For the church of God, and especially for each local autonomous congregation, God has instituted the office of elder. Their work is to rule, to have “the oversight” over the church, and to administer discipline. From the point of view of the continuity of the church, the work of the elder is the most demanding and, I dare say, the most important work in the church. It is an undisputed fact that a congregation can exist for years without the benefit of its own minister. But try to imagine the possibility of a church existing at all for any length of time without elders.

Not only is the office of elder extremely important, but it is also of divine appointment. Our Lord determined that men should be appointed to rule in His stead in the church militant on this earth. Although this is unquestionably true, it’s also true that nowhere in Scripture do we find this office instituted by the church like the office of deacon was in Acts 6. The reason why this is so is that the office of the elder was already in existence at the earliest time of the New Testament Church.

History

The office of the elder is of ancient origin. It goes way back to the time of Moses or before in the Old Testament. We first read about “elders” in Exodus 3:16 when God commands Moses to return to Egypt and “gather the elders of Israel together, and say unto them . . .” At this time the elders were the older and wiser men of the nation of Israel who were appointed to rule and govern Israel both politically and spiritually. Repeatedly the term is used in this sense in the Old Testament.

     

During the captivity and the four-hundred-year intertestamentary period we see the beginnings of worship in the synagogues. The size of these synagogues differed, just as our churches differ in size today, but they all had elders to rule over the members of the flock. When the New Testament church came into being it wisely adopted the practice of appointing elders, just as had been done in the synagogues. Thus we read about the work of elders and their qualifications in the New Testament, in I Tim. 3:1–7 and 4:12, Titus 1:6–9, James 5:14, and other passages, but never read about the institution of the office. It was already in use.

During the fourth and fifth century of the church, the office of the elder experienced a drastic and devastating change. It was a change that destroyed for the next ten to eleven hundred years not only the original intent of the office but also the office itself. Teaching elders (clergy) began to assume to themselves absolute power and authority. The members of the congregation were denied any right to rule at all. This movement resulted in a hierarchical system still in existence in the Roman Catholic and episcopal churches. Bishops vied with each other for power until the bishop of Rome became the pope with virtually absolute power in all matters.

This situation continued until the time of the Reformation. It was John Calvin, not Luther, who again insisted on the importance of elders in the church. Thus the presbyterian system of church polity was restored at the time of the Great Reformation.

The presbyterian system of church government was and is still used by two rather large groups of churches: the Reformed and the Presbyterian. According to Gerard Berghoef and Lester De Koster in The Elders Handbook:

The Presbyterian and Reformed Churches locate authority, derived from Christ, in the congregation’s eldership. Broader assemblies derive their authority, by delegation from the local council, or consistory or session . . . p. 38.

Rev. Wm. Henry Roberts, a presbyterian minister, writes in his A Manual For Ruling Elders and Church Sessions: (pp. 19–20)

Presbyterian principles in the matter of church government stated briefly are as follows: that Christ is the only Head of the Church; that all true believers are in union with Christ as their Head; that Christ has appointed a government in His Church . . . that the church possesses authority to discipline offenders and to administer government . . .

Spiritual Character

We who believe the presbyterian system to be correct base that belief on Scripture. True, Scripture does not lay out a detailed specific plan of church government. It does, however, lay down some general principles. It talks about the church itself, about the minister of the Word, about elders and deacons, about the council held in Jerusalem at the end of Paul’s first missionary journey. On the basis of these and many other passages, the Reformed and Presbyterian churches have built the system of church government peculiar to them.

Churches of Reformed and presbyterian persuasion who have spiritually wise and diligent elders experience one of the greatest blessings that God can possibly give His church here on this earth. It pleases God to use not only trained ministers in their office, but also humble men, often with little formal education and in lowly stations of life, to rule over His church. Here we see again the so-called foolishness of God that is wiser than men.

In the fields of government, business, education and finance the most important qualifications demanded of an applicant for a position are often education and wealth. But in the church of Jesus Christ these qualifications are not determinative because they are never given in Scripture. God in His church exalts the lowly and humbles the proud. This principle is repeatedly demonstrated in Scripture. Joseph, the prisoner, becomes the ruler of Egypt. Gideon, the farmer, and Jephthah, the outcast, become judges. David, the shepherd, is made king. The shepherd of Tekoah, Amos, is called to be a prophet. The child in the cattle stall becomes the Savior of the world.

God in His church opens up the office of elder, the import ant position of rulership, to the lowly, the meek, the poor, the spiritually minded and those who hunger and thirst after righteousness, the peacemakers, the merciful, those who mourn over their sin, the pure in heart, those persecuted for righteousness sake. Such individuals inherit the kingdom of heaven and are deemed suitable to rule in the church of Christ here below. And churches that nominate and elect elders on that basis rather than on the basis of wealth and education or any ot her non-spiritual qualification will be the most blessed.

Much can be found in books on church polity and in the handbooks for elders on the qualifications of elders and on their work. Every elder should make use of these important aids in his work as elder. I highly recommend The Elders Handbook by Berghoefand De Koster. But very little can be found about the attitude of elders toward their work. It’s that subject that I wish to address in this paper.

Attitude of the Elder

I’m sure no one will quarrel with me about the importance of a man’s attitude toward his wife, his children, his work, the church, the office bearers in the church, the minister and so forth. Such attitudes determine in large measure the way a person thinks and acts towards others and the value he places on certain things. According to the World Book Encyclopedia Dictionary, an attitude is “a way of thinking, acting, or feeling; the feeling, manner, or behavior of a person toward a situation or cause.”

A woman who despises her husband will not readily submit to his rule. A congregation which doubts the integrity of its minister or that strongly dislikes his personality or style of pulpit delivery no longer listens easily to the preaching of the Word. A child who is bored with his school work no longer studies well. Attitudes are very important. I dare say they play a major part in shaping our personality.

So also, attitudes are important in regard to the work of the elder. Bad attitudes produce bad elders. And they trouble the church. Good attitudes produce good elders who bring peace and blessing to the congregation.

I list here a number of attitudes that elders sometimes have and/or take toward their work. Some may be more common than others. I have a feeling that some apply to e very one of us. The order in which they will be considered is not significant. I’m not trying to rate them on a scale of bad to good or more serious to less serious attitude problems. My hope and desire is to make us aware of some of the objectionable attitudes we may evidence so that we can attempt to correct them.

Personal Attitudes

The first one I’d like to consider is the nonchalant attitude. One who has this attitude lacks enthusiam, feeling or interest for the work of elder. He takes a casual or indifferent attitude towards his calling. It’s just another job he has to suffer through. He often complains about the demands of the office and the fact that it keeps him so busy. Almost from the time he’s installed he’s talking about how anxious he is for his term to end. Generally, a person with such an attitude waits until the very last day or hour before a consistory meeting to do the work given him and sometimes doesn‘t even get to it at all.

Next we have the let the minister do the work attitude. This is based on the idea that since the minister is specially trained and the elder is not, he is better able to do it. On the surface this appears to be sound reasoning. It’s certainly true that the minister has more formal training. But such an attitude can very easily lead to hierarchy on the congregational level. And this must be avoided at all cost.

Elders, although perhaps lacking in training, must be involved in the work of the church. This will require much diligent study. It may mean an extra meeting a month by the elders to consider and discuss various aspects of their work. Here the older, experienced elders could give some excellent advice and training to the younger or newer elders.

Then there is the if I’m elected I’ll straighten things out attitude. The basic and obvious problem here is a rather generous dose of pride. One with this attitude thinks that he has the answers and the solutions to any problems that may arise in the church. Such a one is often inclined to barge right in where angels fear to tread. One with this attitude generally lacks the necessary patience, and wants to see immediate, if not sooner, results.

Next, we have the I’m not qualified attitude. Such an elder presents a very pathetic picture and in reality denies the power of the Spirit to call and qualify him for the office. I’m sure everyone feels or has felt this lack of qualification when the notice comes that the consistory has nominated him for the office of elder. For some men this becomes such an urgent matter that they wrongfully ask to have their names removed from the nomination. However, when God by means of the congregation calls us as elders, we may no longer carry with us this I’m not qualified attitude. Do we not answer “yes” to the first question of the ordination form for elders and deacons: “And in the first place I ask you, both elders and deacons, whether you do not feel in your hearts, that ye are lawfully called of God’s church, and consequently of God Himself to these your respective holy offices?” If God calls you to be an elder in His church, will He not also qualify you for the work? One who carries this attitude with him into the office is afraid to make important decisions. One who doubts his ability to do the work of the elder becomes a burden to his fellow elders and to the congregation.

These are some of the personal attitudes we have to fight against as individuals. There are also bad attitudes that elders sometimes have collectively as office bearers.

Collective Attitudes

A very serious one is the let’s not offend the congregation attitude. Such an attitude may seem on the surface to have some merit. And I’m not suggesting that we take a course of action which deliberately and unnecessarily offends the brethren. What I have in mind are those times when certain decisions need to be made for the welfare of the congregation. And because these kinds of decisions are unpopular, we take the inoffensive way of compromise.

Such action does not bless the congregation! Elders must never be afraid to do what is right, certainly you need to be responsive to the needs of the congregation—no doubt about it. But remember that ultimately you as elders are responsible to God and to Him alone. When you do His will you need not be afraid to offend a few members or even many members in the congregation.

Another collective attitude problem is the it’s not that important–let’s wait till next time attitude. The work of the church is always important. It is never wise to put it off or prolong it unnecessarily. This excuse is often used when committees fail to do their work. To permit this to happen frequently is disorderly and troublesome to the consistory and congregation. Often it’s the disagreeable tasks that we put off until a later date in the hope that the problem will go away by itself. Seldom, if ever, does this happen. More frequently the little problem turns into a festering sore. There is absolutely no room for “politics” in the church and in its consistory. Politics in the church means trouble for the church.

Another collective attitude that sometimes troubles congregations is the attitude that the elders alone know what’s right for the church or congregation. The direct result of this attitude is the serious problem of elders lording it over the church. When this becomes prevalent, one begins to notice that the congregation is kept in the dark about certain actions of which they should be informed. Other actions are covered up so the congregation will not find out what is going on. Congregational decisions are ignored and sometimes not even carried out because the elders know better than the congregation. Some even dare to assert that the congregation didn’t know what it was doing anyway. Such an attitude and its direct results eventually disrupt the unity and the harmony of the church.

Finally, we would direct your attention to an unbrotherly attitude sometimes held by elders toward an individual member of the congregation.

This is the there goes the old troublemaker again attitude. Often the church, probably every congregation, has one or two or more members who have problems. Sometimes these are sin problems -over and over again a member may have to be visited and admonished to live a sanctified life. They become a source of frustration and grief for the elders, so that they tend to throw up their hands and cry, “what’s the use?” One the other hand, there may be members who are diligent in contending for the faith once given to the saints. They point out and expose problems and difficulties that they see. They are concerned for the sake of the truth and for the congregation. Often they are wrongfully called “trouble makers.” When elders take the attitude that “it’s just that old trouble maker again,” they tend to ignore that person. They are reluctant to visit that person. It’s very possible that they put off visiting him or make no attempt to visit at all. When this happens they are doing a disservice to that member, to the congregation, and to Christ Himself who is the Lord of the church. When this happens the elders have forgotten that the people of God are like sheep that often go astray. From a human viewpoint such a discriminatory attitude is understandable; from God’s viewpoint it is intolerable.

These are a few of the attitudes that office bearers have to fight against. Wrong attitudes are sinful attitudes and are troublesome to the church of Christ. Office bearers need to be prayerfully on their guard against wrong attitudes within themselves and within their fellow office bearers.

The Proper Attitude

However, this paper would be incomplete without saying a few words about the proper attitude of elders toward their work.

The proper attitudes needed for the office of elder must be rooted in humility. Pride has absolutely no place in the elders’ bench. The elder has to have a deep-seated reverence for God and for His Word. Elders must be captive to that Word and be guided by it. Elders must humbly submit to that Word and although placed in a position of rulership must ever realize that they are servants of God and thus also of God’s people. They should frequently remind themselves of the example Christ set at the last supper when He washed the feet of His disciples. Wise elders acknowledge that in their own strength they are unable to do the work they are called to do, but are diligent in that work anyway knowing that God will qualify them with His wisdom and grace. They are not afraid of what men will say but will do all to the glory of God. Their chief motivation is the welfare of God’s people and of their fellow saints. God has blessed our churches with God–fearing elders. For that we must be forever thankful. Our calling as churches is to continue to seek men for the office who are spiritually qualified. Your calling as elders is to continue to rule as Christ’s representatives.

Mr. Kalsbeek, principal of the Protestant Reformed Christian School, Redlands, CA, read this paper at an Elders‘ Conference of his church on Sept. 1, 1981.