In China our mission was called “Presbyterian.” Literally translated the name was “Jesus Teaching – Rule Elders Organization.” The name was a legacy our missionaries retained when they took over responsibility from the (Southern) Presbyterians for a part of their “field” of labor. They saw no need to change the name, for the old one was still correct. The historical accident that churches which in Europe were caned “Reformed” came in England and Scotland to be called “Presbyterian” because of their principle of the rule of elders need not make a difference in our mission field. We, like the rest of the churches which still hold the Reformed faith, believe that God’s Word teaches that he will rule His church through the authority which he has entrusted to elders.
Elders’ Rule is Biblical
A little survey of the Bible’s teaching regarding elders seems to show that such older, more mature men, from early times were recognized as leaders to be regarded with respect and authority in social and religious life. The “elders of the people” or the “elders of Israel” were frequently associated with Moses in his dealings with the people, in bringing the word of God to the people and in representing the people before God. Such men later administered local government and had a hand in national affairs, even after the institution of a monarchy. They gained more prominence during the exile and after the return were associated with the governor and with local administration. Think of the Saxon “aldermen” and the Roman “senators.”
After the establishing of the New Testament church local congregations were led by elders just as the synagogues had earlier bet::n so led. Provision was made for appointing elders in new churches (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5). The kind of qualifications that were needed if men were to assume the responsibilities of this office were listed (Titus 1:6–9; 1 Tim. 3:1–7). And elders were charged to be diligent in facing these God-given responsibilities (Acts 20:17ff., especially 28): “Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood.” The Apostle Peter exhorted the elders to faithfulness in pastoral care and warned them against the common abuses that may all too readily be made of such authority: “The elders…among you I exhort, who am a fellow-elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, who am also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Tend the flock of God which is among you, exercising the oversight, not of constraint (laziness), but willingly, according to the will of God; nor yet for filthy lucre (self-seeking), but of a ready mind; neither as lording it over the charge allotted unto you (“domineering”), but making yourselves examples (RSV) to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd shall be manifested, ye shall receive the crown of glory that fadeth not away.” Accordingly others were also called to recognize and submit to this God-given authority of the elders: “Likewise, ye younger, be subject unto the elder. Yea, all of you gird yourselves with humility, to serve one another…” (5:5). “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit to them: for they watch in behalf of your souls, as they that shall give account; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief: for this were unprofitable for you” (Heb. 13:17).
It is significant that in this biblical pattern of organization the ruling authority in the church is that of the elder. The apostle Peter speaks of himself as a “fellow elder.” The role of “pastor and teacher” (Eph. 4:11) is evidently that of an elder with certain special functions which call for special recognition but do not entail a superior level of authority: “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and in teaching. For the Scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn. Arid the laborer is worthy of his hire” (I Tim. 5:17, 18). The comparison with oxen and laborers hardly leaves room for any notions of superiority!
The Eclipse of the Elders
Despite this plain pattern of Bible teaching and early church practice and the warnings against the misuse of office, it was not long before the simple principle of elders’ rule was lost from sight. The preachers began to rule the church. This did not necessarily come about because of deliberate or evil intention. A group of men did not just set out to take over the church in the way a cabal of gangsters may seize control of a city government. The movement was often led by men of the highest character and with the sincerest of motives. For example, in the time of about no to 117 A.D. the old church father and later martyr, Ignatius, was deeply concerned about the inroads of false teachings and divisions in the churches. He felt that the most effective way to counteract them was to urge the people to obey their ministers or “bishops.” This he did in a series of letters. To the Ephesians he wrote, “…the bishops too, appointed the world over, reflect the mind of Jesus Christ. Hence you should act in accord with the bishop’s mind, as you surely do” (3:2–4:1). “Let us then, heartily avoid resisting the bishop so that we may be subject to God” (5:3). “It is clear, then, that we should regard the bishop as the Lord himself” (6:1). He warned the Smyrnaeans, “Nobody must do anything that has to do with the Church without the bishop’s approval.” “…But he who acts without the bishop’s knowledge is in the devil’s service” (8:1–9:1). Although he still called for respect for presbyters (or elders) and deacons, it is clear that he saw the authority of the bishop as far above that of an ordinary elder. Calvin quoted the scholarly church father, Jerome, who lived from about 360 to 420 A.D. as writing, “A presbyter is the same as a bishop. And before dissensions in religion were produced by the instigation of the devil…the churches were governed by a common council of presbyters. Afterwards, in order to destroy the seeds of dissensions, the whole charge was committed to one.” And so he cautioned the church leadership, “Therefore, as the presbyters know that according to the custom of the Church they are subject to the bishop who presides over them, so let the bishops know that their superiority to the presbyters is more from custom than from the appointment of the Lord, and they ought to unite together in the government of the church” (Institutes IV, 4, 2). Such warnings apparently did little good. They merely reveal what was happening. The authority of elders was being lost from sight for the next 1000 years as the churches, influenced by pagan notions of priestly power and imitating the political structure of the Roman Empire, came to be ruled by the growing pyramid of hierarchy which reached its apex in the Pope.
As the Reformation brought a return to the teachings of the Word of God, in the Reformed churches it led to a renewed recognition of and establishing of church government by elders, the principle that is supposed to characterize Reformed and Presbyterian churches to the present day.
The Elders’ Rule Today
One does not have to be very familiar with the church conditions in our time to recognize that the principle of elder’s rule is getting very little appreciation even in churches like our own, whose order is supposed to be based upon it.
A very prominent characteristic of our time is the lack of respect for either age or office. In an age of protest, especially by many younger people against all kinds of authority, the elders have two strikes against them. All kinds of authorities are being challenged as part of the wicked “establishment” which must be eliminated. And those who hold offices are often too unsure of their own position or course to be able to face the situation firmly and calmly. As a result we see all kinds of institutions crumbling into anarchy. The Christian observer can see in this process more and more clearly God’s judgments upon a society that has rejected God and His authority and has therefore lost the only really legitimate foundations upon which man’s relative and derived authorities can be properly grounded.
Such developments as these are not as new or extraordinary as they might appear to be. Remember Rehoboam? He was not the first or the last to lose a kingdom because he felt more attracted to the dramatic suggestions of his spoiled court companions than to the less colorful counsel of elders who could more accurately gauge the state of the nation and temper of the people. And that too was part of the judgment of God upon a prospered land whose once humble, godly and wise leadership had fallen for the temptations of prosperity and fame and become too sophisticated for the “narrow” and “old-fashioned” guidance of God’s laws.
It is not only the spirit of revolt that threatens the authority of elders in our churches. Just as threatening to it is a kind of unconscious assumption and acceptance of a clericalism that resembles far more closely the Roman Catholic system than the pattern of government which we have observed in the Bible and which is reflected in our Reformed church orders.
Citing a few examples may suggest many others: A commonly used introductory catechism book published by our churches’ Committee on Education devotes a chapter to the offices in the church. First almost 2 1/2 pages including 4 illustrations are used to describe in considerable detail the various duties of the pastor. Then less than 9 lines are devoted to the duties of elders, a little more to those of the deacons and fin ally even less to the duties of members to the officers! (The most important “office of believers” is not even recognized!) Is it surprising that with such an introduction children grow up with the notion that the preacher is supposed to run the church? How could people so trained be expected to know that the elders are called to rule the church and that in matters of government the pastor is one of them and may be outvoted 10 or 20 to 1? Even in many consistories one gets the impression that elders themselves often fail to appreciate the fact that it is they who are supposed to govern the church and that although they may not always be able to out-talk the pastor, they can and may have the duty to outvote him! After all they promised to supervise him and his work.
In the operation of our larger church assemblies, the classes and synods, there are also indications of this unhealthy clericalism. Those assemblies are usually composed of an approximately equal number of ministers and ciders. It is a fairly common complaint, however, that ministers, being more familiar with procedure than the elders who take part in them much less frequently, naturally tend to dominate them. A serious consideration of the principle that elders are supposed to rule the church suggests that a larger representation of elders in these assemblies might be desirable.
When we begin to think about the Boards of the church which have been growing rapidly in size and power (as I pointed out in another recent article) the situation is much worse. With a few exceptions the members of those boards arc almost all ministers and to an increasing extent it is not even the boards but their even less representative “executive committees” that rule in denominational activities. With such a “power structure” developing, much faster than it ever did in the history of Roman Catholicism, incidentally, is it surprising that our missionary and educational activities are getting farther and farther away from the churches they are supposed to represent and that abuses readily creep in?
A few years ago the proposal was made to reorganize our home mission board administration along the lines of a business corporation in order to achieve greater efficiency. Considerable objection arose to this proposal because it violated the church order’s principle of equality of office. It was explained that in the new system one man was not really “over” the other, but that this was merely a matter of “administration.” And so the proposal carried. The whole procedure however reminds one a little of George Orwell’s Animal Farm. There too the principle of equality was to be maintained. But there too the principle came to be qualified by the amendment that although “all are equal” “some are more equal than others”! One begins to wonder whether something like this is not happening in our churches, as it has happened in others, to the God-given principle of the rule of elders.
Just as in the turmoil of our time the churches need to cling to or return to the God-given gospel of salvation if we are to have something worth believing and sharing, it is evident that they also need to return to the God-appointed pattern of operation in the way in which they serve that gospel. In that pattern an important motif is the rule of the elders. We may hope that a return to its practice will contribute to a healthier church life and a more effective gospel witness.
Rev. Peter De Jong is pastor of the Dutton Christian Reformed Church, Dutton, Michigan.
Elders’ Rule is Biblical
A little survey of the Bible’s teaching regarding elders seems to show that such older, more mature men, from early times were recognized as leaders to be regarded with respect and authority in social and religious life. The “elders of the people” or the “elders of Israel” were frequently associated with Moses in his dealings with the people, in bringing the word of God to the people and in representing the people before God. Such men later administered local government and had a hand in national affairs, even after the institution of a monarchy. They gained more prominence during the exile and after the return were associated with the governor and with local administration. Think of the Saxon “aldermen” and the Roman “senators.”
After the establishing of the New Testament church local congregations were led by elders just as the synagogues had earlier bet::n so led. Provision was made for appointing elders in new churches (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5). The kind of qualifications that were needed if men were to assume the responsibilities of this office were listed (Titus 1:6–9; 1 Tim. 3:1–7). And elders were charged to be diligent in facing these God-given responsibilities (Acts 20:17ff., especially 28): “Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood.” The Apostle Peter exhorted the elders to faithfulness in pastoral care and warned them against the common abuses that may all too readily be made of such authority: “The elders…among you I exhort, who am a fellow-elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, who am also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Tend the flock of God which is among you, exercising the oversight, not of constraint (laziness), but willingly, according to the will of God; nor yet for filthy lucre (self-seeking), but of a ready mind; neither as lording it over the charge allotted unto you (“domineering”), but making yourselves examples (RSV) to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd shall be manifested, ye shall receive the crown of glory that fadeth not away.” Accordingly others were also called to recognize and submit to this God-given authority of the elders: “Likewise, ye younger, be subject unto the elder. Yea, all of you gird yourselves with humility, to serve one another…” (5:5). “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit to them: for they watch in behalf of your souls, as they that shall give account; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief: for this were unprofitable for you” (Heb. 13:17).
It is significant that in this biblical pattern of organization the ruling authority in the church is that of the elder. The apostle Peter speaks of himself as a “fellow elder.” The role of “pastor and teacher” (Eph. 4:11) is evidently that of an elder with certain special functions which call for special recognition but do not entail a superior level of authority: “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and in teaching. For the Scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn. Arid the laborer is worthy of his hire” (I Tim. 5:17, 18). The comparison with oxen and laborers hardly leaves room for any notions of superiority!
The Eclipse of the Elders
Despite this plain pattern of Bible teaching and early church practice and the warnings against the misuse of office, it was not long before the simple principle of elders’ rule was lost from sight. The preachers began to rule the church. This did not necessarily come about because of deliberate or evil intention. A group of men did not just set out to take over the church in the way a cabal of gangsters may seize control of a city government. The movement was often led by men of the highest character and with the sincerest of motives. For example, in the time of about no to 117 A.D. the old church father and later martyr, Ignatius, was deeply concerned about the inroads of false teachings and divisions in the churches. He felt that the most effective way to counteract them was to urge the people to obey their ministers or “bishops.” This he did in a series of letters. To the Ephesians he wrote, “…the bishops too, appointed the world over, reflect the mind of Jesus Christ. Hence you should act in accord with the bishop’s mind, as you surely do” (3:2–4:1). “Let us then, heartily avoid resisting the bishop so that we may be subject to God” (5:3). “It is clear, then, that we should regard the bishop as the Lord himself” (6:1). He warned the Smyrnaeans, “Nobody must do anything that has to do with the Church without the bishop’s approval.” “…But he who acts without the bishop’s knowledge is in the devil’s service” (8:1–9:1). Although he still called for respect for presbyters (or elders) and deacons, it is clear that he saw the authority of the bishop as far above that of an ordinary elder. Calvin quoted the scholarly church father, Jerome, who lived from about 360 to 420 A.D. as writing, “A presbyter is the same as a bishop. And before dissensions in religion were produced by the instigation of the devil…the churches were governed by a common council of presbyters. Afterwards, in order to destroy the seeds of dissensions, the whole charge was committed to one.” And so he cautioned the church leadership, “Therefore, as the presbyters know that according to the custom of the Church they are subject to the bishop who presides over them, so let the bishops know that their superiority to the presbyters is more from custom than from the appointment of the Lord, and they ought to unite together in the government of the church” (Institutes IV, 4, 2). Such warnings apparently did little good. They merely reveal what was happening. The authority of elders was being lost from sight for the next 1000 years as the churches, influenced by pagan notions of priestly power and imitating the political structure of the Roman Empire, came to be ruled by the growing pyramid of hierarchy which reached its apex in the Pope.
As the Reformation brought a return to the teachings of the Word of God, in the Reformed churches it led to a renewed recognition of and establishing of church government by elders, the principle that is supposed to characterize Reformed and Presbyterian churches to the present day.
The Elders’ Rule Today
One does not have to be very familiar with the church conditions in our time to recognize that the principle of elder’s rule is getting very little appreciation even in churches like our own, whose order is supposed to be based upon it.
A very prominent characteristic of our time is the lack of respect for either age or office. In an age of protest, especially by many younger people against all kinds of authority, the elders have two strikes against them. All kinds of authorities are being challenged as part of the wicked “establishment” which must be eliminated. And those who hold offices are often too unsure of their own position or course to be able to face the situation firmly and calmly. As a result we see all kinds of institutions crumbling into anarchy. The Christian observer can see in this process more and more clearly God’s judgments upon a society that has rejected God and His authority and has therefore lost the only really legitimate foundations upon which man’s relative and derived authorities can be properly grounded.
Such developments as these are not as new or extraordinary as they might appear to be. Remember Rehoboam? He was not the first or the last to lose a kingdom because he felt more attracted to the dramatic suggestions of his spoiled court companions than to the less colorful counsel of elders who could more accurately gauge the state of the nation and temper of the people. And that too was part of the judgment of God upon a prospered land whose once humble, godly and wise leadership had fallen for the temptations of prosperity and fame and become too sophisticated for the “narrow” and “old-fashioned” guidance of God’s laws.
It is not only the spirit of revolt that threatens the authority of elders in our churches. Just as threatening to it is a kind of unconscious assumption and acceptance of a clericalism that resembles far more closely the Roman Catholic system than the pattern of government which we have observed in the Bible and which is reflected in our Reformed church orders.
Citing a few examples may suggest many others: A commonly used introductory catechism book published by our churches’ Committee on Education devotes a chapter to the offices in the church. First almost 2 1/2 pages including 4 illustrations are used to describe in considerable detail the various duties of the pastor. Then less than 9 lines are devoted to the duties of elders, a little more to those of the deacons and fin ally even less to the duties of members to the officers! (The most important “office of believers” is not even recognized!) Is it surprising that with such an introduction children grow up with the notion that the preacher is supposed to run the church? How could people so trained be expected to know that the elders are called to rule the church and that in matters of government the pastor is one of them and may be outvoted 10 or 20 to 1? Even in many consistories one gets the impression that elders themselves often fail to appreciate the fact that it is they who are supposed to govern the church and that although they may not always be able to out-talk the pastor, they can and may have the duty to outvote him! After all they promised to supervise him and his work.
In the operation of our larger church assemblies, the classes and synods, there are also indications of this unhealthy clericalism. Those assemblies are usually composed of an approximately equal number of ministers and ciders. It is a fairly common complaint, however, that ministers, being more familiar with procedure than the elders who take part in them much less frequently, naturally tend to dominate them. A serious consideration of the principle that elders are supposed to rule the church suggests that a larger representation of elders in these assemblies might be desirable.
When we begin to think about the Boards of the church which have been growing rapidly in size and power (as I pointed out in another recent article) the situation is much worse. With a few exceptions the members of those boards arc almost all ministers and to an increasing extent it is not even the boards but their even less representative “executive committees” that rule in denominational activities. With such a “power structure” developing, much faster than it ever did in the history of Roman Catholicism, incidentally, is it surprising that our missionary and educational activities are getting farther and farther away from the churches they are supposed to represent and that abuses readily creep in?
A few years ago the proposal was made to reorganize our home mission board administration along the lines of a business corporation in order to achieve greater efficiency. Considerable objection arose to this proposal because it violated the church order’s principle of equality of office. It was explained that in the new system one man was not really “over” the other, but that this was merely a matter of “administration.” And so the proposal carried. The whole procedure however reminds one a little of George Orwell’s Animal Farm. There too the principle of equality was to be maintained. But there too the principle came to be qualified by the amendment that although “all are equal” “some are more equal than others”! One begins to wonder whether something like this is not happening in our churches, as it has happened in others, to the God-given principle of the rule of elders.
Just as in the turmoil of our time the churches need to cling to or return to the God-given gospel of salvation if we are to have something worth believing and sharing, it is evident that they also need to return to the God-appointed pattern of operation in the way in which they serve that gospel. In that pattern an important motif is the rule of the elders. We may hope that a return to its practice will contribute to a healthier church life and a more effective gospel witness.
Rev. Peter De Jong is pastor of the Dutton Christian Reformed Church, Dutton, Michigan.