Transcending the Anathemas

My dear brother-in-Christ, Daniel, recently asked a very interesting question in his blog. In essence, he was inquiring whether it was appropriate to pronounce "anathemas" upon heretics, especially in view of the early church councils that had previously declared the same upon the likes of Arius. He queried, "Since these early church leaders [unanimously] passed judgment on all who follow these heresies, are we to follow their lead and [anathematize] all who follow those same heresies, i.e. Arianism, Sabellianism, Gnosticism, Pelagianism, monothelitism, monophysitism etc.?"

In response to Daniel’s question, we may be quick to give a reply according to the Fourth Teaching of father Kosmas, but again, would we want to do that? The father had taught,

"Be careful, my fellow Christians, never pronounce anathemas, because anathema is separation from God, from the angels, from paradise, and leads to the devil and to hell.

It was for that brother's sake that Christ was crucified, to get him out of hell; and you, for an insignificant thing, pronounce an anathema against him? You put him into hell to burn forever? Are you so hard-hearted? But just think how many sins you have committed from the day of your birth; how many sins have you committed with your eyes, your mouth, or in your mind? Do you think you are sinless?

The holy Gospel tells us only Christ is without sin. We human beings are all sinners, so don't pronounce anathemas. This is why, my fellow Christians, if you wish God to forgive you of all your sins and to put you into paradise, let your nobility say three times for your enemies: "May God forgive and have mercy upon them.’"

Although we do not have the time to argue against the theological errors found within the writings of father Kosmas, we must nevertheless take a little time to study what it means to anathematize someone, especially in the context of the Second Council of Constantinople. In the context of the New Testament (Rom 9:3, 1 Cor 12:3, Gal 1:8-9, 1 Cor 16:22), the Thayer’s Greek Definition defines "anathema" as "a thing devoted to God without hope of being redeemed, and if an animal, to be slain; therefore a person or thing doomed to destruction; 2a) a curse; 2b) a man accursed, devoted to the direst of woes." Furthermore, we also know that "the non-Attic form [of the word "anathema"] was adopted in the Septuagint as a rendering of the Hebrew herem, and gradually came to have the significance of the Hebrew word-"anything devoted to destruction" (The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)."

But to the early church fathers, the meaning of "anathema" had adopted the nuance of a "major excommunication," even to the extent of condemning the subject to eternal damnation unless the subject repents. As stated in the ISBE, "Whereas in the Greek Fathers [the word "anathema"] -as herem in rabbinic Hebrew-came to denote excommunication from society."

We realize that there were no official pronouncements of "anathema" within the first three centuries of the early church. Also, anathemas were not mentioned in the well-known creeds, for example, 1) The Nicene Creed (Council of Constantinople (381AD), 2) The Definition of Chalcedon (451AD), and 3) The Canons of the Council of Orange (529AD).

However, after the first three hundred years of the Christian Church, anathemas such as those of the Second Council of Constantinople (553AD) started to appear. Timothy George in his paper, "Dogma Beyond Anathema: Historical Theology in the Service of the Church," notes that "the first official mention of "anathema" is from the Council of Elvira, held about 306." After this, the pronunciation of anathemas was a mean of excommunicating heretics. In "The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. III," we find the anathemas of Cyril of Alexandria issued against Nestorius in 431AD. By the period of the Second Council of Constantinople, the excommunication of a church member meant cutting off a person from the Lord’s Supper and attendance at worship, while "anathema" meant a complete separation of the person from the Church.
So, in answer to Daniel’s question, can we as Christians pronounce anathema upon a heretic in view of previous church council decisions?

This question must be answered in two aspects. Firstly, we must discuss the spirit and intention of such a pronouncement. There is a Particular Baptist hymn that reads as follow:

We are the Lord’s elected few,
Let all the rest be damned;
There’s room enough in hell for you,
We won’t have heaven crammed.

When we consider the hymn, we realize that Christians are indeed the Lord’s elected, that those who are not elected are damned, that there is truly enough room in hell for all the reprobates, and that heaven will not be crammed. But any God-loving, soul-winning Christian will not find this hymn edifying to the sanctification of the redeemed man. My question is: In what spirit do you think this hymn was written? In a spirit of Christian love for the lost?

In like manner, we should consider these questions: Why do we want to pronounce an anathema upon a heretic when it is enough that we can identify, mark, and separate from him? Why must we pronounce a curse and damnation upon such a man when we can warn the flock, protect the Church, and publicly denounce such a false teacher? I believe we ought to be careful with any spirit that seeks to pronounce such a judgment upon any man. As Francis Schaeffer had elucidated in his book, The Great Evangelical Disaster, we must seek to balance our pursuit of holiness and doctrinal purity with love. Even a heretic deserves at least our correction and kindness. We do not know if such a man will ever repent. We do not know if he is simply misled or misunderstood. Most of all, we can never know whether such a man is elect or not. Can we say with absolute certainty that a heretical scholar will never be illuminated by the Holy Ghost and the light of the Truth?

The second problem we must address is the issue of ecclesiastical authority. In church history, anathemas were pronounced upon heretics and heretical groups by Church Councils. Within the New Testament, where the word anathema occurs in four places, it was the Apostle Paul who pronounced the anathema, and that was with the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. When we consider the contemporary context, even the excommunication of an individual, let alone the official pronunciation of "anathema," is decided upon by the church’s session consisting of a plurality of elders. If a lone pastor or bishop cannot make an arbitrary decision to excommunicate anyone, how much more a church member?

But here we are discussing the appropriateness of anathematizing a heretic in a private capacity, albeit based upon prior decisions made by historic church councils. My humble opinion would be this: historic orthodoxy as defined by the early church is definitive and authoritative for us today as far as it is according to the Holy Scriptures. Evangelicals should be guided by the historic, Christian faith in their judgment of what is, and is not heresy. Nevertheless, when making decisions concerning the excommunication of heretics, the church’s session should be made the final arbiter, especially in cases when there is no classis or synod to appeal to. Therefore, in the pronunciation of anathemas - which is a more severe form of judgment compared to mere ecclesiastical excommunication - individuals cannot and must not possess the authority to make any such decisions.

Furthermore, we must realize that there is indeed a difference between saying, "The Council of X has pronounced an anathema against the heresy you hold," and, "I hereby pronounce anathema upon you, the heretic. Anathema sit!" The former sentence recognizes the authority of the early church councils, while the latter seems to emphasize the personal authority of the one who made the pronouncement. Unless one is backed by the decision of a church council, it is understood that one may not make such a pronouncement.

Within an ecclesiastical milieu, we must agree with Timothy George that, "There are times in the life of the church when it is necessary to say "Be accursed, be delivered up to the wrath of God and destroyed," for that is what anathema means in the original Pauline sense: "If anyone preaches another gospel, let him anathema!" The condemnatory clauses of the Nicene Creed are an expression of the church’s response to identify forms of teaching which if carried out consistently would have threatened the truth of divine revelation itself." (Timothy George, "Dogma Beyond Anathema: Historical Theology in the Service of the Church," Review and Expositor 84: 704, emphasis mine).

Made by the collective representatives of the Christian Church, such an official pronouncement serves to warn the flock against the soul damning heresies of the false teacher. On a private basis, the church member may write, teach, or verbally warn fellow Christians with regard to public false teachings and teachers, particularly heresies. This, however, does not relief him from honest, in-depth research and study prior to making any judgment against the alleged false teacher. The church member should also discuss his concerns with the church leaders. This is to avoid unnecessary paranoia and erroneous judgments.

Finally, "the church should avoid the use of anathema as an instrument of eternal coercion and use it only as a decision of faith in its proclamation of the whole counsel of God, the word of judgment and damnation as well as the word of grace and deliverance."(Ibid.)

(Note: One is advised to be cautious when attempting to utilize 2 Peter and Jude to make the case that all heretics are indeed damned. But this is rightly the content of other posts.)

Outsourcing your children: Deal or no deal?

"Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ. (Galatians 4:1-7)"

The present post was inspired by a lengthy comment from an "unidentified friendly oracle" - otherwise known as an UFO - called Mark in response to my previous post on "motherhood." Of course, Mark brought up numerous issues, including the famous couple Aquila and Priscilla from Acts 18:1-3. This couple had been quoted as an example to support the egalitarian view of female ecclesiastical role, and now, the role of the mother or wife within the Christian family. Although there was no biography of this couple given within Holy Writ, allegedly sufficient details were somehow conjured up to undermine clear biblical teachings found elsewhere within the Canon of Scripture. Therefore, as a gentle reminder, the general rule of thumb is to interpret the more obscure passages of Scripture with the clearer ones. The same principle applies when we seek to understand the millennium in Revelation 20, the role of the young woman or wife in Titus 2, and the family biography of Aquila and Priscilla in Acts 18.

So, is it true that the Bible condones "outsourcing" one’s children to other carers, apart from the direct supervision and care of the mother? By the way, the term "outsource" came from the marketplace, and refers to the prudent delegation of menial and less profitable tasks to other workers, which will help save cost and relieve the "outsourcer" to pursue other more lucrative activities.

Mark argued,

"The bible speaks of children being placed under the care of tutors and governors by their fathers (Gal 4:1-2). Even if the care of children is being ‘outsourced’ for a period of time each day, the sin is not in the act itself, but in the influences to which the child is exposed."

In the Singaporean context, it is not uncommon - and in fact, it has become the norm - for mothers to delegate the care of their children to child-care centers, or even nannies. One of my patients confided in me that she pays her neighbor - who is a nanny - S$700 a month to care for her single child from 8am to 8pm daily while she works outside the home. She says, "I’m worth it!" I know what she meant by that. She earns three thousand a month, and to "sacrifice" S$700/month for a monthly salary of S$3000 is definitely "worth it," at least according to her value system. If she takes care of that little brat, she wouldn’t have the time to earn that salary. The majority of the non-Christian (and Christian) women I am acquainted with either send their children to child-care centers where they subsequently acquire hand-foot-mouth-disease and chickenpox, or to their parents-in-law - which is the cheaper option. The strange thing is that they often come to me later and ask me, "Where did my children get the virus from?"

My question to Mr. Mark the UFO is this: Does the Bible say anything with regard to this kind of "outsourcing?" Did Priscilla practice tent-making "full-time," and "outsourced" her children (if she had any) to her parents-in-law or to the local child-care center?

In order for us to understand Galatians 4:1-2, we must not look at the Singaporean culture, but at the Roman law and practice of Paul’s time. According to first century Hellenistic and Roman culture, there were customs to announce the transition of a boy from childhood to adulthood. There was a prescribed age whereby a child, particularly a boy, would officially become an adult and take on the responsibilities of adulthood. The Roman ceremony marking that change in status was called toga virilis, and the Jewish ceremony was (and still is) called bar mitzvah.

Mark’s contention was that the children were "outsourced" even during the first century church, and that this practice was presumably approved by the apostle Paul in Galatians 4:1-2. We now look at Galatians 4:2 in further detail, "alla hupo epitropous estin kai oikonomous." The greek word "epitropous," which means tutors or guardians (cf. Luke 8:3), is "a general term, covering all to whom supervision of the child is intrusted." (Vincent’s Word Study Vol. 4). "Oikonomous," on the other hand, refers to stewards, governors, or guardians "who had charge of the heir’s property." (Ibid.). The first term probably referred to the minor’s carer, and the second referred to the steward who looked after the estate of the dead father.

John MacArthur’s highly accessible commentary elucidates further concerning the child under Roman law:

"While a child, he was under guardians and managers until the date set by the father. Families would assign certain capable and trusted slaves to act as guardians (a general term for a person who cared for underage boys) and managers (house stewards) over the child until he was grown. Along with his tutor, those family slaves would have virtually full charge of the child’s education, training, and welfare. The child was subservient to them and could do nothing without their permission and go nowhere without their companionship. For all practical purposes, the child did not differ at all from a slave under whom he was being trained. Just as a slave had masters, so he had masters.(MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Galatians)."

F. F. Bruce reaffirms the fact that this practice is characteristic of Roman law and culture:

"In Roman law the heir, until he came of age at fourteen, was under the control of a tutor, nominated by the father in his will; then, until he reached the age of twenty-five, he was under a curator, appointed by the praetor urbanus." (F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians, 192. Also see E. D. Burton, Galatians, 212-215, for a detailed discussion.)

Bruce continues, "Paul’s expression in this kind of context is illustrated by P. Oxy. 491.8–10, in the will of one Eudaemon of Oxyrhynchus (AD 126), relating to two of his sons who were minors: ‘If I die before the said Horus and Eudaemon have completed twenty years, their brother Thonis and their maternal grandfather Harpaësis, also called Horus, son of Thonis, shall be guardian (ἐπίτροπος) of each of them until he completes twenty years.’"

In other words, such "outsourcing" of the child (using the lingo of our friend Mark) occurred in the situation when the head of the home is dead. And this is the case during Roman rule. In the context of the epistle to the Galatians where Paul was establishing his basic argument that salvation is not merited by works but by God’s sovereign grace, the apostle was comparing the position and privileges of the child in Roman culture to those of a servant (Galatians 4:1-7). The child, as opposed to the adult, was under Law and not free. The servant, likewise, is contrasted with the position of the son. In the New Covenant administration, we are adopted sons in Christ Jesus, and as we are no longer under the Law, we are not servants, but sons in Christ. "And if a son, then an heir of God through Christ (Galatians 4:7b)." Our position in Christ is therefore that of a son, not that of a servant; we have the privileges of an adult, and not that of a child.

Galatians 4:1-2 was not the prescribed instructions of the apostle Paul to Christian homes, and should not be used to justify "outsourcing" the mother’s basic responsibilities of childcare to other carers or institutions. Instead of providing family counseling, Paul was using the Roman practice of toga virilis to exemplify our position in Christ as born-again believers. We are not under law, but grace. Similarly, as salt and light of the world, we should not be under the yoke of ungodly, worldly values of reversed gender roles, consumerism and materialism. We must follow what Paul emphasized as sound doctrine, "Speak thou the things which become sound doctrine (Titus 2:1)." And what followed were instructions to the aged man, the aged woman, the young woman, and the young man (Titus 2:2-8), "that the word of God be not blasphemed (Titus 2:5b)." These words of Paul are "sound doctrine (Titus 2:1ff.)," not the notions of the world.

Whenever Christians fail in living out the Word of God, and wherever the will of the devil is accomplished in any way, God’s glory is darkened and His Word dishonored. We are to live our lives such that the unsaved are attracted to Christ. Husband and wives are to fulfill their respective roles according to biblical injunctions, so that the Word of Christ is lived in and through us.

So, should mothers "outsource" the care of their children to others? Generally, "No." I know of exceptions where the father is dead or incapacitated, or when the mother is caring for the child alone (i.e. when the father is in prison or persecuted), and there seems to be no other option but for the mother to work. In such cases, the ideal solution is for the diaconate to care for the fatherless family. This also seems to be the first century church’s solution (Acts 4:32).

I am not saying that the mother cannot work outside the home. What I am saying is that the mother has to care, supervise, and to be responsible for her children in an unreserved and direct manner. A woman, who works in a full-time capacity within the marketplace and yet claims to be a homemaker, is plainly self-deluded and unwise. In other words, a woman who spends most of her time in the marketplace cannot claim that her priorities are her home, husband, and children.

Note: The issue of home schooling will be dealt with in later posts.

An Update

I think the following words from Pastor Messerli are well … er … worded.

I do NOT think it's good to outsource your children to someone else to raise them.

Would Picasso "outsource" his brush to another painter to work on one of his masterpieces? Would Bach "outsource" some of his composing to a hired musician? I don't think so!

Each masterpiece- a painting, a musical composition or a child is a work of art intended to be finished by the one who birthed the vision, the sound, the child.If someone else raises your child you will get someone else’s values and beliefs engrained into a work of art you are responsible for finishing.

Motherhood: Homemaking or Moneymaking?

"But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine: That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience. The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed (Titus 2:1-5)."

Coming from the mouth of a male specimen of the human race, what I am about to express might incur the wrath of the feminists, as well as those who fallow within the mire of pragmatism and secular humanism. I say unashamedly that women ought to be diligent homemakers, and this statement is especially directed at those who are Christian wives and mothers. It is fairly unimaginable for a mother to find time to educate and care for her child, and at the same time, manage her household and hold a full-time job. But this describes exactly the cultural phenomenon within this country and perhaps for most developed nations as well.

Singapore is one of those countries that give little or no regard to biblical roles of male and female, husbands and wives. As long as the mother can contribute substantially to the economy by working outside the home, it is inconsequential to the nation if the children are taken care of by the parents-in-law, the domestic helper, or Rufus the Labrador Retriever. After all, is it not convenient to plop the toddler onto the sofa in front of the goggle box, and allow Barney or Harry Potter to feed the gullible mind of the prepubertal lad? In the mean time, daddy and mummy have to feed the condominium, the V6 engine, and the Visa bills commensurate with the lifestyle choice of the average Singaporean, Christian parent. And the formative years of the Singaporean, Christian child are built around the television, the maid, the family pet, and his cussing friends from the neighborhood school. But this is all acceptable and manageable, as long as the family receives the blessings of health and wealth allegedly indicative of God’s approval upon the materialistic, carnal, and self-seeking Singaporean family. Of course, the children must remember to be in their "Sunday’s best" behavior. The show will go on, but only for two hours during church service, and after which, things will return to the usual routine of maid, money, and Sunday matinee.

Lea and Griffin have rightly commented that, "It is possible that in the preaching of the gospel, with all of its implications for Christian freedom (variously interpreted) and equality in Christ, the God-given order of authority within marriage and the home life was becoming confused and compromised." (T. D. Lea and H. P. Griffin, The New American Commentary: 1, 2 Timothy, Titus, p. 302). Likewise, the Danvers Statement expressed concerns regarding "the widespread ambivalence regarding the values of motherhood, vocational homemaking, and the many ministries historically performed by women."

But one might ask, "Where do we find the teaching within the Bible that the mother or wife should be a homemaker?" Inevitably, this is found in Titus chapter two, and particularly, verses 4 and 5 (cf. Proverbs 31 and 1 Tim 5:14). There is little debate amongst conservatives that the Pastoral epistles are authoritative for the church today. I must also clarify that Paul is not requiring the wife or mother to be confined to her home. In other words, I am not saying that the woman cannot work in any capacity within the workforce, and that she must be placed under house arrest. What I am saying is that Paul is emphatic that the married woman must be the manager of the home. Her greatest responsibilities lie with her home, her children, and of course, her husband. The keyword here is "vocational homemaking" in the Danvers Statement. To attempt to wrestle with Paul’s teaching in Titus 2 by asking, "How many hours of work may the mother work outside her domain of vocational homemaking?", or "Does the Bible state a particular time limit for secular work, beyond which the mother disqualifies herself as a homemaker?", or "Is a mother still a homemaker if she is working a certain number of hours outside her home?", is really a red herring.

The emphasis of Paul seems to be the vocation of the mother. To be a homemaker, the mother’s vocation ought to be that of homemaking. This tautology is paradoxically necessary, as there are certain Christian women who argue that having a full time job outside of home does not disqualify one as a homemaker. These ladies contend that, since their greatest priority and desire is for their home, and that they have tried their best to ensure that the home is in order, they are essentially still homemakers. This is despite the fact that they are full-time executives, managers, doctors, nurses or other kinds of professionals. To turn this argument around, is it not logical to say that, since their vocation is that of a full-time manager, doctor or nurse, they are not homemakers, but vocational managers, doctors or nurses who are incidentally part-time homemakers? Just as the Bible does not give the specific job specification of a vocational homemaker, Paul did not feel it necessary to restrict the amount of time spent in the home by the homemaker. This is because, as a matter of clear logic, a vocational homemaker has for her vocation homemaking, and not full-time nursing or doctoring.

Paul’s instructions concerning the "younger women" are clear. They are "to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed." Whether the exegete might categorize these qualities into two or three groups is not the point. The point is that these instructions are not the divine suggestions of an inspired misogynist. These are didactic commandments of the Voice of One who speaks from the heavenly throne. These are the roles of the woman according to our Creator’s design and good will. God’s will for the younger women is to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, and also to be obedient to their own husbands. Conversely, to be indiscreet, unchaste, or to be unloving towards their husband and children is to be against the will of God. Similarly, it is against the will of God to reject the vocation of a homemaker for married women, and especially, for those who are mothers.

Again, some might ask, "How young is young?" It seems that Paul’s perception of young widows, as opposed to older ones (1 Tim. 5:9-11), consists of those who are below sixty of age. Happily, this might be an adequate solution according to the principle of analogia fidei (WCF, I:9). So, the aged women are to teach the younger women (or those below sixty years old) concerning the God-ordained roles of a woman within the family (Titus 2:4-5). William Mounce notes that the behavior of these godly young women "contrasts with the conduct of the younger Ephesian widows who were lazy and ran from house to house (1 Tim. 5:13)." (Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, p. 411). In the present society, the younger women are seldom lazy. Contrariwise, the younger female executives run from office to office, and from job to job in a bid to be prosperous.

One of those words that grate against the ears of the feminist is "oikourgous" or "homemaker" found in Titus 2:5. This word is derived from the Greek words "oikos" and "ergo(n)." "Oikos" means a house, a dwelling, and by metonymy, a household or family, while "ergo(n)" means "work." "Oikourgous" thus has the meaning of "house-worker," "home-worker," or "one who works at home." As opposed to the variant reading "oikourous," "oikourgous" is the preferred reading by Lackmann, Tischendorf, and Alford. Textually, it is the more difficult reading because of its rarity. And it is understandable why the feminist hates the vocation of an "oikourgous," because this word literally means "working at home" or "busy at home." Some commentators join the next word "good" or "agathas" with "homemaker" to mean "good housewives." For example, Dibelius and Conzelmann state, "The two words [oikourgous] and [agathas] should be taken together and translated ‘fulfill their household duties well.’" (Dibelius and Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles, 141). Nevertheless, most translators and translations take these two words separately.

The variant reading "oikourous," on the other hand, is derived from the Greek words "oikos" and "ouros." The word "ouros" refers to a guardian or keeper, and implies direct oversight and responsibility for something. "Oikourous," therefore, has the nuance of "one who actively watches over a household and family." This "housekeeper" sees to it that the husband and children are appropriately cared for, and the home maintained in good order. No matter which variant is preferred, one thing is for certain: it is impossible, be it exegesis or eisegesis, to do away with the thrust and overtone of the word "oikourgous" or "oikourous." Most commentators, including the Puritan scholar Matthew Poole and the Lutheran exegete R. C. H. Lenski, agree with this understanding of the role of the married woman.

Here, I would add a word of caution. George W. Knight aptly observes that "some Christians have interpreted Titus 2:5 (“workers at home,” nasb) to mean that any work outside the home is inappropriate for the wife and mother. But the fact that wives should care for their home does not necessarily imply that they should not work outside the home, any more than the statement that a “overseer” in the church should “manage his own household” (1 Timothy 3:4–5) means that he cannot work outside the home. In neither case does the text say that! The dynamic equivalent translation of Titus 2:5 by the niv, “to be busy at home,” catches the force of Paul’s admonition, namely, that a wife should be a diligent homemaker. ... Furthermore, we must realize that the emphasis on the home is the very point of the Proverbs passage. The woman in Proverbs works to care for her family and to fulfill her responsibility to her family (cf., e.g., verses 21 and 27). She does this not only for her children but also to support her husband’s leadership role in the community (verse 23). She is seeking the good of her family." (Knight, “The Family and the Church: How Should Biblical Manhood and Womanhood Work out in Practice?,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, 348).

The married woman’s household will always be her priority; it is her domain of work and responsibility. She is to commit her time and energies to the management of the home, and to the nurture, care, and education of her children. This is inevitably a career all in itself. Whatever supplementary work performed outside the home by her should not detract from this primary responsibility and vocation of homemaking. Kenneth Wuest reinforces the fact that, "‘Keepers at home" is oikourgos, "caring for the home, working at home.’" (Wuest's Word Studies from the Greek New Testament).

And for the woman to be a keeper at home is not a cultural bias of Paul. As Knight has aptly argued, "Certainly for a wife and mother to love her husband and children and be sensible, pure, and kind (vv. 4-5) are intrinsically right and not just norms of first-century culture. It appears quite arbitrary, then, to single out the requests that women be homemakers and be subject to their husbands (v. 5) as something purely cultural. They are treated on a par with the other items in this list, and elsewhere Paul defends the latter of these two as a creation ordinance in the face of a cultural situation that wanted to go in the opposite direction (1 Cor. 11 :3ff.)." (George W. Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles, 317). If homemaking is a cultural bias of the Apostle Paul, then one has to accept the fact that virtues such as being discreet, chaste, and loving are similarly cultural preferences of first-century Christianity. Perhaps we should remain consistent and swiftly dispose ourselves of the entire requirements of Titus 2:4-5.

Other biblical texts likewise corroborate the testimony of Titus 2:4-5 concerning the role of wives and mothers. Knight is quick to note that "the care and management of the home and children is another area in which Christians need to implement Biblical principles carefully. The Scriptures present the direct management of the children and the household as the realm of responsibility of the wife and mother. First Timothy 5:14 says that wives are “to manage their homes” (NIV). The Greek word oikodespoteō, which is rendered “manage,” is a very forceful term." The authoritative Greek lexicon BDAG explains that the verb means to "manage one’s household" and to "keep [the] house." Knight continues, "Proverbs 31 indicates some of the many ways in which this management is carried out (cf., e.g., verses 26 and 27: “She opens her mouth in wisdom, and the teaching of kindness is on her tongue. She looks well to the ways of her household, and does not eat the bread of idleness,” NASB)." (Knight, “The Family and the Church: How Should Biblical Manhood and Womanhood Work out in Practice?,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, 350)

My dear sister-in-Christ, if you are married, your primary responsibilities are to manage the home, nurture your children, and be a helpmate for your husband. Your husband has complementary roles, and he is to be a spiritual leader, protector, and provider for your children and yourself. While your husband is away at work to bring back the bread and butter, you are to ensure that the home is in order. Do you think that your children are best educated and taught by your parents-in-law, the maid, or the child-care centre? Which of these options provide godly care and counsel for your children’s growing minds?

When both husband and wife fulfill their appropriate, biblical roles as father and mother, the family is functioning according to the design of our most-wise God. The husband can work with a peace of mind knowing that his children are in the good hands of his able wife. Likewise, the wife need not fret at work, wondering whether the domestic helper or her parents-in-law have disciplined, fed, or taught her children. In like manner, she will not have the surprise of hearing the first cuss-word from her toddler’s mouth, which is acquired through the diligent observation of quarrels between grandpa and grandma. Do allow me to ask you this question, "What would be the very first word you would like to hear from your child’s mouth?" "Would it be something you have taught him, or would it be something learnt from the other carers?"

Ultimately, there is a very good reason why Paul had given us these prescribed duties or roles for the married woman. And that reason is found in Titus 2:5b, "that the word of God be not blasphemed." Sometimes, believers dishonor God and His Word, not by the evil that they have done, but by the good that they have failed to do. As James said, "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin (Jas 4:17)." The world judges the Christian faith not by its theological richness or accuracy, but by the lives its professors live. In other words, unbelievers learn about our Savior Jesus Christ, not by the testimony of Scripture alone, but also by the testimonies and lives of those who profess to believe in Him. "Show me your redeemed life and I might be inclined to believe in your Redeemer," declares the German Philosopher Heinrich Heine.

Therefore, within a society that decries the God-ordained roles for the woman, it is paramount that the Christian lady is convicted to live out the commandments of Scripture. When the world sees that there are actually very little differences in attitude and behavior between the heathen woman and the professing Christian mother, what testimony is there left for the world to behold? While the heathen woman strives to earn more money at the expense of her home and children, the Christian mother does likewise. While the heathen mother spends most of her time outside the household at the workforce, the Christian mother does likewise. While the heathen mother leaves her children to the care of God-hating pagans, the Christian mother does likewise. While the heathen mother leaves the indoctrination and education of her children to God-hating teachers, the Christian mother does likewise. It is of little wonder, then, that the Church has now lost her testimony to the unbelieving world. Even as the Church continues to bicker about fine theological difficulties and nuances, the pagans laugh at our disintegrating covenant families, executive Christian mothers, and rebellious children.

Dear Lord, may you give faith to the Christian father and mother to fulfill their respective roles within the covenant home, and may the covenant children be raised in godly counsel. And this is for the sake of the testimony of the Church, and for your Son’s sake, amen.

Denominations and Traditions: Some Initial Comments

I came across an interesting article by Dan Philips on the subject of denominations a couple of days ago. As I was reading and pondering upon his post, I was wondering how many Christians like myself had joined a church, developed spiritually and grown in that church, and subsequently (had to) moved on because of differing doctrinal convictions or related issues.

Allow me to begin with an excerpt from Dan Philips’ post:

“Even within sound denominations, denominational unity can be a two-edged sword, can't it? If the denominational stance is not very specific, there is room for a lot of mischief; if it is quite specific, there isn't much room for personal growth, and the panorama is more of a microrama.

Let's say (forgive my generalizing) that I have a pastor-friend in Denomination X, who agrees with their stance on Z. (Imagine Z as something consequential, but not Heaven/Hell essential.) I have a different conviction. So I talk with him, study the Word with him, and have a friendly debate. Let's say that he becomes convinced that the Scriptures teach otherwise than he has held. Otherwise than Denomination X
holds.

What have I done for him? Well, whatever else you can say about his personal growth, one thing I've done is I've lost him his job. He'll have to resign. His denomination isn't going to change their stance on Z just because he has done so. If he tried to make them do so, he would be a schismatic.”

Yes, it is true. Your denomination is not going to change their doctrinal stance just because your pastor or the session has done so. And who are you to discuss or re-evaluate the denominational stance? When the pastor of a church changes his doctrinal view, he can choose the following courses of actions. 1) Keep his convictions to himself, grit his teeth, and continue to interpret the Bible with his denominational glasses; 2) Influence other pastors with his viewpoint with the hope of contributing to the denomination’s doctrinal development; 3) Nevertheless, church history has shown that it is almost inevitable for one with differing convictions to leave the denomination and perhaps start his own independent church. Perchance he can join another denomination and reenact the entire scenario.

This is a sobering thought. I can more or less understand what Dan Phillips meant by his post. You see, I am reflecting upon this issue from a Reformed perspective, and by this I mean the five Solas, and especially, Sola Scriptura. After I was converted on Street Damascus in a little concrete village of Singapore, I decided it was best for me to join my friends from Campus Crusade for Christ in a Brethren church, tucked away in an inconspicuous corner of Serangoon. Trained as a Dispensationalist from this brethren church, I moved on quickly to catch the Second (or was it the Third) Wave which was waving right at me from Faith Community Baptist Church (FCBC). FCBC appeared to be an apostolic church, or at the very least, she was pastored by an apostle from the apostolic movement led by Apostle Rev (Dr) C. Peter Wagner. I can almost recall hearing Apostle Lawrence Kwong preaching to me, “Remember, Vincent, this is the year of a great harvest.”

But despite the “great harvest,” my heart was hungry, and I fed my soul with my own reading of what is commonly perceived as New Evangelical doctrinal hodgepodge. By divine providence, I was led to a good fundamental Baptist church in Ireland where I had my medical training. And indeed, this was a time of great harvest for my soul. I began to better understand the great fundamental doctrines of the Bible, and I started to comprehend divine sovereignty - all these within an Arminian church! No, the pastor did not teach divine election, but I believed the Bible did. Soon, the only systematic theology that made sense was Reformed theology. I eventually had to say goodbye to my independent, fundamental, Baptist church in the Irish Republic.

I was back in Singapore in year 2001. I joined what I believed was a Reformed denomination - the Bible Presbyterian Movement. And the rest was history. Those who know me know that I have much to say about the Bible Presbyterian’s adherence to the sine qua non of Dispensationalism. It took me sometime to realize that this was actually Dispensationalism in Reformed garb. Yes, the Bible Presbyterian’s church polity was Presbyterian, but the rest of its doctrinal distinctives are definitely opened to further query.

Most of the churches I had attended had distinct doctrinal stances that set them apart from the other denominations. There are often sets of doctrinal “rules” if I may say which we are required to embrace unquestioningly. In churches with strong doctrinal development and history, it is not uncommon to see every “I” dotted and every “T” crossed theologically. There are little areas for us to explore, and we would be expected to follow the denomination’s teachings on most issues. Unlike Star Trek, we cannot go where no man has gone before. We follow men, and these men had gone before us. We not only follow them, we had to follow them. As Dan Phillips had written in his post:

"For one thing, name me one Christian denomination more than fifty years old that hasn't either drifted, or plummeted, left, or marched inexorably towards the faux-"right" of hidebound traditionalism. The Southern Baptists are notable because they are an exception to the former. However, I think all SB's who comment here will agree that, even there, all is not completely placid and united on the true essentials. And then there's the alcohol thing. ...”

I am not saying that it is not good to follow those faithful men who had gone before us. But is it necessary to follow them in every issue and every point? Is there the remotest possibility that they may have erred in a certain area of doctrine or practice?

When a Christian studies and develops his understanding of the Word of God, two possible results follow: He either agrees with the denominational stance, or he doesn’t. It doesn’t take an atomic scientist to figure that out, right? So, when a Christian is aspiring to serve in the capacity of a church leader or teacher, he most certainly has to agree with the denomination’s doctrinal stance. The third possibility is that he had never studied those issues before, and he couldn’t care less about them.

Things are a little different with certain denominations. In some churches, anything and everything goes. But just you remember not to be too dogmatic about what you believe, and don’t use the word “conviction.” In those churches, love is all around, and this love is manifested by its apparent indifference to biblical teachings and doctrines. An epicene figure rules the pulpit ministry, and families are built base upon egalitarian principles - that is, either the husband or wife can be the maker at home.

Perhaps it all boils down to this: do we have a place to serve, a place where we can have a clear conscience in both doctrine and practice? Or do we choose to stifle our own convictions concerning certain salient issues, and just follow the men that had gone before us? Of course, we may be wrong. Worse, we may be very wrong. But what if we are right and they are wrong? Could that be a possibility? And what about Sola Scriptura? Do we follow what the Scripture clearly says, or do we parrot what denominational tradition has always taught?

Finally, beware, my friends. Debates and discussions can generate convictions, and doctrinal convictions are sometimes the key to losing your pastorate in certain denominations. Or perhaps you can choose to keep mum. It is, after all, your own free will and choice.

The Accuser of the Brethren

There is a reviewer of John MacArthur’s lastest book, The Truth War: Fighting for Certainty in an Age of Deception, who insinuates that the likes of MacArthur are suitably called "the Accuser of the Brethren," also known as Satan. He wrote:

"There are so many people who make a ministry out of accusing other people of being cultic and unorthodox. Satan is the accuser of the brethren. Christians are the brethren and it is not becoming for them to treat one another like this. The devil accuses us and we should not help him."

So, what the reviewer meant was that MacArthur was guilty of "shooting his own wounded."

It is strange that whenever names are named, or whenever some favorite personalities are criticized in an essay, book or sermon, deep emotions are often stirred up. Like a pre-pubertal girl infatuated with her pretty boy-next-door, such emotions and loyalties are sometimes hidden until that momentous event - the publication of a critique of her beloved personality. And hell knows no fury like a woman scorned. In the same vein, New Evangelicalism knows no fury like hearing names named.

But what are these names? I mean names of favorite, widely publicized "Christian" personalities, teachers, events or even churches. Such names include Billy Graham, Robert Schuller, and Brian McLaren. It is believed, and sincerely held by numerous believers, that we should not criticize overtly or name such personalities directly in our critiques. Well-meaning Christians insist that we should not name names openly, or publicly expose in an unequivocal manner the identity of such compromising Christian leaders or organizations. But is such a methodology of exposing error erroneous or perhaps unjustified biblically?

Paul commanded Christians everywhere, and indeed, he beseeched them earnestly, to "mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which [we] have learned; and avoid them. For they [i.e. the false teachers] that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple (Romans 16:17-18)"

Paul’s instructions were simple. The first step for us is to "mark them" or keep our eyes on those who cause dissensions and hindrances. But who are "them?" According to some, "them" refers to everyone who disagrees with us! This is, of course, not what Paul is advocating. MacArthur writes, "Paul is not talking about hair splitting over minor interpretations, or about immature believers who are divisive because of personal preferences, as disruptive and damaging as those things can be. We are to "shun foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless" (Titus 3:9). We are to "refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels" (2 Tim. 2:23). Paul is here talking about something immeasurably more serious. He is warning about those who challenge and undermine the teaching which you learned, that is, the divinely-revealed apostolic teaching they had received (MacArthur’s New Testament Commentary on Romans 9-16)."

As you might have already realized, false teachings can be divided into three categories. There are those known as differing preferences or opinions. These include different interpretations of certain verses of Scripture (e.g. 1 Corinthians 15:29), as long as these variant interpretations do not influence any major doctrine, or affect any system of theology. The second category is known as systematic errors. Such doctrinal errors are reasonably serious, and affect at least some major doctrines or systems of theology, but at the same time, will not render the Gospel ineffective for salvation of souls. In other words, systematic errors alter one’s system of theology, but will not endanger one’s salvation - provided that the errors are not taken to the logical extreme. Such doctrinal errors include Arminianism, Charismatism, and Limited Inerrancy. But in the last category lies soul damning heresies. Heretical teachings concerning Theology proper, Christology and Soteriology should be included within this last category.

Paul, in my humble opinion, required us to at least "mark" them who are heretics, and to avoid them. Yes. We must avoid them, and not dialogue with them, or shake hands with them, or try to understand their fascinating exegeses concerning some crucial passages of Scripture. MacArthur continues, "The right response of believers to false teachers, especially those who teach their heresy under the guise of Christianity, is not debate or dialogue. We are to turn away from them, to reject what they teach and to protect fellow believers, especially new converts and the immature, from being deceived, confused, and misled (MacArthur’s New Testament Commentary on Romans 9-16)."

My question to those who insist on not publicly exposing such heretics who teach publicly is this, "How do we mark them unless we know who these false teachers are?" "And how do we avoid them if we do not know who to avoid?"

Yes, we can preach against the heresies or other relevant issues concerning a certain false teacher or organization, but unless we can enable the flock to connect the identity of the false teacher with the content of our preaching, we have failed to warn the flock against those wolves. And we can rest assure that such failure will bring with it dire consequences, and eventually, judgment from our Chief Shepherd. We simply cannot afford such a failure if we are to remain faithful to the calling that God has given to every shepherd of His flock.

When we read the New Testament, we realize that our Lord Jesus Christ rebuked false teachers and heretics publicly (Matthew 23). We see Paul rebuking Peter publicly for his compromise of the truth (Gal. 2:9-14). Paul did not beat around the bush to talk about all the related issues, all except to name Peter’s name. In the Pastoral Epistles alone, eight men are mentioned publicly for their errors (1 Tim. 1:19-20, 2 Tim. 1:15, 2:17, 4:10, 4:14-16). Hymenaeus (1 Tim 1:20, 2 Tim 2:17), Philetus (2 Tim. 2:17-18), Alexander (1 Tim 1:20, 2 Tim 4:14), Demas (2 Tim 4:10), Diotrephes (3 John 9), Phygellus and Hermogenes (2 Tim 1:15) were all properly identified and dealt with in the epistles. If the act of naming names in rebuking error were a sinful attitude likened to that of the "accuser of the brethren," wouldn’t Paul be guilty of "accusing" the brethren just like Satan did? In this case, New Evangelicals are indeed more righteous than the Apostle Paul.

We are commanded to "preach the word," and to "reprove, rebuke, exhort (2 Tim. 4:2)." Thus, reproving error is a matter of obedience. The failure to reprove error, therefore, is disobedience, and is rightly called sin.

I would rather be called an "accuser of the brethren," than to be guilty of sin and failure before my Master and Chief Shepherd. We are the servants of God, not man. And it follows logically that if we are to do the bidding of our King in heaven, we are to follow His Word in the Bible. And Paul says in the Scripture, "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them (Romans 16:17)."

Mark them by name. And avoid them. Thus saith the Lord God of Host.

Don't Be a Kill-joy

Thoughts on May Day Morning

"But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. And having food and raiment let us be therewith content. But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows (1 Tim. 6:6-10)."

As a Singaporean living in a developed country (and the word "develop" does not refer to the country's morality, social graces or ethics), the verse that strikes me most this morning is 1 Timothy 6:7, "For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." Singaporeans and many folks living comfortably out there in "First World" countries (first in terms of covetousness?) are not too concerned with the concept of death. Death does not seem imminent at the very least. Christians can debate on and on for years concerning the Parousia of Christ, and Dispensationalist would argue that His Second Coming is imminent. But the most troubling thing is that many Christians do not realize that Death, likewise, is imminent. Although Reformed and Dispensational theologians cannot agree upon the doctrine of Imminence (that is, the doctrine of the "any moment" coming of Christ), what we can all agree upon is the imminence of death. And it is with regard to this particular event called Death that Paul here says, "It is certain we can carry nothing out [of this world]."

John Piper relates an interesting parable - if I may so call it - in his book Desiring God. He wrote,

"Suppose someone passes empty-handed through the turnstiles at a big city art museum and begins to take the pictures off the wall and carry them importantly under his arm. You come up to him and say, "What are you doing?"

He answers, "I'm becoming an art collector."

"But they're not really yours," you say, "and besides, they won't let you take any of those out of here. You'll have to go out just like you came in."

But he answers again, "Sure, they're mine. I've got them under my arm. People in the halls look at me as an important dealer. And I don't bother myself with thoughts about leaving. Don't be a kill-joy." (John Piper, Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist (Sisters, OR: Multnomah Books, 1996), 161.)

Isn't it true that many of us read the Bible with selective amnesia, that is, we choose which portions of Scripture to remember, and we tend to forget parts that don't appeal to us? Paul told us that it is CERTAIN that we can take NOTHING out of this world. Yet, many of us are following the trends of this world in seeking out academic, financial or professional success. The Singaporean government is urging mothers to continue working and to contribute to the dynamism of the workforce. Old folks are encouraged to retrain themselves, retire later, and make themselves productive for the country's economy. Christian students are following the other rats in this economic race: be successful academically, or be successfully irrelevant to the country's economy. We laugh at the foolish man who take the pictures off the wall and carry them under his arm, but we fail to laugh at our own foolishness. Since it is certain that we cannot take anything out of this world, why are we so consumed with the things of this world?

It is sad to see fellow Christian colleagues obsessed with career advancement and with so-called academic upgrading. Many of the doctors I knew have not only "fallen out" of church, but also with God. Their Lord's Day is spent in the hospital wards on the pretext of "work of necessity," but the last time they worshipped God was half a decade ago. Then again - so they say - it is a work of necessity. It is necessary for career development and promotions.(1) Likewise, some Christian youths are so fixated upon academic pursuits that they have very little time for the work of the Kingdom. They are so busy putting undergraduate and post-graduate degrees under their arms that they have forgotten that these papers cannot be brought before the throne of God in death. Some Singaporean couples are sometimes so infatuated with their children that their children have probably become the little gods of their lives. Worse, some Christian parents encourage and even train their children to run after the things of this world. Have you ever wondered why the Lord proclaimed, "The harvest truly is plenteous, but the labourers are few (Matt. 9:27a)?" This is because those that ought to labor are not laboring for the kingdom of God, but for the kingdom of Self.

Dear friends, are we laboring for our own kingdom? Are we spending most of our time chasing after our dreams, or after those things that unbelievers seek after? If these were true, then how would you differentiate yourself from the non-Christian?

"Don't be silly, you can't bring any of those things out of this world. The academic degrees, the positions of honor, your children - these are not really yours."

But the Christian man answered, "They're mine as long as I've got them under my arm. People in the world look at me as someone important. And I don't bother myself with thoughts about death. Don't be a kill-joy."

Note:

(1) This is not to say that medical work is not a work of necessity. Medical officers bonded to the Singapore government most certainly have no choice but to work on most Sunday mornings. Some are able to do postings that do not require working on the Lord’s Day. What I am referring to are those who, out of personal ambition or gain, choose to work on Sundays. For example, Christian Family Physicians can certainly choose not to open their clinics on Sundays. Likewise, Christian doctors concerned with serving their church can choose career tracks that do not require work on most Sundays.

Was Matthew Henry a Presbyterian?

As I read Daniel’s recent post on 1 Timothy 5:17 with much positive interest, it becomes apparent to me that more and more Reformed Christians today are willing - and out of their own free will - to adhere to the principle of Sola Scriptura. I profess that I am Reformed according to the definition of the Five Solas and the Canons of Dordt. I adhere to a Reformed hermeneutics of the analogy of faith and the principle of progressive revelation. I believe in comparing Scripture with Scripture, and the general good sense of not deriving a major doctrine out of a single verse of Scripture. Whenever a single verse of Scripture seems obscure for whatsoever reason, it is a Reformed principle to refer to the clearer verses within the Bible. I believe in the Regulative Principle of Worship, and head-coverings for ladies during worship. I believe in complementary roles for men and women within the Church and the home. I believe that the Bible is inspired, inerrant and infallible, and that Scripture can never err on science, geography or archaeology. I believe in the rule of the church with a plurality of elders, and the ministry to the saints by the diaconate. Therefore, I believe I am a conservative, Reformed, evangelical Christian.

Nevertheless, I am beginning to reconsider the matter of Reformed church government with much urgency. Church history has shown that there had always been doubts with regard to the veracity of the “office” of “ruling elder” within Scripture. From the perspective of the Church of Scotland, Professor Torrance argued that the office of “ruling elder” was in fact performing the duties of the New Testament deacon. This is especially true if “ruling elders” were not allowed to teach or preach authoritatively in any capacity. Prof Torrance wrote,

“It was inevitable that in Scotland, as in the U.S.A., the theory of 'the ruling elder' would prove troublesome and indeed that the whole concept of the eldership should be reopened. That is what happened in the nineteenth century after the publication in 1831 of the book by Samuel Miller of Princeton on The Ruling Elder. The case for the theory that ministers and elders were both 'presbyters', differing only in respect of their particular functions, was now subjected to a thorough examination, if only because it was held to have associations with 'Brownist' or 'Congregationalist' notions of the Church and Ministry. In the U.S.A. this theory of the eldership was demolished by Smyth of Charlston [sic] and Hodge of Princeton with immense learning, but the same thing was done much more lucidly and succinctly by Peter Colin Campbell of Aberdeen, to name only one of those who entered the debate.

Clearly the biblical grounds for the conception of elders in the Reformed Church had to be examined more thoroughly than before. As a result Reformed scholars found themselves forced more and more to the conclusion that there is no clear evidence in the New Testament for what we call 'elders', let alone the theory that there are two kinds of presbyter. The biblical passages to which appeal is made, when objectively considered, cannot be taken to bear the interpretation Presbyterians put upon them. Moreover, they were never understood in this sense by any of the Church Fathers, not even by Pseudo-Ambrose who did not make use of 1Tim. 5.17 in the way that was sometimes alleged. It is also the case that outside Presbyterian Churches, there is no Church that interprets the New Testament passages adduced by them in this way. Hence Presbyterians are isolated from the rest of Christendom past and present in claiming that these biblical texts provide evidence for 'elders' in their sense. The conclusion seems inescapable: Presbyterians adduced this 'biblical evidence' in order to have some authoritative justification for an eldership they found, not within the New Testament itself; but within certain sections of the The 4th/5th century North African Church. And yet even there, as we have noted, there is no evidence that these 'elders' were ever called 'presbyters'.

Even if the Church were to follow Calvin and the Westminster Divines (different as they were) in their approach to the eldership, it would still not be possible for it to do more than get biblical evidence for some office similar to that of the Old Testament 'elders of the people' who served in communities of Israel in a civil capacity and thereby shared with the religious leaders responsibility for governing the public life of the people of God. Calvin himself; however, never advanced biblical evidence for what we call 'elders', but only, and then very tentatively, for what he called 'elders'. He was definitely not a Presbyterian! In Scotland, with the Melvillean revolution, the Church embarked upon a course in which it was to substitute elders, set apart for life, in place of Calvin's deacons, transferring to them the functions ascribed to deacons in the New Testament, and detailed by Calvin in his description of their office in the Early Church, while restricting the functions of deacons in the Church of Scotland mainly to the gathering and distributing of the alms of the congregation in its social care of the needy. Perhaps we may put a better gloss on this departure from Calvin's model by claiming that actually our 'elders' are the nearest thing in any Church today to what the Pastoral Epistles speak of as 'deacons'.[11] However, the fact that our elders are called 'elders' and not 'deacons' means that they cannot draw support from what the New Testament has to say about deacons, and are thus unable to find in the New Testament any description of their specific office as elders. Consequently they can only turn to Presbyterian tradition rather than to Holy Scripture for any guidance in the fulfilment of their duties.”

He continues,

“The kind of ministry exercised by [ruling] elders in the Reformed Church does not seem to be inconsistent with the outlook we find in the New Testament, but there is no explicit evidence for the eldership as such. On the other hand, the nature of the office [ruling] elders hold and the kind of functions they perform bear a close resemblance to the office and functions of the deacon described in the Pastoral Epistles and Early Church documents.[18] There we learn that deacons fulfilled an important assistant ministry in the Church in association with bishops and presbyters, and had particularly to do with ministry of the divine mercy and with seeking the fruit of it in the life and mission of the community, and that they assisted Presbyters or Bishops in serving communicants at the Lord's Supper. Thus it would seem to be the case that our elders now fulfil a ministry which in the New Testament itself is ascribed to deacons. In other words, the best, and indeed the only, biblical evidence for the ministry fulfilled by our elders is found in New Testament teaching about deacons, supplemented by what we learn from Early Church documents.”

He concludes his study as such:

“The [ruling] eldership in the Reformed Church, like the diaconate in the Early Church, is essentially a sacramental office closely associated with the celebration and administration of the Lord's Supper or Eucharist. … That is to say, while elder-deacons are not to be regarded as included within the order of those ordained to the ministry of Word and Sacrament, nevertheless they are to be regarded among those who have been solemnly set apart and sanctified for holy office within the corporate priesthood of the Church.”

Professor Iain Murray, a Reformed Minister, likewise questions the 2.5 office view in his treatise on “The Problem of the Eldership and its Wider Implications,”

“In the case of the first, the view which says that the one office of the eldership is made up of two distinct groups of men, its most serious weakness lies in its ability to offer only one proof-text to support a division in function. The text is 1 Timothy 5:17, 'Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine'. The NIV translation of that verse reads: 'The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honour, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching.'

According to the NIV the meaning is plain. All elders 'direct the affairs of the church', or rule, but of that number it is only some 'whose work is preaching'. But the original is by no means so clear and the NIV translators are doing here what they appear to do too often, namely, interpret rather than translate. The words 'whose work' does not accord with the original. Other versions stay close to the KJV's 'especially they who labour in the word and doctrine'. On the latter wording, which stays closer to the original, the meaning can well be, 'All elders who do well as leaders are worthy of double honour, especially those who are painstaking in preaching, who "toil" (kopiao) unweariedly "in the word and in teaching".' On this understanding, the difference is not between elders who only rule and others who preach, it simply urges special commendation and support for those who are outstanding in their efforts in the preacher's calling. The text gives no leave to some elders not to preach at all.

The fact is that there is no unanimity among the exegetes on 1 Timothy 5:17 and it has to be hazardous to use it as a proof-text for divided functions in the absence of supporting evidence.”

Although I can co-labor with brethren who adhere to the 2.5 office view (i.e. with teaching and ruling elders within the church), this is not the matter of concern in this post. All I am asking is this: Are we following the commands of Scripture, or are we following some prescribed ecclesiastical order out of piety to learned men before us? I confess that I adhere to the novel "pi minus 1" office view (i.e. the 2.14159 office view). It must also be emphasized that this is distinct from the Brethren’s 2 office view, which prefers an absolute distribution of responsibilities - both teaching and ruling - between elders.

I am glad that I am not alone. Thomas Witherow, who once held to the classic Presbyterian view of church offices, seems to defend the "pi minus 1" office view in his later life, which was not the most popular of views amongst Reformers.

Although Matthew Henry was a minister of a Presbyterian congregation at Chester - removing in 1712 to Mare Street, Hackney - I am wondering if he was a Presbyterian at heart. At the very least, his commentary on 1 Timothy 5:17 does not advocate classic Presbyterianism. He wrote,

“I. Concerning the supporting of ministers. Care must be taken that they be honourably maintained (v. 17): Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour (that is, of double maintenance, double to what they have had, or to what others have), especially those who labour in the word and doctrine, those who are more laborious than others. Observe, The presbytery ruled, and the same that ruled were those who laboured in the word and doctrine: they had not one to preach to them and another to rule them, but the work was done by one and the same person. Some have imagined that by the elders that rule well the apostle means lay-elders, who were employed in ruling but not in teaching, who were concerned in church-government, but did not meddle with the administration of the word and sacraments; and I confess this is the plainest text of scripture that can be found to countenance such an opinion. But it seem a little strange that mere ruling elders should be accounted worthy of double honour, when the apostle preferred preaching to baptizing, and much more would he prefer it to ruling the church; and it is more strange that the apostle should take no notice of them when he treats of church-officers; but, as it is hinted before, they had not, in the primitive church, one to preach to them and another to rule them, but ruling and teaching were performed by the same persons, only some might labour more in the word and doctrine than others. Here we have, 1. The work of ministers; it consists principally in two things: ruling well and labouring in the word and doctrine. This was the main business of elders or presbyters in the days of the apostles. 2. The honour due to those who were not idle, but laborious in this work; they were worthy of double honour, esteem, and maintenance (Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible : Complete and Unabridged in One Volume).”

Just some food for thought, my Reformed brethren!

Back to Classics: John Gill on the Office of Elder

For those who want to peruse the rest of Dr Gill’s excellent treatise on church offices, please see here.



Excerpted from John Gill, A Body of Practical Divinity, Book 2, Chapter 3.

1. Pastors: these are shepherds under Christ, the great Shepherd and Bishop of souls; who take the care of the flock, and feed it, as their name signifies; such were promised to be given under the gospel dispensation; and such Christ has given to his churches, #Jer 3:15 Eph 4:11 and still gives; to whom he says, as he did to Peter, "Feed my lambs, feed my sheep", #Joh 21:15,16. Who,

1a. Are the same with "teachers", according to #Eph 4:11 "Some pastors and teachers"; not "some pastors" and "some teachers", as if they were different; but "and teachers", the kai or and, being exegetical, explaining what is meant by pastors, even such who are teachers, to instruct in the knowledge of divine things; which is the pastor's work, to feed men with knowledge and understanding: and it may be observed, that in #1Co 12:28 where each of the officers of the church are enumerated, mention is made of "teachers", but "pastors" omitted, because they are the same; for they are not to be distinguished with respect to the place where they perform their work, as if the office of pastors was in the church, the flock they are to feed; but teachers or doctors in the school; whereas, it is certain, that a teacher is an officer in the church, as well as pastor, #1Co 12:28 nor are they to be distinguished as two distinct officers in the church, because of the subject of their ministry; the one, the pastor attending to exhortation, to things practical, and the teacher to things doctrinal, asserting, explaining, and defending the doctrines of the gospel, and refuting errors; since both belong to one and the same: if these were distinct, it should seem rather that teachers design gifted brethren, called to minister the word, but not to office power; and are only assistants to pastors in preaching, but not in the administration of the ordinances; yet it is pretty plain, that those who have a commission to teach, have also a commission to baptize, and to attend to whatsoever Christ has commanded; yea, it may be observed, that even extraordinary officers are called "teachers"; as apostles and prophets, #Ac 13:1 1Ti 2:7.

1b. These pastors and teachers are the same with "bishops", or overseers, whose business it is to feed the flock, they have the episcopacy or oversight of, which is the work pastors are to do; which office of a bishop is a good work; and is the only office in the church distinct from that of deacon, #1Ti 3:1,8 Php 1:1.

1c. And these bishops are the same with "elders" {1}; when the apostle Paul had called together at Miletus the elders of the church at Ephesus, he addressed them as "overseers", episkopouv, "bishops", #Ac 20:17,28 and when he says, he left Titus in Crete, to ordain elders in every city, he proceeds to give the qualifications of an elder, under the name of a bishop; "A bishop must be blameless", &c. plainly suggesting, that an elder and a bishop are the same, #Tit 1:5-7 and the apostle Peter exhorts the "elders", to "feed the flock of God, taking the oversight", episkophv, acting the part of a bishop, or performing the office of one, #1Pe 5:1,2.

1d. These pastors, teachers, bishops, and elders, are called rulers, guides, and governors. A pastor, or shepherd, is the governor and guide of his flock; a teacher, and a ruling elder are the same, #1Ti 5:17. One qualification of a bishop is, that he know how to rule his own house; or how shall he take care of the church of God, to rule that well, which is a considerable branch of his office? #1Ti 3:1,4,5 these, indeed, are not to lord it over God's heritage, or rule according to their own wills, in an arbitrary manner; but according to the laws of Christ, as King of saints; and then they are to be respected and obeyed; "Remember them that have the rule over you, and obey them"; for they are over the churches in the Lord, and under him as the great Lawgiver in his house; and though they are described as such who have the rule over churches, and are guides to them, #Heb 13:7,17 yet they are the churches servants, for Jesus's sake, #2Co 4:5.

1e. These are sometimes called the angels of the churches; so the pastors, elders, bishops, or overseers of the seven churches of Asia, are called the angels of the seven churches; and the pastor, elder, bishop, or overseer of the church at Ephesus, the angel of the church at Ephesus, #Re 1:20 2:1 so called because of their office, being sent of God, and employed by him in carrying messages of grace to the churches, and publishing the good tidings of salvation.

1f. They are said to be "ministers of Christ", or his "under rowers", as the word uphretav signifies, #1Co 4:1 the church is the ship or boat, which they work; Christ is the pilot, who is at the helm, under whom, and by whose direction, they row; and the oars they row with are the word, ordinances, and discipline they administer. And in the same place,

1g. They are called, "Stewards of the mysteries of God"; and sometimes, "Good stewards of the manifold Grace of God"; that is, of the more sublime truths of the gospel, and the various doctrines of divine grace, #1Pe 4:10 so a bishop or elder is called a "steward of God", #Tit 1:7 a steward in his house or family, to give to everyone in it their portion of meat in due season: and which office requires wisdom and faithfulness, to execute it aright, #Lu 12:42 1Co 4:2.

Looking For A Few Good Men

By Mark Dever and Paul Alexander

Excerpted from The Deliberate Church: Building Your Ministry on the Gospel



How do you go about looking for elders, and what exactly is it that you’re looking for? Answering this question requires us to consider what exactly an elder is not, and then what an elder is.[1]


WHAT AN ELDER IS NOT

A biblical elder is not simply an older male. There are plenty of godly older men who do meet the character qualifications for biblical eldership. I hope the Lord blesses our church with more! But bare chronological advancement, even when married to upstanding church membership, is not sufficient to satisfy the requirements outlined in 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1. In fact, there are some thirty year old men (or even younger) who are more qualified to be elders than some men twice their age. Life experience alone does not qualify a man as an elder.

A biblical elder is not simply a successful businessman.

In fact, some of the very principles or character traits that get some businessmen to the top of the business ladder may actually put them on the bottom rung of the church leadership ladder.[2] We’re not looking for people who "know what they want and know how to get it." Nor are we looking for people who know how to manage people, raise money, climb the ladder, or close the deal. Leadership in the church is fundamentally different than leadership in the business world.[3] The church is not simply a non-profit business. It is the body of Christ, and as such is the most unique corporate institution in the world. It operates on principles of distinctively Christian doctrine, servant-hood, holiness, faith, hope, and love. This is not, of course, to say that it is impossible to be a biblically qualified elder and a successful business man at the same time. It is simply to say that success and leadership in the business world do not always or necessarily bode well for eldership in the local church.

A biblical elder is not simply an involved community member.

Being elected to sit on a city or neighborhood council is a wonderful privilege and a unique evangelistic opportunity for any Christian. But again, it is neither necessary nor sufficient for meeting the qualifications of elder. A man can be the president of the PTA, coach little league, be an alderman, and lead a boy scout troop and still not be qualified as an elder. Serving the community in these ways certainly doesn’t preclude a man from qualifying. But as we look around to see who might meet the biblical requirements, community service alone cannot be our ultimate criteria.

A biblical elder is not simply a "good ole’ boy".

Living in the same location and having the same friends or even being a member of the same church for 30+ years doesn’t make a man an elder. Serving in the capacity of elder in a local church should not be dependent on whether a man is willing to "play ball", or whether he is a part of the right social network, or whether he’s from the right part of the country (or county, depending on where you live!). Likeability can often be deceptive.

A biblical elder is not a female.

The criteria laid out in 1Tim 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9 assume male leadership in the church. The office of elder is an office that requires the ones holding it to be able to teach. Teaching is an authoritative act, and women are forbidden to exercise authority over men in the church (1Tim 2:9-15). Paul roots that prohibition in the order of creation in Genesis 1 and 2 – Adam was created before Eve, revealing Adam’s God-given place of headship over her. Both are equally created in the image of God, but God has given them different yet complementary roles to fill both in the home and in the church.[4]

A biblical elder is not a politician.

The biblical office of elder is an elected office. But the man who fills it should not be one who subtly or overtly campaigns for it, or one who is noticeably vocal about promoting political positions in the context of the local church.

What, then, is a biblical elder?

WHAT IS AN ELDER?

Our question can be answered first in terms of the office and second in terms of the man. The office of elder is an office designed for the leadership of the church through the teaching of the Word.[5] The character of the man who qualifies to fulfill that office is described in 1Tim 3:1-7 and Titus 1:6-9. An elder is simply a man of exemplary, Christ-like character who is able to lead God’s people by teaching them God’s Word in a way that profits them spiritually. We are looking, then, for men who display this character and demonstrate both an aptitude for and fruitfulness in teaching God’s Word to others in an edifying way.[6] This definition might serve as a good spiritual snapshot or profile of the kind of men you’re looking for to be elders.

Qualification Quadrants

A helpful way to think about the criteria for choosing leaders might be in terms of the quadrants below. Again, the call to being an elder is a call to leadership through biblical teaching. This means that at a bare minimum, you need men who, first and foremost, share a deep, biblical understanding of the fundamentals of Christian theology and the Gospel. Areas to consider first are the authority and sufficiency of Scripture, God’s sovereignty, the divinity and exclusivity of Christ, and the atonement. No man who falters in the basics of biblical doctrine should be considered for eldership, no matter how gifted or likeable he may be. The Word builds the church, and as such it simply can’t be healthy for any of our elders to have reservations about fundamental Christian truths.

Once it’s been determined that a candidate is sound in the central Bible doctrines, it is our practice to confirm that the candidate shares our particular doctrinal distinctives; namely, the necessity of believers’ baptism for local church membership [note: Mark Dever is a Baptist]. These issues, while not saving, are nevertheless important for how we decide to conduct our life together as a church. Such distinctives will obviously vary depending on the convictions of the congregation. The principle, however, is simply that the leaders of a congregation should understand and be conscientious advocates of a local church’s distinctive doctrines. The elders need to be agreed on these matters so that their own unity doesn’t fracture, and so that they can provide a unified lead for the congregation to follow.

Third, it is extremely helpful to ensure that the candidate is courageous enough to stand against the culture on certain clear biblical issues, such as the role of women in the church. An elder must model for the congregation both a strength and a willingness to live a counter-cultural lifestyle in areas where Christ and culture conflict. If, as an elder, a man caves in to the conforming pressures of the culture on well-defined biblical issues, his example and teaching will eventually lead the church to look more like the world.

Finally, we need to be able to discern from the candidate’s relational involvement in the church that he loves the congregation. We want to be able to recognize his love for the other members of the church by the fact that he’s already involved in doing elder-type work, even before he’s given the title. So we might reasonably expect a man who is recognized as an elder to be attending regularly, initiating with others to do them spiritual good, and serving the church as faithfully as he can.

CONCLUSION

One of the most significant human dynamics in the church’s continuing spiritual growth and health is the kind of leadership it is following. When biblically qualified men are leading a church with character and skill, it is a deep and wide blessing for the unity, holiness, and spiritual growth of the church. Put somewhat negatively, so many potential mistakes and heartaches can be avoided simply by ensuring that only those men who are biblically qualified become elders.

Notes:

1. With the exception of the opening paragraph, this entire article is excerpted from the chapter "Looking For a Few Good Men" in The Deliberate Church, by Mark Dever and Paul Alexander (Crossway, 2005).
2. E.g., being a lover of money, being argumentative, not being gentle, not managing his own household well (1Tim 3:1-7).
3. Mark 10:35-45; John 13:1-17.
4. For a full exegetical and practical treatment of gender-based roles in the home and church, see John Piper and Wayne Grudem, eds., Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Biblical Response to Evangelical Feminism (Wheaton: Crossway, 1993). For a specific treatment of 1Tim 2:9-15, see Andreas Kostenberger, Thomas Schreiner, and H. Scott Baldwin, eds., Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995).
5. This is distinguished from the office of deacon, which is designed for the service of the church through tending to the physical and financial matters of the corporate body.
6. We will think more carefully about the practical necessity of this character in chapter 15, and what it means to be "able to teach" in chapter 16.


Mark Dever is the pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, DC. Paul Alexander is the pastor of Fox Valley Bible Church in St. Charles, Illinois.

The Responsibilities of Elders

Paul, speaking to the elders of the church of Ephesus, commanded:

“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified. I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel. Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me. I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive (Acts 20:28-35).”

I would like to draw your attention to Alexander Strauch’s excellent book, Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership. A short course based upon this book is found here.



Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership, Rev Exp edition (Littleton, Colorado: Lewis & Roth Publishers, 1995)

Instead of providing the readers with a book review, I would like to explore briefly the theme of biblical eldership with some quotations from Strauch’s superb book. Many churches, including churches from the Protestant tradition, have reduced the office of the elder to only an administrative authority within the church. These “elders” serve within the session only to provide his vote on certain issues or to accompany the pastor during house visitation. They are sometimes policymakers, financial controllers, administrative officers, or the church’s resident psychologist. But their responsibilities do not go beyond the scope of community and social service. They oversee the flock by smiling regularly, and of course, by providing a goodly example in a very secular sense of the word. But it seems that the theological sense of the Word is neglected.

So what are the very basic responsibilities of the elder within the church? Are they simply the “members of parliament” within the church’s session?

1. Pastoral leadership (“to feed the church of God” Acts 20:28)

Regarding the office of elder, Alexander Strauch wrote, “When most Christians hear about church elders, they think of an official church board, lay officials, influential people within the local church, or advisers to the pastor. They think of elders as being policymakers, financial officers, fund-raisers, or administrators. I call these types of elders “board elders.” People don’t expect “board elders” to teach the Word or to be involved pastorally in people’s lives. … A person doesn’t need to read Greek or be professionally trained in theology to understand that the contemporary, church-board concept of eldership is irreconcilably at odds with the New Testament definition of eldership. According to the New Testament, elders lead the church, teach and preach the Word, protect the church from false teachers, exhort and admonish the saints in sound doctrine, visit the sick and pray, and judge doctrinal issues. In biblical terminology, elders shepherd, oversee, lead, and care for the local church.”

So it boils down to basically what it means to “rule” the church. What does Jesus our Lord expect of the elder? The answer is: to feed His sheep (John 21:15-17). And what does it mean to feed His sheep? As Strauch has perceptively stated, it is to provide pastoral, spiritual, doctrinal and disciplinary leadership within the church. The elder’s job is not simply to sit in session to cast a vote, or to provide more sound and fury to session meetings. He must be a qualified man of God, and qualified to teach, preach, lead, and edify the saints (by now I know I’m getting into a lot of trouble with some Reformed folks out there!).

2. Protecting the flock (“Therefore watch” Acts 20:31)

According to the apostle Paul, the elder must be a man well versed in the Scriptures, and able to refute false doctrines and false teachers. The shepherds of the church - the elders - must protect the church from ravaging wolves. “Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers (Titus 1:6-9).”

When questioned about certain doctrinal or practical issues (i.e. basic theology, practical theology), the elder should not tell the member that all views are acceptable, as long as he respects the other contradictory views. Likewise, he should not say, “I am not qualified to teach you. Ask the pastor. I cannot give you an official answer on behalf of the church.” The elder must and should give an accurate answer according to Scripture, and also in accordance to the doctrine of the church. The elder is, of course, expected to give an answer! Or else, he should not aspire to be one.

3. Feeding the flock (“able to teach” 1 Tim. 3:2)

Strauch continues, “Paul reminds the Ephesian elders that he has taught them and the church the full plan and purpose of God: “For I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole purpose of God” (Acts 20:27). Now it was time for the elders to do the same. Since elders are commanded to shepherd the flock of God (Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:2), part of their shepherding task is to see that the flock is fed God’s Word.”

In 1 Tim. 5:17-18, Paul wrote, “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.” Although we realize that this verse is the cause of debates even amongst Reformed circles concerning the categories of elders within the church (i.e. teaching and ruling elders), it seems that Paul does not limit the responsibility of authoritative teaching to only a special class of elders. It is true that there are those “who labour in the word and doctrine.” But this does not mean that the other elders are not to serve by teaching the word and doctrine.

We must try to restrain ourselves in making fine distinctions and categories within the office of elder based upon this verse of Scripture. If there is any distinction within the elders, it is not in the realm of function, authority or domain, but as Towner had aptly said, “The main distinction is probably between those elders who had faithfully discharged their duties (whether leading well and preaching/teaching, or, in the case of some lacking the latter gifts, just exercising leadership), and those who had failed. The instructions imply that one or more elders had been accused of something (Philip H. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdsman, 2006), 361).”

Elders who are worthy of double honor (1 Tim. 5:17), according to Paul’s definition of “double honor” (see 1 Tim. 5:18), seems to involve some form of “material compensation (p. 363),” although the precise meaning of this phrase is difficult to ascertain. But certainly this verse in 1 Timothy cannot be used to exclude the responsibility of authoritative teaching/preaching from the other elders. Knight, in his excellent commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, confirms that all elders must be able to teach, “It is likely, therefore, that here [1 Tim 5:17], too, he is speaking of a subgroup of the “overseers” that consists of those who are especially gifted by God to teach, as opposed to other overseers, who must all “be able to teach” (1 Tim 3:2).” (George W. Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles, NIGTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992), 233.) It, therefore, seems logical to conclude that elders, who must all be able to teach, ought to teach the congregation.

4. Leading the flock (“Let the elders who rule [lead, direct, manage] well be considered worthy of double honor” 1 Tim. 5:17a)

Strauch continues, “In biblical language, to shepherd a nation or any group of people means to lead or govern (2 Sam. 5:2; Ps. 78:71, 72). According to Acts 20 and 1 Peter 5, elders are to shepherd the church of God. So, to shepherd a local church means, among other things, to lead the church. To the church in Ephesus, Paul writes, “Let the elders who rule [lead, direct, manage] well be considered worthy of double honor” (1 Tim. 5:17a). Elders, then, are to lead, direct, govern, manage, and otherwise care for the flock of God. …”

“In Titus 1:7, Paul insists that a prospective elder be morally and spiritually above reproach because he will be “God’s steward.” A steward is a “household manager,” someone with official responsibility over the master’s servants, property, and even finances. Elders are stewards of God’s household, the local church.”

We read in Peter’s epistle, “The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind (1 Peter 5:1-2).”

As overseers, elders are to provide pastoral oversight of the local church. This oversight is part of spiritual leadership, and definitely involves more than making one’s presence felt within the church. The elder needs not be handsome like Absalom, or tall and dark like Saul. He needs not be eloquent like Prime Minister Lee, or be a master of equivocation like President Bush. But he is definitely required to be an over-seer of the church’s spiritual and physical welfare. This spiritual leadership is via godly example, “neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock (1 Peter 5:3).” The church has no place for a Hitler or a Diotrephes.

It is a shame whenever the elder’s family is not ruled appropriately. How can he rule the church when he cannot even rule his own wife and children? How can he teach the church when he is not even sure of what is right and wrong according to Scripture? Any elder should know that his life and family is opened to scrutiny from the church members. If they are not fulfilling their ecclesiastical duties, they should rightly be rebuked with a view for improvement. In a sense, yes, there may be gossips, and such gossiping is sin on the part of church members. But if the church leader is sinning, or if his family members are sinning, it reflects badly upon the leader’s attitude towards correction from his brethren if he considers such advice as “gossiping.” An elder or leader is not beyond reproach, and not all who comment on a leader’s life and family are doing out of spite or jealousy.

5. Meeting the flock’s practical needs (James 5:14; Acts 20:35)

This lies within the territory of practical theology. If one is not even knowledgeable of basic scriptural teachings, how can he apply the Word to everyday living? The elder must be able to answer questions such as these: “Should we go clubbing? If not, why?” “What should we wear whenever we go out?” “What are the roles of the man and woman?” “Why can’t we sing jazz or rock and roll in church worship?” “Why am I dying of cancer?” “Why are there sufferings?”

The elder must be gifted and able to apply the Word to the members’ life. He must be able to meet the spiritual needs of the congregation through his skilled usage of Scripture and doctrine. “As shepherds of the flock, the elders must be available to meet the sheep’s needs. This responsibility includes: visiting the sick and comforting the bereaved; strengthening the weak; praying for all the sheep; visiting new members; providing counsel for couples who are engaged, married, and/or divorcing; and managing the many, day-to-day details related to the inner life of the congregation (Strauch).”

6. Sacrificial hard work for the Church

Regarding the office of elder, Alexander Strauch emphasized, “When the church eldership is viewed as a status or board position in the church, there will be plenty of volunteers. When it is viewed as a demanding, pastoral work, few people will rush to volunteer. One reason there are so few shepherd elders or good church elderships is that, generally speaking, men are spiritually lazy. That is a major reason why most churches never establish a biblical eldership. Men are more than willing to let someone else fulfill their spiritual responsibilities, whether it be their wives, the clergy, or church professionals. …”

“Biblical eldership, however, can’t exist in an atmosphere of nominal Christianity. There can be no biblical eldership in a church where there is no biblical Christianity. If a biblical eldership is to function effectively, it requires men who are firmly committed to living out our Lord’s principles of discipleship. Biblical eldership is dependent on men who seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness (Matt. 6:33), men who have presented themselves as living and holy sacrifices to God and view themselves as slaves of the Lord Jesus Christ (Rom. 12:1,2), men who love Jesus Christ above all else, men who willingly sacrifice self for the sake of others, men who seek to love as Christ loved, men who are self-disciplined and self-sacrificing, and men who have taken up the cross and are willing to suffer for Christ.”

If a man does not love Christ and his teachings more than material comfort, mammon, or his own reputation, how can he be trusted with the things of eternity? Eldership is great responsibility, and an elder cannot be chosen quickly. The quantity of elder should never be the priority, but the quality of the elder should be. Even in cases of dire need of leadership, we must not put a man into the office of elder simply because of the necessity of the circumstances. A man must be tried and tested, and be found worthy of the office of eldership.

7. A comment on the practice of term eldership

There is a sensitive and taboo area within Reformed circles that I hope to mention in this short discussion. Those who disagree with me would do well to note that I do not want to take issue with this. But I am, after all, entitled to voice my thoughts.

The traditional Reformed practice of term eldership creates an interesting scenario whereby numerous men who were ordained as elders are coexisting, serving, and teaching within the same local church. Such men - whose term of eldership has expired - are officially no longer elders, despite the fact that there were ordained by the laying on of hands by the presbytery. I have heard of men being put out of the eldership because of serious sin, doctrinal aberration, or other disqualifications. But to be “unordained” because the pages of the calendar were irreversibly torn off is something truly novel and refreshingly disturbing. Or perhaps these ex-elders were never “unordained;” in which case, they are still ordained elders! This creates the tricky situation whereby men who are unofficially church officers serving with men who were never church officers. But no one can deny the fact that there is always a lingering shadow of unspoken authority behind an ex-elder-teacher, especially when compared to a never-was-an-elder ordinary member. And such was the situation in some churches whereby half a dozen ex-elder-teachers “share” the Word together with currently serving elder-teachers. The never-was-an-elder-member to elder/ex-elder ratio is sometimes 1:1, of even 1:2 or 1:3.

So what is the big deal? James taught, “My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation (James 3:1).” The word masters here means teachers (didaskaloi). Both Dan Phillips and my brother-in-Christ Daniel had posted on this issue. Daniel, particularly, posted this after he realized that certain churches actually have numerous ex-elders within its membership. The point is this: do not put a man into office as elder unless he qualifies, and this includes being apt to teach. The church is not meant to have “many teachers (James 3:1).”

It will be strange if God plans to gift certain churches with so many mouths, and tilting the balance of body parts towards the mouths. But the church is a body of believers, each with a different gift. It is indeed odd if Christ has given a church so many elders and ex-elders, each one serving a term of a few years, and after that, disappearing into the background of anonymity and inactivity. An elder is called. An elder is gifted by God. And an elder serves willingly without constrains.

The other issue with regard to term office is this: it results in numerous “retired teachers” within the same church, each with a tenure whereby he is held accountable for what he taught as an elder. The responsibility of an elder-teacher is huge, and God will not only hold us accountable for every idle word (Matt. 12:36), but also for the teachings of the man who hold the office of elder. So James exhorts us, “not many of you should become teachers.” But in the case of churches having term eldership, there are indeed many ordained teachers within the same church.

This, however, is not the case in all Reformed churches. Most churches re-elect the elder to serve for terms on end. In some Presbyterian circles in Singapore, the eldership is a term office of two years or so, but the elder almost always serve for life. This is because the church recognizes the qualifications and gifts of the godly man of God, and he continues to serve the church until the Lord pronounces a sabbatical upon his tenure either by sickness, inability or death.

The office of elder seems to be a permanent office in the New Testament churches. With regard to the permanence of the office of elders and deacons, even Douglas Kuiper admits that based upon “scriptural data … it is pointed out, for instance, that Scripture nowhere speaks of such limited tenure; but, on the other hand, it does seem to teach the principle of lifetime service. In the Old Testament, the kings of Israel/Judah, in the line of David, served in office for life or until sickness or old age prevented them from carrying out their work; the priests served many years in the temple; and the prophets also were not limited in their tenure. In the New Testament, we find no limit on the length of service for deacons or elders. And our own practice, as well as that of the church throughout history, has been that our ministers serve in their office for life. Consistency would require us, then, to allow elders and deacons to do the same.” See Douglas Kuiper, “The Election and Installation of Deacons (6) Tenure of Office,” The Standard Bearer 79, no. 19 (2003).

Some had argued pragmatically that the practice of term offices allows other equally (or more) gifted men within the church to serve as church officers (i.e. elders and deacons). But this suggestion can easily be turned upon itself by asking the question, “Why is this pragmatic reasoning not applied to the election of the office of pastor-teacher, who is likewise an ordained elder in a very technical and theological sense?” There can easily be seminary-trained men within the congregation who can replace the “term” office of a pastor-teacher! So should we then ask the pastor to serve out his term of say two to four years, and subsequently ask the other men to “serve” and “use their spiritual gifts?” If the pastor-teacher is an ordained church officer, the other “ruling” elders are also ordained by the laying on of hands and were similarly set apart for their ministry. This conclusion only shows the weakness of such pragmatic paralogism. God often gives the church only one pastor-teacher, and a handful of elders. These men are not to be changed according to the whims of some traditional ecclesiastical practices.

Rev Kuiper, arguing for the term office practice, writes, “(The) more weighty (reasons), again, are the principle reasons. One is that Scripture, being silent on the issue, leaves it to the liberty of the churches to do as they please. The fact that God does not expressly require that office bearers serve for life means that He could be glorified either way.”

It is strange that the Regulative Principle of Worship is often applied in the order of worship and sacraments, but not in the important realm of ecclesiastical leadership. But again, Rev Kuiper had stated that Scripture “does seem to teach the principle of lifetime service.” How is it, then, that Scripture is being extremely silent on this issue? The church father Polycarp did not seem to have served only a term office, only to give himself to the flames of martyrdom. Neither did Peter or John the elder served for only a time, and subsequently was converted to the status of ex-elder “emeritus.” It seems clear that the ordination of elders in the New Testament churches were a permanent setting aside of certain men for the office of elder, and the same can be said of deacons. These men were not ordained with the view of temporal service. These men were tested, examined against the high standards of Scripture, and accepted both by the session and members as men of extraordinary faith, maturity, and knowledge. Most of all, the men who are to be installed as elders should be selected by God himself.

Rev Kuiper continues, “Another argument (for term office) is that, generally speaking, the Holy Spirit has given the gifts of ruling and shewing mercy to many people in the church. By having terms of office, more people are given the opportunity to use their gifts in the service of the church and God.” We also know that many members of the fairer sex also possess “gifts of ruling and shewing mercy to many people in the church.” Should we then ordain women as elders? I’m sure Rev Kuiper is not encouraging an egalitarian interpretation of the Pastoral Epistles.

In summary, Christ has given the church some to be elders, some deacons, and some to serve in other areas. It is very unlikely that the spiritual gifts get rotated through the members via term offices, and it is even more unlikely that God withdraws the gifts of specific men as elders and deacons from a church in a short span of a few years, only to give other men for similar offices. If an elder falls due to sin or disqualifies himself in any manner, the church should withdraw him from the office of elder. Until such a man fails Christ and the Church, let us recognize the spiritual gifts given to such a man of God, and let us place him in his God-ordained office for the edification of the saints, and for the glory of God our Creator, who is blessed forever more. Amen.