# Upper Age Limit for Ruling Elders?



## bookslover (Jun 5, 2011)

I'm wondering if there should be an upper age limit for serving as a Ruling Elder on a Session or Consistory. I've thought that a man should be required to retire at, say 70. This would make room for some younger blood on the Session or Consistory. I've known some Ruling Elders who stayed on their Sessions well after their health had started failing, etc.

There is some biblical precedent for this. In ancient Israel, the Levites faced a mandatory retirement age of 50 (Numbers 8.23-26). (So I'm being generous by letting elders stay until they're 70!)

What say ye?


----------



## ChariotsofFire (Jun 6, 2011)

Some of the wisest men in our church are over 70. I wouldn't want to enforce a blanket age limit when those men can still clearly lead.

If there are younger men in the congregation that also have the spiritual gifts to be elders, why not just have more elders?


----------



## Tripel (Jun 6, 2011)

I don't like age limits. A better solution is to have term limits and require re-election. If the congregation continues to elect someone who is very old, they probably have a good reason to do so. If they want younger blood, they have the option.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Jun 6, 2011)

So long as there is some mechanism to guard against senility, I don't believe in limits.


----------



## TimV (Jun 6, 2011)

I don't like a certain assumption you made, namely 



> This would make room for some younger blood on the Session



Real, qualified elders are a scarce commodity and there should be no limit to the number on a session.


----------



## Zenas (Jun 6, 2011)

TimV said:


> I don't like a certain assumption you made, namely
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
In situations I've seen, the older men were not the qualified ones.


----------



## TimV (Jun 6, 2011)

True!


----------



## JBaldwin (Jun 6, 2011)

If we had an age limit of 70, the best elder in our church would not be qualified. We rely heavily on his wisdom, experience and love for the Lord. I've always thought that churches tend to elect too many young elders who don't really have any wisdom or experience to lead.


----------



## Zenas (Jun 6, 2011)

I could see the merit in this, and then, I could see the problems.

First and foremost, there's no Scriptural requirement for it. Secondly, there are men older than 70 who are plenty fit to serve. 

Conversely, there have been situations where Sessions of Elders have been inhabited by men inherently unfit to serve who no one will remove for fear of offending them. Such a rule would at least cap the damage they do.


----------



## JBaldwin (Jun 6, 2011)

Zenas said:


> I could see the merit in this, and then, I could see the problems.
> 
> First and foremost, there's no Scriptural requirement for it. Secondly, there are men older than 70 who are plenty fit to serve.
> 
> Conversely, there have been situations where Sessions of Elders have been inhabited by men inherently unfit to serve who no one will remove for fear of offending them. Such a rule would at least cap the damage they do.



In many churches where I've been a member, elders remain elders for life, but have to be re-elected to voting status on the session every three or four years.


----------



## JennyG (Jun 7, 2011)

bookslover said:


> In ancient Israel, the Levites faced a mandatory retirement age of 50



is that really comparable? surely they served in a physical capacity which might need physical fitness.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jun 7, 2011)

I don't think there should be a mandatory age of "retirement" for elders, nor should there be a minimum age. Obviously there are some who will become incapacitated at a certain age, but that is why we have a plurality of elders. Hopefully they will recognize this and make the decision to step down for him.


----------



## JennyG (Jun 7, 2011)

When a person becomes truly incapable of contributing any wise input, in practice he seems often to be also incapable of even getting to meetings; hence, he won't be liable to do much damage. 70 seems too early to me to give up on a man's potential for good counsel. 
Of course I speak as someone who's closer to the age of 70 than I was a few years ago.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jun 7, 2011)

Zenas said:


> I could see the merit in this, and then, I could see the problems.
> 
> First and foremost, there's no Scriptural requirement for it. Secondly, there are men older than 70 who are plenty fit to serve.
> 
> Conversely, there have been situations where Sessions of Elders have been inhabited by men inherently unfit to serve who no one will remove for fear of offending them. Such a rule would at least cap the damage they do.



The other rule or method seems to be term limits. But then the elder is likely to just get voted back on at some point in the future, or there will at least be a desire to do so on the part of some in the congregation unless he was unpopular. 

I know of a congregation that split over this. The new pastor came in and at some point shortly thereafter saw that some candidates who had previously served as RE's were not qualified, at least with regard to their knowledge of their duties and perhaps the Reformed faith in general. (Presumably if they were unqualified on moral grounds or not ruling their house well they would have been DQ'd over that.) The new TE wanted to have more training before they were put back on the session. But others argued that "We've never done it that way." The session was not united in their vote on the issue. If I recall correctly the Presbytery supported those who argued that no further training was necessary (presuming there was ever any real training to start with.) Even though those elders who favored re-training were the majority, they eventually all ended up leaving.


----------



## Scott1 (Jun 7, 2011)

I'm not sure the Levite is an analogous situation. The 50 year old limit being part of the civil law given the Old Testament theocracy of Israel would not be binding on us today, but there might be a principle applicable.

Many difficulties in that, however. E.g. what were life expectancies then verses now, did this have something to do with tribal generations (e.g. only the tribe of Levi could do this), and there apparently was some heavy lifting required in that Old Testament position.... not sure we can draw from that.

It seems like there is more biblical principle to value maturity and testing in the faith. While not a guarantee, there is a tendency toward that coming with age- something the church needs.


----------



## ericfromcowtown (Jun 7, 2011)

I don't like either the idea of having a mandatory retirement age, or of having term limits. 

Do any of the reformed denominations have term limits? I think this is quite common in the broader evangelical church (my father-in-law who was a deacon in a pentacostal church was shocked that we had no term limits, as others wouldn't be "given a turn" and staleness would result), but I have not heard of this in my limited experience with reformed denominations.

We have one elder who requested to step down from his duties on session due to advancing age, but he's still an elder. I think we unofficially call him our elder "emeritus."


----------



## he beholds (Jun 7, 2011)

Why can't you keep the old guys and vote in the new guys? Do some churches have limits on numbers of elders? Our church has officer nominations every year (I think, so don't quote me!), and we have a lot of elders. Sure, this _could_ create other problems (like maybe the church just waits for the elders to do it/is afraid to act on anything without the elders' direction--and I bet this could happen in any church, regardless of number of elders), but I can't imagine older elders getting in the way of electing younger ones.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jun 7, 2011)

ericfromcowtown said:


> Do any of the reformed denominations have term limits?



As far as I know none of them have an official policy on term limits. That's left to the local congregation. 

The OPC church I was a member of did not have term limits and has had the same RE's for the better part of a decade. Other OPC churches may have limits. It seems to be a fairly common practice in the PCA. I don't know about Mark Dever type elder-led Baptist congregations, but many independent Bible churches have term limits, with "staleness," "giving other men an opportunity," "giving them some rest" from those duties are often cited. Some churches seem to have an arbitrary limit for the number of elders, such as 3 in smaller and medium sized congregations. 

I've always wondered why a church plant in another part of the community is not considered if there are that many qualified elders and if that number of them is not needed in that particular congregation. Of course, as we've been discussing, in many cases the elder is not qualified. I've known some that are eminently qualified to serve as a deacon but who are not apt to teach and who lack knowledge of theological issues, being incapable in at least some cases of refuting those who contradict. In many cases they also take no active role in shepherding, but often that's more of a problem of the church as a whole and their conception of the responsibilities of elders than it is with the men themselves.


----------



## Scott1 (Jun 7, 2011)

Not sure this is what the original post is contemplating, but in line with the ensuing discussion...

While I'm not aware of age limits for officers generally, many churches by local custom require sabbaticals after a certain number of years of service. E.g. Two three year terms, then a mandatory sabbatical of at least one year. That means some officers are "active" (e.g. on Session) while others are "inactive" (not presently serving a term on Session). There may be a better term for the distinction- as the doctrine is that the office is perpetual for the men so called (Deacon and Elder) so, once an officer, always so.

That would seem to apply even if required to retire at a certain age.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe (Jun 7, 2011)

I don't think a retirement age is a wise thing. I think that the sabbatical idea posted above while being able to elect new elders is a good idea. The popular idea with young people is that "old people are boring and need to get out of the way" and old people think that "young people are trying all kinds of new fangled things and need to grow up first" (attitudes I have seen) and neither of those is a biblical or good idea. Both are needed on an elder board and have plenty to bring to the table.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jun 7, 2011)

ericfromcowtown said:


> Do any of the reformed denominations have term limits?



Our church has quasi limits. It allows an elder to serve for three terms. At the end of three terms, the elder must take at least one term off before being voted for another term. So it is not that once you reach the limit you are done forever, but it forces a break.


----------

