Differentiation among Elder

Differentiation among Elders

It has become common in Presbyterian circles, on the basis of 1 Tim 5:17, to speak of Teaching Elders and Ruling Elders. The text says, “Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honour, especially those who labour in preaching and teaching.” (ESV)  Alternatively, “The elders who are good leaders should be considered worthy of an ample honorarium, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.” (HCSV)

All elders rule – they shepherd the flock. (1 Peter 5:2)  All elders are able to teach, (2 Tim 2:24).  Some elders rule particularly well, and some do so through preaching and teaching.  This suggests that some elders have particular shepherding gifts and others have particular teaching gifts, but the roles are not mutually exclusive.

Interestingly, while we accept salaried teaching elders, it is less common to find salaried ruling elders.  Why should we not have full-time shepherding ministers who are counsellors, pastoral encouragers, personal mentors, education co-ordinators, administrators or discipleship co-ordinators?  Conversely, why should we not have non full-time teaching elders or non stipendiary teaching elders? The New Testament pattern allows for flexibility and a rich variety of elder leadership patterns.

We speak of one office, with a differentiation of function, (teaching or ruling elders).  Might it not be best to speak of a differentiation of “focus” rather than of function? We should be training our ruling elders to develop their teaching ability and we should be training our teaching elders to develop their ruling ability.  It is not unknown for a competent preacher to lack experience or strength in ruling, and of doing so within the plurality and parity of the local session.  Indeed, we have within presbyterian practice the anomaly of men with no general experience of eldership becoming teaching elders, but never having worked alongside their fellow elders in a local church session.  That was my own experience, and I wonder how many local churches would never consider calling a man as an elder at twenty-three years old but would consider calling him as a minister?

Thankfully, I learned on the job, but it was not necessarily the best route to take. If a church has not called a young man as an elder locally, why are they willing to recommend him for training as a teaching elder / minister?  Surely they need to recognise that “elder” is a term acknowledging spiritual wisdom and maturity rather than merely chronological age.  If a man shows the gifts and aptitudes, and desires the work of eldership locally then age is not necessarily a barrier. Put him on the Session, with congregational approval, and let him gain experience in the trials and joys of local church eldership.  This is not to go down the route of those churches that think that youth in and off itself is an adequate qualification and therefore have youth delegates in presbytery and assembly to represent the voice of the next generation, whether or not these persons are biblically qualified as elders.

If local eldership can involve differentiation of focus then there is an ongoing necessity to sharpen that focus without neglecting the other aspects of eldership. Using resources such as those found at https://biblicaleldership.com/ would be a good place to start.