# What minimum age should a ruling elder be?



## Osage Bluestem

What is the minimum age for a ruling elder either official or in your opinion in your denomination? I'm PCA and I have no idea. However, I have heard of some ruling elders I thought might be a little less than elderly....I guess.


----------



## louis_jp

Having had some negative experience with young elders, I would suggest about 40.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

louis_jp said:


> Having had some negative experience with young elders, I would suggest about 40.


 
That's about what I was thinking. It would be hard to follow an "elder" who was under 40.


----------



## Tripel

40 is too high in my opinion. If you're going to set a minimum age (and I don't think you should), I'd say 30


----------



## SemperEruditio

Tripel said:


> 40 is too high in my opinion. If you're going to set a minimum age (and I don't think you should), I'd say 30


 
I take it you're under 40...?


----------



## Tripel

SemperEruditio said:


> I take it you're under 40...?


 
Yep. Under 30.


----------



## nasa30

Joshua said:


> louis_jp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having had some negative experience with young elders, I would suggest about 40.
> 
> 
> 
> *HEADLINES:*
> 
> Jesus was turned down as a legitimate nomination for elder at First Baptist Church, Noville, Noconsin because he was too young, sources say.
Click to expand...

 
Hey Hey, Why are you picking on the Baptists?


----------



## jambo

I don't believe you can set a minimum age on an elder. A person can meet the qualifications outlined in 1 Timothy and Titus but still not be suitable for eldership. A person needs to be mature, experienced in the Christian life, provide wise counsel, be spiritual, prayerful, able to shepherd the flock etc. One does not become these things quickly but it takes a number of years. Paul states that a test of en elder is whether he can manage his own household well. This would imply that a person would probably be in his 30 s at least before he can demonstrate that he does manage his household well. I know some may argue that a household may be servants and a 20 year old can still rule servants well but by and large it would imply that this is something that is proved over a number of years. Paul also advises that elders should not be new converts and then exhorts Timothy to be an example to those who may look down on his youthfulness. It seems then that maturity and readiness for the office of elder can vary.

I would say the minimum age for an elder is the age when the congregation recognises his spiritual maturity, can trust him to lead the church forward and to have confidence in his leadership during the difficult days the church finds herself in. For one person that may be at 60, for another it might be 30 something.


----------



## PresbyDane

Well considering that in the bibel you had to be 30 to be considered grown up and Jesus began his ministry at that age because they would look at him as credible.
I would say 30 years of age + other qualifyers that are not age related

And to Frank - I am under 30


----------



## jambo

Frank

I was trying to flick this fly of my screen before I realised it was your avatar. Good job I didn't use a fly swatter.


----------



## AThornquist

nasa30 said:


> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> louis_jp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having had some negative experience with young elders, I would suggest about 40.
> 
> 
> 
> *HEADLINES:*
> 
> Jesus was turned down as a legitimate nomination for elder at First Baptist Church, Noville, Noconsin because he was too young, sources say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Hey, Why are you picking on the Baptists?
Click to expand...

 
At least Jesus apparently agrees with our view of baptism.


----------



## SemperEruditio

jambo,
Good thing you didn't swat the computer, I would've felt pretty bad...but not as bad as your computer. 

We have an elder who just turned 30. He was ordained at 28. I'm 38 and think he's too young to be taken serious but he does not take himself serious which helps us in taking him serious.... It works but he would be the exception rather than the rule.

I would say at least 30 to be an elder but I wouldn't disqualify someone under 30. It's just not too many men under 30 have had a life with enough experience to warrant eldership. Military guys or people coming from some 3rd world might fit the bill for under 30 eldership but I have a bias.


----------



## N. Eshelman

I'm an elder and only 32 years old.


----------



## SemperEruditio

nleshelman said:


> I'm an elder and only 32 years old.



You're either +2 or -8....haven't decided yet.


----------



## TimV

Elder means old. There are exceptions, but elder means old. Deacon means to serve, but elder means old. 50 at least, normally. But there are exceptions. But they're exceptions.


----------



## N. Eshelman

TimV said:


> Elder means old. There are exceptions, but elder means old. Deacon means to serve, but elder means old. 50 at least, normally. But there are exceptions. But they're exceptions.



So for most of the country- 65 years old. That is the beginning of old right? You have to have an AARP card. 

In Los Angeles it is 30. You are old and washed up if you are older than 30.


----------



## lynnie

They say Timothy was maybe 32-34 and had spent a dozen years in ministry with Paul before he began the senior pastor type thing ordaining elders. I don't see how people can say it is OK to have a TE who just got ordained out of Seminary in his 20s pastoring a church and then say an RE must be much older. I would say the TE should ideally have far more wisdom and experience than an RE. Not sure of the Refomed history on this though.

Tim...if they got married by 18 and had kids in bible days, they would be grandparents before 40. So that's old if you ask me!


----------



## Rich Koster

I smell MANLAW brewing......


----------



## raekwon

MANLAW (ie: man-made law), indeed.

Those who think that there should be a minimum age -- what do you do in a church where almost everyone is under that age? Also, what of teaching elders? Should a man not be a (paid, vocational) pastor until he's 40 (or 50 or whatever)? Let's not build a hedge of legalism around God's Word, folks. Maybe it's just my youthful foolishness talking. ;-)

(I was ordained as a RE at 29. I'm 31 now.)


----------



## Edward

raekwon said:


> MANLAW (ie: man-made law), indeed.
> 
> Those who think that there should be a minimum age -- what do you do in a church where almost everyone is under that age? Also, what of teaching elders? Should a man not be a (paid, vocational) pastor until he's 40 (or 50 or whatever)? Let's not build a hedge of legalism around God's Word, folks. Maybe it's just my youthful foolishness talking. ;-)
> 
> (I was ordained as a RE at 29. I'm 31 now.)


 
I speak only of myself here, and not of you or others who may have commented. But when I was 30, I was convinced that I was mature enough to be a ruling elder. Several decades on, I am quite convinced that I need a good more maturity before I would be suitable for the office.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Paul said to young Timothy,



> "Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity." - I Timothy 4:12


----------



## SolaScriptura

So, what about some of these Baptist boys getting ordained to preach at 12 or so? If you're not going to have a minimum, then you've got to be consistent.

The reality is: I doesn't matter how smart or Godly a person is... there are simply somethings in life that require seasoning on the part of a person in order to give them perspective. Shepherding the Church of God is not to be given to tender young hands.


----------



## raekwon

SolaScriptura said:


> So, what about some of these Baptist boys getting ordained to preach at 12 or so? If you're not going to have a minimum, then you've got to be consistent.
> 
> The reality is: I doesn't matter how smart or Godly a person is... there are simply somethings in life that require seasoning on the part of a person in order to give them perspective. Shepherding the Church of God is not to be given to tender young hands.


 
Absolutely, Ben! No one's arguing for the office of elder to be given into immature hands. Spiritual maturity is a requirement for office. Not only that, but a man must at least be at a point in his life where his househhold management skills can be examined properly. A 12-year-old is no doubt disqualified. But, to assign a numeric age a man must reach before he may be considered is to require more of him than God requires of him. Are we wiser than God?

Look, I'm not going to kid myself. I know that younger guys like myself have areas in which we need to grow. In probably 95% of PCA churches, a guy like me wouldn't be given consideration (some reasons good, some bad). But the fact remains that God is calling younger men into this office where they're needed.


----------



## au5t1n

AThornquist said:


> nasa30 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> louis_jp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having had some negative experience with young elders, I would suggest about 40.
> 
> 
> 
> *HEADLINES:*
> 
> Jesus was turned down as a legitimate nomination for elder at First Baptist Church, Noville, Noconsin because he was too young, sources say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Hey, Why are you picking on the Baptists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least Jesus apparently agrees with our view of baptism.
Click to expand...

 
Jesus is already disqualified for eldership in my old denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, because of his moderate alcohol consumption.


----------



## LawrenceU

This debate has gone on and will go on as long as we need elders in the church of Christ. All I know is there are not nearly enough men who are qualified to be elders in the church of Christ. That is the real shame.


----------



## Romans922

Wouldn't this be the same as a teaching elder? I was 26 when I was ordained.


----------



## raekwon

The ages of the elders in our church . . .

TE - 35; REs - 35, 31, 31, 27

We're a young church. We're going to have young leaders. Now, should we all be elders in every other PCA church, just because we were ordained to serve in this one? Certainly not! Neither should every 40-60 year old elder in the PCA presume that they should be elders in ours. God puts the right men in the right place at the right time.


----------



## jogri17

If God has giving the gifts and there is a legtimate call, I don't see why a 19 year old man with a wife and kids and has been living independantly from his parents for x of his time couldn't be one if the situation called for it.


----------



## kevin.carroll

In classical usage, _presbuteros_ referred to somone over 50. Interestingly, the Council of Neocaeserea (AD 314) set "canonical age" at 30.

I have often wondered if we don't ordain men too young. Speaking of myself, I can look back and see that I am a completely different man (in terms of emotional and spiritual maturity) at 42 than I was at 24.


----------



## Romans922

kevin.carroll said:


> In classical usage, _presbuteros_ referred to somone over 50. Interestingly, the Council of Neocaeserea (AD 314) set "canonical age" at 30.
> 
> I have often wondered if we don't ordain men too young. Speaking of myself, I can look back and see that I am a completely different man (in terms of emotional and spiritual maturity) at 42 than I was at 24.



Not arguing with you, but won't you say that same thing when you are 60 in reference to 42?


----------



## kevin.carroll

Romans922 said:


> Not arguing with you, but won't you say that same thing when you are 60 in reference to 42?


 
Very likely.


----------



## TimV

And he doesn't look a day over 40


----------



## jwithnell

Maturity in the faith is key here: a young man who has followed Christ all his life and is well grounded both in the Word and his walk would be far better candidate than a 60-year-old who has only walked with Christ for a few years. 

One of our better elders was a young man who just completed graduate school -- he had been reared with an excellent Christian education and had a godly wife. His grasp of Greek was so sound our (excellent!) pastor sometimes deferred to him on matters of grammar. This fella was one of the most natural preachers I've ever heard -- with no seminary background he sometimes filled our pulpit. We lost him because he stood up for what was Biblically correct and was forced out of his position teaching at a Christian college.

That said, a church's process for bringing a candidate on board is critical in weeding out those who might truly be immature -- the training and mentorship here takes about 2 years.


----------



## Robert Truelove

Rather than setting a artificial minimum age, would it not be more biblical to understand this as an issue of discernment? There have been men ordained in their 20s who God made into giants before their 30th year (Calvin and Spurgeon to name 2), and men ordained in their 30s who became giants in heresy by their elder years (Finney to name 1).


----------



## Romans922

Given my age, I am not claiming this at all, however M'Cheyne is another young man who was used mightily in his short early life.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

As was Matthew Henry who took his first church at 25 and died at the young age of 52. It is astonishing to think of all he accomplished in his short life and even more astonishing to think of what he might have accomplished if the Lord had seen fit to leave him another 20 or so years.


----------



## TimV

But those exceptions just prove the rule. Elder means old, just like deacon means to serve.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

TimV said:


> But those exceptions just prove the rule. Elder means old, just like deacon means to serve.


 
You'll forgive me but I don't quite see how they _"prove the rule."_

And I think it can be argued quite cogently that the title "elder" means _"mature"_ more so than _"old."_ After all, it is spiritual maturity that is requisite to the office and not physical age (I Tim. 3:6).


----------



## thegospel

TimV said:


> But those exceptions just prove the rule. Elder means old, just like deacon means to serve.


 
I would agree with Rev. Sheffield, "that the title "elder" means mature". 

Why would we want to set a minimum age? In other words, what is the reasoning for this? We want to God to work in the lives of our young men and pray that they would be mature in Christ to serve and lead his church. Experience is not _always_ the best teacher. So an abundance of experience in life is not a pre-requisite for me.

This reminds me of my position as a parent to train my children and to ensure that my sons know the Scriptures. So that they can one day be able to lead and manage their households well, and if the Lord calls them to be elders in his church, I will have laid the foundation.

May the Lord raise up shepherds for his blood bought flock.


----------



## TimV

> Why would we want to set a minimum age?



You wouldn't want to set a minimum age. You just need to realise that young people are exceptions. The modern Sanhedrin has a rule of 40 years, but expressly states that in cases of unusual learning a younger man can serve.


----------



## thegospel

TimV said:


> Why would we want to set a minimum age?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't want to set a minimum age. You just need to realise that young people are exceptions. The modern Sanhedrin has a rule of 40 years, but expressly states that in cases of unusual learning a younger man can serve.
Click to expand...


Why are young leaders exceptions?

1 Timothy 3:6, says, "and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil". 

If they are to be exceptions may it not be because parents (like myself) have failed to do what God has called us to do.


----------



## SemperEruditio

Seems we are judging men out of their era. All the men mentioned come from a very different time. Just in education they were expected to know more. The work many did just a hundred years ago at the B.A. level would be considered Ph.D. material by our standards. Without even going "back in time" men outside of the US are expected to become men at much younger ages. They are expected to handle responsibilities. While it may seem unpopular to set a limit it is definitely unrealistic to think that the average 22 year old North American is prepared. There are exceptions but they are the exception. While experience may not be the best teacher nothing, absolutely nothing can take the place of having lived a righteous life for at least a decade or two. Having a mental assent to the effect of sexual immorality is nothing when confronted face-to-face with it. In the last two years I know of 5 men who have been Christians their "whole lives" who have fallen. Each to sexual sins and each have preached, studied, sung, and a few even held conferences about it. Knowing and doing are not synonymous. 

I would say that the Church is too quick to push young men into positions they are not ready for versus not recognizing a young man's gifts soon enough. It's all a case by case basis but I encourage the younger men at our church not into the ministry, at least not yet. I encourage them to live righteous and holy lives; to study their school work and Bibles as to unto the Lord. There are a few who I think might have the gifts but without being tested they are lambs being led to the slaughter.


----------



## dudley

My personal opinion is that the person should be a mature adult and a person who has a good understanding of the Reformed Protestant theology and the Westminster standards and the Bible and perhaps at least reached middle age of 35 to 40 years old.


----------



## MLCOPE2

62.5ish


----------



## raekwon

MLCOPE2 said:


> 62.5ish


----------



## SemperEruditio

puritanhope said:


> The question isn't age, but maturity. Let us not forget the example of Robert Murray M'Cheyne who went to be with the Lord before he was 30.


 


DD2009 said:


> What is the minimum age for a ruling elder either official or in your opinion in your denomination? I'm PCA and I have no idea. However, I have heard of some ruling elders I thought might be a little less than elderly....I guess.


 


MLCOPE2 said:


> 62.5ish



Them's retirement years!


----------



## Blue Tick

Age does matter. Consider this scenario. A young man is zealous for the Lord, knowledgeable of Scripture, has a fulltime job, family, young children, and wants to rule. Another man semi-retired, solid in doctrine, zealous for the Lord, grown children, and wants to rule. Who would you vote for? I’d vote for the older man in the congregation who is not tied too so many other responsibilities. One thing to observe men who are older and have the qualifications to rule will more than likely be able to give more time to the church. Younger men, with young families, careers, etc, should focus their time and energy on their families.


----------



## sastark

Blue Tick said:


> Age does matter. Consider this scenario. A young man is zealous for the Lord, knowledgeable of Scripture, has a fulltime job, family, young children, and wants to rule. Another man semi-retired, solid in doctrine, zealous for the Lord, grown children, and wants to rule. Who would you vote for? I’d vote for the older man in the congregation who is not tied too so many other responsibilities. One thing to observe men who are older and have the qualifications to rule will more than likely be able to give more time to the church. Younger men, with young families, careers, etc, should focus their time and energy on their families.



If both men have been *called* to the office of Ruling Elder, and both are found to be *qualified*, then why is there a question of "who would you vote for"? They should both be made Ruling Elders! The church isn't a democracy where we have campaigns to elect one qualified man a Ruling Elder instead of another, equally qualified man.


----------



## JML

Blue Tick said:


> Age does matter. Consider this scenario. A young man is zealous for the Lord, knowledgeable of Scripture, has a fulltime job, family, young children, and wants to rule. Another man semi-retired, solid in doctrine, zealous for the Lord, grown children, and wants to rule. Who would you vote for? I’d vote for the older man in the congregation who is not tied too so many other responsibilities. One thing to observe men who are older and have the qualifications to rule will more than likely be able to give more time to the church. Younger men, with young families, careers, etc, should focus their time and energy on their families.



Considering you have to be about 70 now to retire and collect social security that seems like a late start to the eldership. (by the time I get to retirement it will be about 90 probably). Thanks for holding on to my money for me Uncle Sam.


----------



## Romans922

Blue Tick said:


> Age does matter. Consider this scenario. A young man is zealous for the Lord, knowledgeable of Scripture, has a fulltime job, family, young children, and wants to rule. Another man semi-retired, solid in doctrine, zealous for the Lord, grown children, and wants to rule. Who would you vote for? I’d vote for the older man in the congregation who is not tied too so many other responsibilities. One thing to observe men who are older and have the qualifications to rule will more than likely be able to give more time to the church. Younger men, with young families, careers, etc, should focus their time and energy on their families.


 
It isn't a voting for one or the other, you are voting on both. Is the old man qualified and called to be an elder in the Church? If so, vote for him. Same for the young man.


----------



## Wanderer

Age should not be used as a factor. The congregation should be more concerned that the man is well seasoned and mature. 

The scriptures tells us that the congregation should look upon how the man has ruled his own house. With this said, if the man has no house of what to speak of, or does not have some kind of equivalent experiences then he should not be consider to become an elder. To me this does not mean he can not teach, but that do to his lack of seasoning, he is not qualified to rule in God's house. And quite frankly I don't care how much schooling he has. Nothing is compared to real life experiences and how one has govern their life and others.


----------



## sdesocio

A wise older pastor once warned a session about setting age restrictions on the session. He warned that ignoring younger men would be to the detriment of the church. While its been several years here was his sentiment(I was a student invited to sit in on the meeting at the time): When your all 40 you'll say the youngest we'll accept an RE is 35, When your 50 you'll say its 45 and when your 70 you'll say its 65.


----------



## fredtgreco

sastark said:


> Blue Tick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Age does matter. Consider this scenario. A young man is zealous for the Lord, knowledgeable of Scripture, has a fulltime job, family, young children, and wants to rule. Another man semi-retired, solid in doctrine, zealous for the Lord, grown children, and wants to rule. Who would you vote for? I’d vote for the older man in the congregation who is not tied too so many other responsibilities. One thing to observe men who are older and have the qualifications to rule will more than likely be able to give more time to the church. Younger men, with young families, careers, etc, should focus their time and energy on their families.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If both men have been *called* to the office of Ruling Elder, and both are found to be *qualified*, then why is there a question of "who would you vote for"? They should both be made Ruling Elders! The church isn't a democracy where we have campaigns to elect one qualified man a Ruling Elder instead of another, equally qualified man.
Click to expand...

 Focusing energy on the church *is* focusing on your family.


----------



## JoeRe4mer

With respect to all parties in this debate I believe that assigning an arbitrary age requirement to the office of elder when scripture does not do so is dangerous. It is also quite clear that from many of the posts that I have read there exists a clear bias against anyone who happens to be called to preach a relatively younger age (20-30). In light of this here is some food for thought.

Isaac Watts writer of Logic and some 750 hymns took his first pastorate in 1702 at the age of 28

C.H. Spurgeon took the pastorate at the New Park Street Chapel at the age of 19

John Calvin published his Latin edition of Institutes of the Christian Religion in 1536 at the age of 29

John Owen wrote A Display of Arminianism in March of 1642 at the age of 26.

The list could be much longer but I think the point has been made. Personally, I tend to wonder if some of this animosity toward younger elders is based on sinful jealousy or personal pride. In any event, we would all do well to heed Paul's admonishment to Timothy and let no one despise us (or our elders) for their youth.


----------



## Theogenes

Since the bible doesn't give us an age I would say he just look old....so, guys, color your hair white!


----------



## Joseph Scibbe

I think it is foolish to set a minimum age for eldership. Timothy was young and Paul told him not to let that be a hinderance. I would say an elder must be a mature Christian no doubt but I ahve met many 20 somethings who had more sense and ability to lead and far more maturity in Christ than many older men. Minimum age is a poor idea.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

It can't be doubted that a grey head is a real asset in the ministry regardless of one's competence. I've known some grey-headed "pastors" who would ravage a church only to move on to the next. And it is certain that their age ingratiated them to the churches seeking pastors.


----------



## raekwon

Let's just be careful that, in our not-despising youth, we don't start despising not-youth.

(Does that make ANY sense?)


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

raekwon said:


> Let's just be careful that, in our not-despising youth, we don't start despising not-youth.
> 
> (Does that make ANY sense?)


 
It makes perfect sense. I for one, look forward to being old and white-headed (DV).


----------



## SemperEruditio

raekwon said:


> Let's just be careful that, in our not-despising youth, we don't start despising not-youth.
> 
> (Does that make ANY sense?)


 
Too late! If you look at ministry opportunities available in the PCA you will see where they want a 25-35yo, who has earned a Ph.D. in theology from Edinburgh, married with 2.5kids, debtfree, with 10 years post-MDiv experience as an assistant pastor, and 5 years as a senior pastor of a congregation of no less than 1000....he must like kittens and butterflies


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

SemperEruditio said:


> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's just be careful that, in our not-despising youth, we don't start despising not-youth.
> 
> (Does that make ANY sense?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too late! If you look at ministry opportunities available in the PCA you will see where they want a 25-35yo, who has earned a Ph.D. in theology from Edinburgh, married with 2.5kids, debtfree, with 10 years post-MDiv experience as an assistant pastor, and 5 years as a senior pastor of a congregation of no less than 1000....he must like kittens and butterflies
Click to expand...

 
Jealous


----------



## SemperEruditio

C. M. Sheffield said:


> SemperEruditio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's just be careful that, in our not-despising youth, we don't start despising not-youth.
> 
> (Does that make ANY sense?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too late! If you look at ministry opportunities available in the PCA you will see where they want a 25-35yo, who has earned a Ph.D. in theology from Edinburgh, married with 2.5kids, debtfree, with 10 years post-MDiv experience as an assistant pastor, and 5 years as a senior pastor of a congregation of no less than 1000....he must like kittens and butterflies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jealous
Click to expand...

 
Not really....I don't care for kittens.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe

raekwon said:


> Let's just be careful that, in our not-despising youth, we don't start despising not-youth.
> 
> (Does that make ANY sense?)


 
I totally understand. I think both young and old have a lot to bring to the table. I am sorry if my comments seemed harsh. I probably should have mentioned that an elder group of all young people seems unwise as well.


----------



## Edward

SemperEruditio said:


> Too late! If you look at ministry opportunities available in the PCA you will see where they want a 25-35yo, who has earned a Ph.D. in theology from Edinburgh, married with 2.5kids, debtfree, with 10 years post-MDiv experience as an assistant pastor, and 5 years as a senior pastor of a congregation of no less than 1000....he must like kittens and butterflies


 
At least 2, and I think 3, of our assistants have been senior pastors.


----------



## raekwon

I'll tell ya... it was interesting this past weekend for me to examine (as part of a presbytery commission) ruling elder candidates who almost all became Christians before I was born.


----------



## Dewi Sant

DD2009 said:


> What is the minimum age for a ruling elder either official or in your opinion in your denomination? I'm PCA and I have no idea. However, I have heard of some ruling elders I thought might be a little less than elderly....I guess.



Let's go back to the OP and discuss Ruling Elders for a moment: Where in all of this are the needs of God's people met? In small PCA churches a plurality of elders is achieved by 1 TE & 1 RE. Get it? Wink, wink, nod, nod... 2 elders - plural. In fact a plurality does not mean plural in this instance (In my humble opinion), but rather that one position prevails over another by more votes but not by one half. If you take the position that the people have a right to be ruled by a plurality (as I do) then I presume that means 2 RE'S & 1 TE. Or do I presume too much? It's more like having a Board of Deacons of only one man - is it really a board? When calling elders, the people call out men from among themselves. We can't expect perfection, but we might expect willingness - to learn and to grow in service to God's people. What we should not do is relinquish our duty and let the elders pick the elders. Or give us just one because that one is too young and that one is too old. On the other hand, we cannot let the session shirk their duty to train up men and make them ready for the day - should the call come.
Take a church of only 10 families, minister not included. In these busy times a ruling elder can surely oversee & visit his own plus 4 other families. And cannot 2 deacons provide a vital deaconate? I say, train 'em, call 'em & put 'em to work. We're asking them to help & govern, not preach.
But that's just me.

Kris


----------

