 |
 |
 |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
 |
(Continued from The Ruling Elder As Presbyter I)
A TENTATIVE APPRAISAL
So where does all of this lead? Some tentative judgments are in order at this point, but they are being offered as preliminary conclusions only.
First of all, the question must be addressed as to who was right in the Thornwell-Hodge debate? As to the question of whether or not "ruling elders" should be considered as New Testament presbuteroi, this writer would side with Thornwell—yes, they should be, that is, if you insist on calling some presbuteroi ruling elders. On the basis of our study of the biblical texts themselves, however, there is no ground for affirming the existence of a generic presbuteros which can then be subdivided into two types, a ruling one and a teaching one. That is, there is no basis for affirming the existence of two kinds of presbuteroi.
But neither is there any evidence for the existence of a class of leaders (apart from deacons, that is)(35) separate and distinct from the presbuteroi, whether these are called (unfortunately) "ruling elders" as with Hodge, or "other church governors" as with the Westminster Divines. Against Hodge, therefore, I agree profoundly with Torrance, and question the existence of any other leadership group apart from the presbuteroi (elders who are also overseers and shepherds) and the diakonoi.
I grant that this conclusion seems to strike at the heart of historic Presbyterianism which, one way or another, has always sought to make room for a kind of elder office distinct from that of the minister of the word. When one thinks of "Presbyterian" one immediately thinks of "elders," usually "lay" elders. However, my conclusion retains what in my judgment seems most necessary to retain, and that is that the leadership of the church is given to a plurality of presbyters who are fundamentally equal in calling, rank, and dignity(36).
The question naturally arises that, if these conclusions are right, is it be good to retain use of the word "elder?" In my judgment, there is so much confusing historic tradition and semantic difficulty surrounding the English word "elder" as applied to church leaders, that it may well be best instead to use the transliterated English form of presbuteros, "presbyter," to refer to the plurality of ordained leaders in the local church. However, even if these conclusions are correct, there is much momentum for the traditional language, and I grant the probability that the traditional language will carry the day, that we will retain not only the use of the word "elder" with its semantic confusions, but also, at least in our common language, words which distinguish between presbuteroi, such as "pastors" and "elders," "teaching elders" and "ruling elders’ and so on. But even though traditional language will likely be retained, if the above conclusions are correct, we can possibly invest the traditional words with more biblical meanings.
THE PASTOR AND THE ELDER
If this assessment is correct it has rather profound practical implications for how those of us who are currently using the traditional language might invest different meaning into these words. First of all, since we have seen no firm evidence in the New Testament of any other leadership position apart from the presbuteros-poimein-episkopos (except of course for the deacon), we must affirm that, as regards to content or meaning, the distinction we make between "teaching elders" (or "pastors" or "ministers") on the one hand and "ruling elders" (or simply "elders") on the other hand is an arbitrary distinction. This means then that there is no real or biblical distinction in calling, ministry, rank, dignity, or authority between the various presbuteroi who serve in a local church. That is, all presbuteroi, whatever common word is used to describe them, are fundamentally equivalent as elder-pastor-overseers.
Second, because of the intense demands of being a presbyter, we have adopted the practice of setting aside some of these elder-pastor-bishops to full-time paid presbyter-ship. Typically, but not necessarily, these are set aside for a special ministry of the Word, it being recognized that the ministry of preaching and teaching places such time demands on an elder-pastor-bishop that he needs to be freed up from his responsibility to make a living in a "normal" way; and thus he comes under the support of the body so as to pursue his specialized word ministry. Ideally the ones so set aside have a giftedness from God which is conducive to such a pursuit. The formal education which may be required to help equip him for this role, added to the fact that he, as a full-time presbyter is continually in touch with a wide range of people in the congregation, should give him an important advisory role in the affairs of the church as a whole. Yet, neither this formal training nor the high profile necessarily give him greater godly wisdom, clearer vision of the big picture, or even keener Biblical acumen than other elder-pastor-bishops. Nor is he endowed with any special official status or authority. Rather when all is said and done, he is merely one of the group, set aside, for practical time reasons, for specific presbyter functions—functions also pursued (with less time available) by the other elders.
Often in practice it is difficult for the non-paid presbyter to have a clear sense of his equality with the paid presbyter over the range of general pastor/elder/overseer responsibilities. He may sense his equality as he exercises his role in a meeting of the session, yet he still fails to know that God has placed equally upon his shoulders the responsibility of the health and vitality of the flock. He may have a sense that the ultimate responsibility rests not so much with himself as part of the plurality of the presbuteroi, but with the "professional", seminary trained, full-time presbyter. Thus, he may fail to adequately train himself in the Scriptures; he may fail to pursue his responsibilities (in the time that is available) for shepherding those under his care; he may become lax in his governmental assignments. Unwittingly, he abdicates the fullness of his own responsibility before Christ, and by default transfers that responsibility to others. Many factors contribute to this abdication—the terminology ("pastor" vs. "elder"), the fact that paid-presbyters have more time to attend to presbyter matters, the cultural identification of paid-presbyters as spiritual professionals, the zeal of the paid-elders, the lack of public recognition that he as a non paid presbyter receives from the flock at large—all of these factors contribute to an ongoing identity crisis for the non-paid presbyter. What is his role? How does he understand it? How does he prepare for it? How does he fulfill it? And how does he carry out his mandate under Christ?
Third, as we disciple, equip, and prepare men for possible future leadership, we must have in mind the high calling of New Testament presbuteroi and not some scaled down (or dumbed-down) secondary-level elder office. We are preparing men to be co-pastors, co-overseers, co-presbyters with those to whom we traditionally attribute the title “pastor” or “minister.” We are preparing people to be contemporary versions of those presbuteroi/episkopoi who met with Paul at Miletus, those presbuteroi/episkopoi exhorted by Peter to "shepherd the flock of God," those presbuteroi/episkopoi who are, as in Paul’s words to Titus, “both to exhort in sound doctrine and refute those who contradict.” The calling is a high one, and we must raise the bar, and possibly restructure our seminaries, accordingly.
Fourth, we must beware of the current movement towards the pastor as CEO and elders as board members. The plurality of equal presbuteroi must not delegate, intentionally or by default, to one of its members unique authority over the affairs of the church. This authority is Christ's alone and He has chosen to exercise this authority through a plurality of presbuteroi. If this plurality were to delegate its governmental and shepherding authority to one of its members, it would cease to exist as an authoritative body. A session simply cannot transfer its responsibility to a pastor and continue to be a session. Neither a single pastor in a smaller church nor a senior pastor in a multiple pastor church has special authority as compared with other non-paid elder-pastor-overseers. His role in the plurality (apart from those duties legitimately and specifically assigned to him, and which flow out of his common calling with the other presbuteroi, such as preparing and preaching sermons, counseling, visiting the sick, etc.), is advisory and not authoritative. Even in the area of his specific duties he co-labors with the other presbuteroi, and is under the authority of the plurality of elder/overseer/pastors, of which he is just one, and is to be held accountable by the plurality as a whole.
Fifth, if in fact the New Testament presbuteroi constitute the only New Testament leadership office, and if there are no distinctions among these presbuteroi, then we need to reexamine the differing responsibilities presently assigned to ministers on the one hand and elders on the other. If my analysis is correct, then all presbuteroi should be able to preach the word, administer the sacraments, perform benedictions, and moderate sessions, etc.
Sixth and finally, our Form of Government needs to reflect a consistent understanding of who the "elder" is, whether in doing so it would reflect the conclusion that I have reached above, or different conclusions perhaps more in line with either Hodge or Thornwell. As it stands, the ARP Form of Government (FOG) is hopelessly confused on the question as to whether our ruling elder is a New Testament presbuteros.
On the one hand, there are some statements which lean our FOG in the direction of seeing the elder as a non-presbyter. For example, in VII A. 2., which describes and gives qualification for ruling elders, we read, "There were elders of the people for the government of the Old Testament church. Likewise, in the New Testament church, besides the apostles and ministers, there were elders who ruled." This statement suggests three groups—apostles, ministers, and "elders who ruled", echoing the "other church governor" language of the writers of the Confession. Likewise, the distinction between the two types of elders—ruling and teaching—suggests (although it itself does not prove any essential difference) some basic or fundamental distinction between the types. In addition, the somewhat differing responsibilities assigned to ruling and teaching elders, particularly the exclusion of ruling elders from administering the sacraments, suggests possibly more than a mere practical distinction between these two elders types.
On the other hand, there are statements in our FOG which clearly associate the ruling elder with the New Testament presbuteroi, and which assign to the ruling elder a shepherding role quite beyond that of Westminster’s "other church governors". For example, in Chapter VII A. 2., just under the quotation cited above in support of the "other church governor" approach, is this statement: "To the office of ruling elder shall be chosen men of wisdom, discretion, sound faith and Godly life who are qualified under the standards recorded in Scripture." It is universally assumed that the standards referred to are those in Timothy and Titus which deal with the character traits of episkopoi and presbuteroi respectively, the latter certainly and the former most likely being presbyters. What other descriptions of standards exist? Therefore, the very basis of who and what the ruling elder is all about is defined in the FOG by the New Testament presbyter. In addition, the individual responsibilities of the ruling elder, although not as complete in the ministry of the word aspect as the minister's responsibilities nevertheless cover almost every aspect of the shepherding role of the New Testament presbuteroi. And Finally, in Chapter II A. 2., "Concerning the Government of the Church," it is stated unambiguously that "the Presbyterian form of church government is government by presbyters (elders) assembled in church courts" (parenthetical comment quoted directly). Thus the correspondence of our ruling elders with New Testament presbyters is made very explicit.
Endnotes
(1) Joan S. Gray and Joyce C. Tucker, Presbyterian Polity for Church Officers (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1952), p. 40. See also Mark Ross’s article The Presbyterian Ruling Elder in this issue of Faith and Practice.
(2) Ernest Trice Thompson, Presbyterians in the South Volume 1, 1607-1861 (Richmond: John Knox Press, 1963), p. 512.
(3) T.F. Torrance, "The Eldership in the Reformed Church," Scottish Journal of Theology Volume 37 (Edinburgh, 1984), p. 509.
(4) Torrance pp. 503-518.
(5) Torrance, p. 508.
(6) Torrance, p. 508.
(7) As quoted by Gunther Bornkmann, presbus in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT), Volume III, ed. Gerhard Kittle, (Grand Rapids: Eerdman's 1977), p. 665.
(8) Bornkmann, p. 665.
(9) Bornkmann, p. 665..
(10) Bornkmann, p. 665.
(11) Bornkmann, p. 665.
(12) Bornkmann, p. 665.
(13) Gordon D. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus: New International Biblical Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988), p. 172.
(14) Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, p. 172. Fee contends that whereas certainly the overseers were also elders, that it is possible that there were elders who were not overseers. This possibility could open a narrow crack allowing for a distinction between presbuteroi and episkopoi. The only evidence I can imagine for such a contention is the repetition of the admonition to be blameless, which could possibly suggest that Paul had in mind a different group, as if he were saying, “and likewise the overseers too must be blameless.” But in 1 Timothy 3, when he certainly does have in mind a different group (the deacons), he actually uses the word “likewise” to tip us off to that fact.
(15) F. F. Bruce, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 45 (Waco: Word Books, 1982), p. 119.
(16) Fee, p. 128.
(17) John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, translated by the Rev. John Owen, 1849, and published in Calvin’s Commentaries, Volume XIX (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989), p. 463.
(18) Calvin, p. 463.
(19) The Assembly of Divines at Westminster, The Confession of Faith (Edinburgh: Johnstone, Hunter, and Co., 1886), p. 307.
(20) Bo Reicke, proisteimi in T.D.N.T. Volume III, p. 701.
(21) Charles Hodge, A Commentary on Romans (London: Nelson, 1879), p. 392.
(22) Hodge, p. 393.
(23) Hodge, p. 393.
(24) Hodge, p. 393.
(25) Hodge, p. 393.
(26) Hodge, p. 393.
(27) See Edmund P. Clowney, “A Brief for Church Governors in Church Government,” found in the Documents of Synod: Study Papers and Actions of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod—1965-1982, Edited by Paul Gilchrist, pp. 233-235.
(28) Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Erdmans, 1987), p. 622.
(29) Fee, Corinthians, p. 622.
(30) Hermann Beyer, kuberveisis in T.D.N.T. Volume , p. 1036.
(31) Barrett, p. 295. C.K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (London: Alan Charles, Blant, 1978), pp. 295-296.
(32) Fee, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, p. 129.
(33) Fee, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, p. 7.
(34) Fee, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, p. 8.
(35) Torrance, p. 505ff. Torrance believes, and I concur, that the reformed “elder of the people” came to take on much of what biblically had been attributed to the diaconate, which has had the result of lessening the significance of the office of the deacon and confusing our understanding of the ministry of the presbuteroi.
(36) To the extent that we have a plurality of presbuteroi in what we call a local church or local assembly, these presbuteroi should be equal in calling, ministry, rank, and dignity as presbyters. However we cannot know exactly how the presbuteroi were distributed amongst the “churches” in the earliest times. Elders were appointed in the churches of each city, but we do not know exactly how. For example, were there multiple elders in each house church in Ephesus? Or was there one elder over each house church? Did the organization of the various congregations look the same in Crete as in Ephesus? We cannot know exactly how things were organized in the various cities and regions, and whether they were organized the same way in each and every city and region. The one thing we do know—that there was some kind of city-wide eldership—is the one practice we do not in any way follow today, as every denomination has its own elders and leaders and “never the twain shall meet.” Can we imagine the Lord calling a meeting of all the elders of Greensboro or Charlotte or New York? We talk about being connectional and ignore the one way the early churches certainly were connectional.
(37) Of course, there may be differences in wisdom and maturity which will distinguish various prebuteroi. And there may different spiritual gifts distributed amongst the various prebuteroi. Some presbyters may have the spiritual gift of leadership or that of administration, and thus by the edifying “power” of this Holy Spirit giftedness may be especially able to lead and guide and direct their equals. This gift may fall upon a non-paid presbyter, or it may fall upon a paid presbyter. The authority of this gift is a "charismatic" authority, not an authority which comes by virtue of a separate office or title. The only official authority rests with the plurality of equal partners as a collective, not with any one of the specific partners.
Copyright © 1998 by Joel Gillespie. Reproduction for non-commercial use is permitted, provided the material is not altered, and provided that the copyright notice is retained.
The Ruling Elder as Presbyter Part III: Prologue
As I look back upon this paper after several more years in pastoral ministry, I am struck by two things, the basic soundness of the exegesis, and the youthful, energetic naiveté of the applications.
Indeed, I have asked probing questions, rooted in the exegetical argument and conclusions, and I suppose that they must be asked. But I call myself to task the same way I often call others to task. I am not free to take an exegetical conclusion and run further with what seem the logical deductions than the Scripture itself runs. And, in fact, the Scripture leaves us with less clarity than we might desire. The clarity we do have reminds us that we must come to conclusions on this subject gently, and tentatively.
I am made to hesitate by the fact that many of my brothers who are every bit as smart and insightful as me, see and exegete the passages differently. I stick to my conclusions, yet I must stick to them humbly, aware that they balance as on a knife edge. It is not a slam dunk matter.
I have also subsequently been more persuaded of the traditional wisdom of the basic Presbyterian system, not that it can lay claim to any absolute verification by the Scripture, but in the sense that it seems most congenial to the overall thrust of New Testament polity – local churches connected to and in some ways in submission to one another, a plurality of elders overseeing churches, however such is construed.
I have come to be in my observation of churches as a presbyter and as a local pastor far more persuaded of the wisdom behind the traditional office and function of the pastor (not the modern “pastor as CEO” idea) as over against a brethren approach, and consider a radical two office view far worse than a traditional Presbyterian three office view.
As to the confusion within the ARP Form of Government, I do wish some of that could be cleared up, yet, of even that I am more sympathetic. There exist tensions that firm resolutions one way or another just cannot preserve, and the Form of Government, perhaps despite itself, preserves those tensions.
I am more sympathetic to the traditional Presbyterian wisdom of having certain educational and examination standards for those carrying the load in terms of word and sacrament. My view of parity would be satisfied by seeing the “ruling elder” rise up to those standards.
Yet, at the same time, I also see the traditional wisdom of having godly men serve in leadership who have been through the crucible of normal life, men who though well versed in the word do not and could not qualify under Presbytery guidelines for teaching elders, yet who bring much needed wisdom to the local session, and to local pastoral care. So I sense and respect more than before the possible differential in calling between the non presbytery ordained elder and the presbytery ordained teaching elder.
Finally, it must be repeated that all ARP elders of whatever kind have equal authority and respect in the courts of the church. Every elder’s vote counts equally, and every elder’s insight is respected, whether he be a ruling or teaching elder. This is the practice of our local session, our presbytery, and our general synod.
I hope this essay, flawed as it maybe in its youthful vigor, may yet be challenging and worthwhile. To that end I pray.
|
 |
|
 |
|
||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||||
