even the slightest hint of
sexual impropriety in this brother’s life. One
thing that is for sure is that brothers and, perhaps
even more importantly, sisters, simply feel loved,
protected and safe around him. They are not on
pins and needles, wondering if he will get angry
or defensive. If any one quality could describe
this man, it is unselfish love. He is not one given
to arguing, but to peace making and to bringing
about unity and consensus. This man combines qualities
which are often not found together in one person.
While being gentle and peace-loving, he is able
to respond vigorously whenever the church and the
truth of the gospel are under attack. He knows
his Bible backward and forward and knows how to
apply it to provide milk for the new convert and
solid food for the mature, all the while opposing
those who would bring trouble and shame on the kingdom
of God.
There
are aspects of choosing elders not addressed in
this brief paper. Who should create a list of potential
candidates? How will they be examined and by whom?
How will input be sought from the church as a whole?
Who makes the final choice and what form will the
appointment take? Are elders to be selected on
a semi-permanent basis, or might they be rotated
in or out of the position? These questions are
not addressed directly in the New Testament, but
the local church must come up with a plan of action
which the entire church can feel confident will
produce a team of elders who will meet the long
term needs for spiritual growth of the body of Christ.
Keith Wright