Educated Eldership

[scottmaciver]

I would be interested to hear what the various denominations represented on the board would understand by the concept of an educated eldership. I don't have anything in mind in asking the question, other than the fact that I've noticed that some denominations use the phrase.

Obviously, Scripture teaches that elders ought to be apt to teach, but does an educated eldership go beyond that to perhaps include examination on aspects of theology or the doctrinal standards of the church? Practically speaking, what does an educated eldership look like?

 

[Edward]

The standards of the PCA:

"after the close of the nomination period nominees for the office of ruling elder and/or deacon shall receive instruction in the qualifications and work of the office.

Each nominee shall then be examined in:

a. his Christian experience, especially his personal character and family management (based on the qualifications set out in 1 Timothy 3:1- 7 and Titus 1:6-9),

b. his knowledge of Bible content,

c. his knowledge of the system of doctrine, government, discipline contained in the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in America (BCO Preface III, The Constitution Defined),

d. the duties of the office to which he has been nominated, and

e. his willingness to give assent to the questions required for ordination. (BCO 24-6) "

 

[scottmaciver]

Thanks Edward. The standards of the PCA seem comprehensive.

Is this typical of other denominations or would it be the exception?

 

[whirlingmerc]

Despite the BOC being very clear on this, even in the PCA some churches seem to take that as elders may be merely teachable and a bit more like a sanctified business board. In the PCA every elder is given title teacher and should be able and zealous to teach.

The problem is that an elder should be both teachable and able to teach. In practical terms they shepherd significantly using the word in his shepherding and so the teaching might look like counseling, decision making, visiting, leading, planning, discerning.... but it isn't a mere ability to pass a test. A shepherd doesn't just have truth but loves truth and is able to apply and share truth. It will not necessarily mean every elder is good at leading a class or giving a sermon. I would expect every elder to be able to give a short devotional though and to give spontaneous prayer at meetings or in the church service. A shepherd makes use of teachable moments and if they can't are they really shepherds.

 

[Edward]

I would note that the Bible Content requirement for the PCA is fairly new - when I went through the process, it wasn't in there - it was probably added a year or two later.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Edward, I was on a PCA elder board where the pastor insisted elders can be teachable not teachers and he was the only teacher. What is in print and in reality are not the same. I moved on.

 

[Edward]

I moved on.

If you mean that you abandoned the flock to avoid conflict, I'm not sure that was the appropriate response. If I misunderstand you, I welcome clarification.

 

[scottmaciver]

I understand that Pilgrim Covenant Singapore require a written examination on the WCF for prospective elders.

Are there any other denominations represented on the board who require something similar? If not ought this to be something that is considered?

 

[Edward]

I understand that Pilgrim Covenant Singapore require a written examination on the WCF for prospective elders.

Are there any other denominations represented on the board who require something similar?

I don't know that a written test is required, but our class of Deacons and Elders had a written test on the Constitutional Standards at the end of the year long course. (In addition, of course, to the interviews at the beginning and end of the process.)

And to answer your question, I think it is a very good idea.

 

[Bryce]

Our elder and deacon candidates go through a class that lasts from September to May and are then examined by the Session. The training does a pretty thorough job of covering the Westminster Standards, church polity, and practical officer considerations. We've increased the standards and men are now expected to have better Bible content knowledge (e.g., learning all of the books of the Bible). When I went through the class at my current church (I was ordained in my prior PCA church before moving), I was surprised by the lack of understanding by some of the candidates about basic theology issues (such as those in TULIP), but I understand not all men are so inclined. It's definitely important to cover all of the basics to make sure the men being examined at least know what they are agreeing they believe!

 

[whirlingmerc]

Edward, their vision of eldership is radically differnt than mine. At some point it doesn't make sense to stay.

 

[scottmaciver]

Thanks for all the contributions so far. Any other takers on this thread?

 

[SolaScriptura]

Just curious: I don't think there is anyone who would disagree with the notion that elders should be knowledgable in the subjects of Bible, theology, etc.

But I was under the impression that the phrase "educated eldership" referred to the idea that ruling elders should have a formal education culminating in a degree. (Such as an MDiv or an MAR.)

Was I off base as to what the phrase "educated eldership" is referring?

 

[scottmaciver]

Good question Ben. Perhaps that is the intended meaning of the phrase, although I'm not sure! Nonetheless the principle of an educated eldership, even informally is one that caught my attention.

Speaking of it in an informal sense, an elder I spoke to suggested to me that he isn't sure about a written exam, as some people just aren't good at written exams and this might exclude good men with much knowledge. On the other hand, he said he didn't think that an oral exam would be unreasonable.

Any thoughts?

 

[whirlingmerc]

Ben, seems to me it should be evident to a large degree from the work in the church the men have done who has a shepherd's heart. An oral exam might highlight areas for improvement though... a formal degree is too restictive and most elders in the country would be artificially excuded

As an elder and deacon I never saw any exam like that except to ask if you had exceptions to the confessions

 

[Edward]

Speaking of it in an informal sense, an elder I spoke to suggested to me that he isn't sure about a written exam, as some people just aren't good at written exams and this might exclude good men with much knowledge. On the other hand, he said he didn't think that an oral exam would be unreasonable.

Any thoughts?

I would agree that a written exam would be more objective than an oral exam and thus might exclude someone who might make it through an oral exam.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Edward and others have done a good job in showing the general practice within the PCA to train/examine elders. I went through elder training three times - once in the OPC and twice for different Church in the PCA. I wasn't ready to become an elder until the third time. The training looked about the same in each. My own opinion is that the bar for knowledge is not really high and I'll explain a few of my own convictions shortly.

I have also served on my Presbytery's Candidates and Credentialing committee for a number of years and have even had a hand in updating our examinations. Even with formal seminary education, it's been my experience that the performance on exams we administer is somewhat hit and miss. Theology, like any body of knowledge, has to be regularly studied to remain sharp. I have two Engineering degrees in different disciplines (a BS and an MS) but could not pass an exam at this point to show mastery of either. They're useful in terms of the training I received but I have not kept up with the study and regular use of the tools I learned during study and so the skills were essentially lost.

My own conviction is that an Elder (either TE or RE) needs to be a regular student of theology in various disciplines. An Elder needs to be a regular reader of the Word of God. On one critical front in pastoral care - counseling - one needs to know how to properly apply the Word to the life of an individual and that cannot be accomplished unless one knows the Word of God. You cannot simply receive counseling techniques (though useful) but you need to know how to actually faithfully explain and apply the Word of God to a given person. We also live in an age (like other ages) where the faith is under assault. How do we answer questions that come to us about books by Bart Ehrman if we know nothing about Church history or textual criticism? How do we answer questions raised by the New Atheism if we know nothing about apologetics? How do we answer questions about orthodoxy concerning salvation, the Trinity, etc if we do not understand them and can explain them ourselves? How do we handle gender issues if we know nothing about Biblical anthropology?

I don't think an Elder needs to be an expert in all these matters but we cannot be ignorant. We need to know what is dangerous and what is good if we are to lead the flock and protect it.

 

[SRoper]

Just curious: I don't think there is anyone who would disagree with the notion that elders should be knowledgable in the subjects of Bible, theology, etc.

But I was under the impression that the phrase "educated eldership" referred to the idea that ruling elders should have a formal education culminating in a degree. (Such as an MDiv or an MAR.)

Was I off base as to what the phrase "educated eldership" is referring?

I thought the same thing, Ben. I thought it tended to go with the two-office view that sees one elder (the pastor) in a typical church.

 

[scottmaciver]

Just curious: I don't think there is anyone who would disagree with the notion that elders should be knowledgable in the subjects of Bible, theology, etc.

But I was under the impression that the phrase "educated eldership" referred to the idea that ruling elders should have a formal education culminating in a degree. (Such as an MDiv or an MAR.)

Was I off base as to what the phrase "educated eldership" is referring?

I thought the same thing, Ben. I thought it tended to go with the two-office view that sees one elder (the pastor) in a typical church.

Although unsure of the phrase myself, the word 'eldership' seems to suggest the plural, rather than the singular, which wouldn't sit with the educated eldership referring purely to the minister. Whatever the correct use of the term is, my initial interest related to the eldership as a whole and what the various denominations had in place as a means of determining the suitability of individuals to the eldership.

So far the PCA and OPC have been mentioned as having some sort of process in place along these lines. Does that suggest that other denominations don't have a formal process in place, aside from the obvious determination of the Session as to the suitability of prospective elders?

 

[SRoper]

Scott, you may be right. It is not a term I have encountered frequently, and my memory is a bit fuzzy.

I wouldn't read anything into a non-response from other denominations. There are simply more PCA and OPC folks here that are able to speak to this.

 

[scottmaciver]

Scott, you may be right. It is not a term I have encountered frequently, and my memory is a bit fuzzy.

I wouldn't read anything into a non-response from other denominations. There are simply more PCA and OPC folks here that are able to speak to this.

Yes maybe you are right on that one. There are a few RPCNA folk on the board. Anyone able to shed any light from the perspective of the RPCNA?

 

[Alan D. Strange]

I believe that office-bearers other than the minister(s)--i.e., the elders and deacons--need not be educated. While the minister should be "professionally" educated (which is what an M.Div. degree is), the elders and deacons should be trained, or as the PCA BOCO puts it, "receive instruction" and pass some sort of examination.

I see no requirement, biblical or otherwise, for such non-ministerial office-bearers to be "educated" (as the thread title puts it), particularly as this ordinarily implies seminary training. Two of the best elders that I've ever worked with were not in any sense of the word as we commonly take it "educated" men (they had no formal post-secondary training). But they knew the Word and could pray better than some ministers I know. They were godly, pastoral wonderful servants of the Lord and could easily sustain an exam on the points that Edward enumerated from the BOCO.

Should we have a trained eldership and diaconate? Yes. Should we have an "educated" eldership and diaconate, as we historically have required an "educated" clergy? No. That is not a proper requirement for such (though here, too, perhaps the best ruling elder that I ever had was seminary trained in addition to being a scientist professionally, though his chief virtue had nothing necessarily to do with his having attended seminary).

Peace,
Alan

 

[scottmaciver]

I believe that office-bearers other than the minister(s)--i.e., the elders and deacons--need not be educated. While the minister should be "professionally" educated (which is what an M.Div. degree is), the elders and deacons should be trained, or as the PCA BOCO puts it, "receive instruction" and pass some sort of examination.

I see no requirement, biblical or otherwise, for such non-ministerial office-bearers to be "educated" (as the thread title puts it), particularly as this ordinarily implies seminary training. Two of the best elders that I've ever worked with were not in any sense of the word as we commonly take it "educated" men (they had no formal post-secondary training). But they knew the Word and could pray better than some ministers I know. They were godly, pastoral wonderful servants of the Lord and could easily sustain an exam on the points that Edward enumerated from the BOCO.

Should we have a trained eldership and diaconate? Yes. Should we have an "educated" eldership and diaconate, as we historically have required an "educated" clergy? No. That is not a proper requirement for such (though here, too, perhaps the best ruling elder that I ever had was seminary trained in addition to being a scientist professionally, though his chief virtue had nothing necessarily to do with his having attended seminary).

Peace,
Alan

Rev Strange, thanks for the points of clarification. Perhaps it would be better termed 'trained eldership' rather than 'educated eldership,' due to the implication of seminary training, as you noted. The disciples were perceived of as unlearned men, so I agree that formal seminary training clearly isn't a requirement.

I can't speak for other countries, but in Scotland there is a lack of emphasis on a 'trained eldership and diaconate,' although notwithstanding there are many fine office bearers who haven't received 'training' as such but have learned from Godly men who have gone before them. However, I can see the benefit of training the elders and deacons, theologically and practically.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I believe that office-bearers other than the minister(s)--i.e., the elders and deacons--need not be educated. While the minister should be "professionally" educated (which is what an M.Div. degree is), the elders and deacons should be trained, or as the PCA BOCO puts it, "receive instruction" and pass some sort of examination.

I see no requirement, biblical or otherwise, for such non-ministerial office-bearers to be "educated" (as the thread title puts it), particularly as this ordinarily implies seminary training. Two of the best elders that I've ever worked with were not in any sense of the word as we commonly take it "educated" men (they had no formal post-secondary training). But they knew the Word and could pray better than some ministers I know. They were godly, pastoral wonderful servants of the Lord and could easily sustain an exam on the points that Edward enumerated from the BOCO.

Should we have a trained eldership and diaconate? Yes. Should we have an "educated" eldership and diaconate, as we historically have required an "educated" clergy? No. That is not a proper requirement for such (though here, too, perhaps the best ruling elder that I ever had was seminary trained in addition to being a scientist professionally, though his chief virtue had nothing necessarily to do with his having attended seminary).

Peace,
Alan

As one who has lived on the RE side of the fence for a number of years now and is considering whether to pursue ordination as a TE, I agree with you in the main. I think there are some skills that we need men who are preaching the Word to possess to ensure they are rightly dividing the Word of Truth. That said, there are many aspects of a Seminary education that one could argue are as much (or more) of an RE's duties as a TE's. If a TE is primarily one who labors in Word and doctrine, he is sometimes also the only one who is really receives any "professional" classwork on applied theology or counseling. Of course, part of that is our own context where many of us Presbyterians still sort of view the Pastor as the guy who is supposed to do everything.

I'm not necessarily concerned that elders go to Seminary but that they are in a process of the regular pursuit of knowledge that is relevant to their office. Regular Bible reading is, beyond question, a minimal requirement. Prayer for the flock is an absolute. But then they really ought to be pursuing greater and growing knowledge in the various disciplines. I don't believe any elder ought to be paralyzed by a sense that he doesn't know everything. Counsel men and women from where you are. I'm simply encouraging men that they have to be constantly pursuing deeper understanding of the issues - especially the issues that are at the fore of our present context.

Let me give an example. About a year and a half ago, I was part of a small delegation to help examine a man who was charged with FV and NPP leanings. A few of us were asked to come in from the outside of the respective committee because none of the TE's and RE's that were part of the committee felt they understood the issues to examine the man.

Now, I had some advantage having participated here but I spent several hours making sure I honed the relevant issues to prepare for the exam and it boiled down to me and one other fellow asking all the questions while the primary group sat in silence. A number of men even stated repeatedly they weren't qualified to ask any questions because they didn't understand it.

I suppose my concern then is both a local pastoral concern (how do I protect my local flock from error and answer their questions when they come to me with things) and a broder Church polity issue (how do we protect the Church from error). I think RE's are responsible for both and they need to be learners. Do they need to be an "educated Eldership" to mean that they have to have a Seminary degree? No, I completely agree with you. Should we be doing more to encourage RE's (and TE's for that matter) to continue to sharpen their understanding of many different matters? Absolutely.

Incidentally, I am Providentially blessed beyond measure that New Life in Christ in Fredericksburg, VA is a satellite campus of New Geneva. The Pastor, Doug Kitteridge, is really good about encouraging members of his Church to audit courses at a very reduced rate. Would that every local region have a log cabin Seminary for this kind of training.

 

[Romans922]

ASIDE: GPTS offers MA for Ruling Elders.

 

[Unoriginalname]

It would seem to me that requiring educated (in the formal sense) eldership would put an undue burden on a congregation which could possibly have no one that could then qualify for the office of ruling elder.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

Rich:

I appreciate all that you are saying about the usefulness and value of having ruling elders who understand these things.

While many ruling elders are good teachers, and that can be quite a blessing, I remain firm in the historic Reformed and Presbyterian conviciton that the minister is the one called to the teaching office. I think that it's good, as possible, to have more than one such "teaching elder" in the congregation. Concerned as I am that ruling elders be trained, I am concerned about setting too high an "educational" bar for entrance into what is essentially an office of governance.

As Eric intimated, too high a bar for the ruling elder may make it hard for some congregations and disqualify men who I think would otherwise be well-qualified to be good church governors and who would learn a great deal while serviing as a ruling elder. Some men who claim to be three-office have a low view of the other two offices. This ought not to be. On the other hand, too many demands on those offices--particularly with resepct to that which most properly pertains to the ministerial office--create disorder and confusion in the church, as well as do untrained men.

I think that the chief qualification for the ruling elder is that he be a godly family governor who can also then govern well in the household of God. All the things cited in BOCO, with the addition of knowing the BOCO, ought to characterize every godly father and husband. Men ought to strive to understand God's Word and Reformed theology as well as being good servant/leaders of their families. Those proven in such are qualified to serve in church office as ruling elders (or deacons, as the case may be). Such men may be of extra help if theologically trained. But they need not be.

Peace,
Alan

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Alan,

I've thumbed up both your posts so don't think I don't appreciate your thoughts.

I was trying, in my last post to not set a bar too high when I wrote this:

I'm not necessarily concerned that elders go to Seminary but that they are in a process of the regular pursuit of knowledge that is relevant to their office. Regular Bible reading is, beyond question, a minimal requirement. Prayer for the flock is an absolute. But then they really ought to be pursuing greater and growing knowledge in the various disciplines. I don't believe any elder ought to be paralyzed by a sense that he doesn't know everything. Counsel men and women from where you are. I'm simply encouraging men that they have to be constantly pursuing deeper understanding of the issues - especially the issues that are at the fore of our present context.

My point, perhaps, is not initial starting point but trajectory. Ought we to expect that elders (both TE and RE) to be growing in their understanding of relevant issues. They need not wait to be experts (nor may they ever achieve it) to be effective but they ought to try to familiarize themselves with the issues that are relevant to their charge. I was also trying to note that I think TE's have this responsibility because it's not simply the RE's whom I have noted are sometimes wont to remain sharp in the skills they were trained with.

Not to bring in a controversy into this thread but think about some of the current Christotelic debates. If the fruit of that teaching has affected many men that teach then what responsibility do not only TE's but RE's have to have a minimal comprehension of the issues to judge whether or not it is something that strikes at our vitals of religion. I recently ran into a couple that came from a certain Pacific Northwest PCA Church and wondered whether the persons coming in might want to have their kids receive communion. How do I handle that situation if I have no idea where it's coming from?

I underline again that I'm concerned about men willing to continue to remain sharp and keep up with things and not necessarily the knowledge they begin with. Our examination process for elders is not terribly complex and I don't expect it to be much harder. I just want them to be learners.

 

[reaganmarsh]

To pipe in from the Baptist view: many churches in the SBC require no formal education (theological or otherwise) of a pastor.

Sadly most SBC churches do not have a plurality of elders. Our church's deacons range in education level from no high school at all to a Bible college graduate. A couple of them know some theology; most don't. Most of them are diligent in reading the Bible and praying for the Church, and for that I am thankful.

I'm trying to train our men in some basic theology but it takes time.

 

[Wayne]

I cannot relocate it at this time, but recently saw where one pastor (PCA or OPC) expressed his expectation that his elders would pursue training in biblical counseling.