# Ordination of Elder



## bisonrancher (Jul 26, 2009)

In the next few weeks we will be nominating men to serve as elders. After the nomination process, consistory will narrow down the list of names, and voting will take place.

What age are the elders in your church? I have heard of elders as old as 85, and as young as 25. Generally most of the elders in my church are between 45-55 years of age, but lately a few younger ones have been nominated and voted in.

It is my belief that younger men could add a great deal of fervor and zeal to the work of the church, however, some other members have suggested that it is of importance for an elder to raise a family and build up more life experience before serving in office.

Any thoughts?


----------



## raekwon (Jul 26, 2009)

The elders of any church will reflect that church in a number of ways, age included.

Our church, for example, largely consists of undergraduate students, grad students, and young married couples (with and without children). There are certainly some older folks here and there, of course.

Anyway, with that being the case, our five elders range in age from 26-35 (I'm right in the middle of the pack at 30, though I was 28 when examined and 29 when ordained). Our lead pastor is 35.

As far as "life experience" goes, it depends on how one defines it. The closest biblical requirement to "life experience" is that a man must manage his household well. That doesn't necessarily equal "raising a family". I'd venture to say that even a young *single* man could qualify to serve as an elder if the pattern of his life is one of wise household management (in addition to the other biblical requirements). An age requirement for office is an artificial, unbiblical practice, in my view.


----------



## Sven (Jul 26, 2009)

If young men can become pastors of Churches, then young men can become elders of Churches, provided they are properly trained, and examined. Marriage is an asset to becoming an elder, but not a necessity, this goes for both pastors and elders.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jul 27, 2009)

Gifting and maturity in faith are more important than age.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Jul 27, 2009)

The elders in my church are 32 (me), 55 and 76.

'30' has always been the notional figure that has sat in my head. But the real issue is, as has been said, spiritual maturity.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 27, 2009)

I agree with the principle that gifting and spiritual maturity are more prime than chronological age. A man can be 70 and be spiritually immature.

That said, as I get older and gain more responsibility, I'm starting to understand increasingly why people with great responsibility are very deliberate in ways that made me impatient even 5-10 years ago. Being "energetic" is not always a good thing if it translates into restlessness or impulsiveness or a desire to immediately fix a situation.

One of the ironies after reading Wired for years and their irrational exuberance over youthful leadership was the study that demonstrated that the most successful IT firms are led by men who are middle aged. We kind of have a built in error these days that all the problems of today are only going to be solved by the new generation. Without getting political we even hear it in rhetoric that the old ways don't work and a "try anything new" mentality sets in.

I'm not saying youthful energy is a bad thing and there is a tendency to become tired and compromising when one gets old but I do find a basic wisdom in ancient social customs. Even Jesus had to wait until He was 13 before He became a "son of the Law" and He had to wait until He was 30 before He was considered a mature man by His culture - this during a time when people grew up fast.

We could learn a lot about being deliberate.


----------



## Theogenes (Jul 27, 2009)

There's a reason why they're called "Elders"...
BTW, I'm just about 51 and the other elder is 57.


----------



## Curt (Jul 27, 2009)

Our two other elders are in their 50s. I'm the elder-elder at 64.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 27, 2009)

Theogenes said:


> There's a reason why they're called "Elders"...
> BTW, I'm just about 51 and the other elder is 57.



Funny, based on your picture, I would have put you in your mid 20's.

Serously, I thank God for Providences that hindered me from Eldership on two occasions in my life. I look back now and had certain competencies for the task but lacked others. I'm not saying my experience is normative but I can see a ton of growth from 7 years ago when a friend told me he thought I'd make a great Elder. I know now what I didn't know then that I simply was not spiritually mature enough.

I am quite certain I'll look back 10 years from now and realize how much I've matured in my 40's but I have noticed in myself a calmness and deliberateness I did not once have. Those who think I'm pretty intense and obnoxious now would have hated my guts when I was in my 20's and early 30's. That said (and I don't want to sound proud) there were always things in me that folks appreciated in Church settings - my passion and thoroughness.

Again, I'm not trying to discourage people who are sitting elders or are considering eldership but I'm simply noting that, for most people, there is a seasoning and humbling process that comes about from battling sin and temptation over an extended period. It also greatly helps that you've walked a certain path that you see others with full awareness of your own indwelling sin so when you counsel others it's not impatient but in recognition of your own fallenness and experiences in those areas.


----------



## Romans922 (Jul 27, 2009)

My church, we have 3 elders including myself:

27, late 40's, and 69


----------



## Webservant (Jul 27, 2009)

I was asked if I would be willing to serve as an elder at the age of 22. I was honored, but I knew at that time that it would have been a big mistake. While it is possible, I would urge an extra measure of caution before nominating the *very* young.


----------



## raekwon (Jul 27, 2009)

Good words, gentlemen.

Please know that I meant no disrespect toward those who find it wiser to have a church's elders be (generally) older men. I'm in agreement with you! I was just pointing out that making an extrabiblical hard-and-fast age/family status rule probably isn't the best course to take.

Here's John Piper on the topic of the ages of elders:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HS0huY9Eis]YouTube - John Piper - How Old Should Elders Be?[/ame]


----------



## Edward (Jul 27, 2009)

bisonrancher said:


> It is my belief that younger men could add a great deal of fervor and zeal to the work of the church, however, some other members have suggested that it is of importance for an elder to raise a family and build up more life experience before serving in office.
> 
> Any thoughts?



While I agree that spiritual maturity is not directly related to chronological age, there is frequently some correlation. 

Depending on what is meant by "fervor and zeal", that may indicate men who are not yet ready for the burden of eldership.


----------

