How many Elders on PB?

[Richard King]

I wish I knew how to create a poll. Maybe one of you can.
I was just wondering last night about the training classes that churches have for Elders and I then wondered
how many people on the Puritan Board are serving in that capacity.
As for me: No I have way too much to learn.

 

[KMK]

I wish I knew how to create a poll. Maybe one of you can.
I was just wondering last night about the training classes that churches have for Elders and I then wondered
how many people on the Puritan Board are serving in that capacity.
As for me: No I have way too much to learn.

Be careful, education is not a qualification for eldership. Ability to teach is.

 

[SolaScriptura]

I believe in an educated eldership. But then again... I'm educated.

 

[Pergamum]

I believe in ABLE eldership - which OFTEN means EDUCATED, but not always...

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I believe in ABLE eldership - which OFTEN means EDUCATED, but not always...

There is a difference between formally educated (at University) and educated in the word of God. The man who is the latter will have more understanding than all his teachers, because God's statutes are his meditation.

 

[KMK]

Not to derail the thread, but, my point was that removing ourselves from consideration for eldership because we don't feel that we know enough gets us started on the wrong road because the more you know, the more you realize you do not know. (1 Cor 8:1-3) If you keep waiting for that day that you 'arrive' at satisfactory knowledge you will be waiting a long time.

It is better to examine yourself by the criteria listed in 1 Tim 3 and Tit.

BTW, I am an elder. But I am only because the HS has marked me out as one and my church has recognized that, and layed hands on me in public recognition of that fact. (My eldership is not by my own hand in any way, and God alone gets the glory. I have done everything possible in my life to 'unqualify' me for that office.)

 

[Calvibaptist]

It is better to examine yourself by the criteria listed in 1 Tim 3 and Tit.

1 Timothy 3:2-7 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

I would hope that by "educated" we mean that there is enough knowledge of the Word to be able to teach it and to not be considered a novice. This does not necessarily mean an theological degree, but it also does not mean that any old person who knows John 3:16 can be an elder.

 

[Herald]

Forgive me a brief departure from the OP. What if there is a person who is qualified to be an elder but doesn't want to serve? They don't want the responsibility or the work that goes into the office. Would that be considered sin or should we defer to preference?

 

[Richard King]

Forgive me a brief departure from the OP. What if there is a person who is qualified to be an elder but doesn't want to serve? They don't want the responsibility or the work that goes into the office. Would that be considered sin or should we defer to preference?

That is an excellent question

 

[py3ak]

Forgive me a brief departure from the OP. What if there is a person who is qualified to be an elder but doesn't want to serve? They don't want the responsibility or the work that goes into the office. Would that be considered sin or should we defer to preference?

Isn't lack of a desire in itself a disqualifying characteristic?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Ask Noah.

 

[KMK]

Forgive me a brief departure from the OP. What if there is a person who is qualified to be an elder but doesn't want to serve? They don't want the responsibility or the work that goes into the office. Would that be considered sin or should we defer to preference?

I think it is assumed that one of the criteria for eldership is a 'desire'.

1 Tim 3:1 This [is] a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

 

[Herald]

Forgive me a brief departure from the OP. What if there is a person who is qualified to be an elder but doesn't want to serve? They don't want the responsibility or the work that goes into the office. Would that be considered sin or should we defer to preference?

Isn't lack of a desire in itself a disqualifying characteristic?

Ruben - yeah, I would think so. But what drives the lack of desire? A person once told me, "Since God is going to judge more harshly teachers of the word, I won't teach." What kind of an attitude is that?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Forgive me a brief departure from the OP. What if there is a person who is qualified to be an elder but doesn't want to serve? They don't want the responsibility or the work that goes into the office. Would that be considered sin or should we defer to preference?

I think it is assumed that one of the criteria for eldership is a 'desire'.

1 Tim 3:1 This [is] a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

Is that a qualification or just an acknowledgement that a man who desires such is desiring a good thing. Because I know of many a young man who desired it but were not called.

 

[KMK]

Forgive me a brief departure from the OP. What if there is a person who is qualified to be an elder but doesn't want to serve? They don't want the responsibility or the work that goes into the office. Would that be considered sin or should we defer to preference?

I think it is assumed that one of the criteria for eldership is a 'desire'.

1 Tim 3:1 This [is] a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

Is that a qualification or just an acknowledgement that a man who desires such is desiring a good thing. Because I know of many a young man who desired it but were not called.

I think desire is one of the qualifications that are listed here in 1 Tim 3.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Well, It sure may be but Sometimes God calls those who don't want to do the work they are called to. Look at Calvin in Geneva. The text is clear that desiring to be an overseer is desiring to do work that is good.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Ask Noah.

Don't forget Jonah.

Well, It sure may be but Sometimes God calls those who don't want to do the work they are called to. Look at Calvin in Geneva. The text is clear that desiring to be an overseer is desiring to do work that is good.

Indeed. When Calvin spent the night in Geneva on his journey out of France, he intended to move on the next day. Farel thought he was just the man needed and sent by God to solidify the Reformation in Geneva. Calvin, though, wanted to study. He felt more at home in a library than a pulpit. Farel is said to have told him something to this effect: "You think only of your tranquility and your studies. May God curse your repose! May God curse your studies if in our great necessity you withdraw and refuse to help us!" And so Calvin stayed, and the rest is history.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Forgive me a brief departure from the OP. What if there is a person who is qualified to be an elder but doesn't want to serve? They don't want the responsibility or the work that goes into the office. Would that be considered sin or should we defer to preference?

Isn't lack of a desire in itself a disqualifying characteristic?

If it hasn't been mentioned, Knox was not at all willing to serve. When John Rough laid the charge in public all of a sudden on him, Knox's response was to run from the room in tears. There may be unwillingness for a season due to fear, or thoughts of unworthiness, but that is gotten over I trust by those actually called of God to serve. Knox sure got over it.

 

[KMK]

God sure dragged me kicking and screaming. I can understand Farel's and Rough's displeasure because the harvest is plenty but the laborers are few.

BTW, I think if you love interacting on the PB about confessions and EP and the RPW and the Ordo Saludis and Presuppositionalism and Theonomy etc etc, you probably cannot use the 'I don't know enough to serve' card.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Ask Noah.

Don't forget Jonah.

Yeah, That is who I meant. LOL I just aint right tonight evidently. Short circuiting brain of mine.

 

[raekwon]

Since this hasn't been locked yet, I'm guessing that this thread is still fair game for a bump . . .

I wish I knew how to create a poll. Maybe one of you can.
I was just wondering last night about the training classes that churches have for Elders and I then wondered
how many people on the Puritan Board are serving in that capacity.

My church started elder training about a year and a half ago, and they just reached their conclusion with a presbytery examination last month. Nominations have been taken and the election will take place in a couple of weeks. Those elected will be ordained and installed probably some time in January.

The training consisted of meeting together with the pastor every weekend, going through the Confession, the Catechisms, theology, and every book of the Bible, training in teaching principles, along with occasional meetings at the pastor's home for prayer and discussion.

(By the way, I am one of the men who was trained, examined, and nominated to be an elder . . . so while I'm not serving in that office yet, I expect to be within the next couple of months.)

As for me: No I have way too much to learn.

I think that we have things backwards for the most part regarding education and calling. The tendency over the last however-many-years has been to call the trained instead of training the called. What I mean by that is this -- when churches look for elders these days (especially staff elders), the tendency is to look for those who have theological degrees and years of ministry experience, to the exclusion of all others. Now, education and experience are quite valuable. Don't get me wrong here. What I'm saying is that God often calls men to lead who have none of these things, and it should be up to the local church to identify these men, provide the ongoing training they need in the context of the local church, and then call them to leadership in the local church (paid staff or not).

(This is a big problem I have with the three-office view, but that's been hashed and re-hashed here so many times.)

Forgive me a brief departure from the OP. What if there is a person who is qualified to be an elder but doesn't want to serve? They don't want the responsibility or the work that goes into the office. Would that be considered sin or should we defer to preference?

As some of the brothers have already said, having no desire to serve is a disqualifier, I think . . . and if that lack of desire stems from laziness or fear, then it may be sin as well. At the same time, though, it's important to recognize that just because someone meets all of the qualifications doesn't necessarily mean that he's called by God to office. For instance, there may be mitigating life circumstances that'd make holding office unwise for a man at a certain time.

 

[bookslover]

Forgive me a brief departure from the OP. What if there is a person who is qualified to be an elder but doesn't want to serve? They don't want the responsibility or the work that goes into the office. Would that be considered sin or should we defer to preference?

I don't think that's a sin. The Bible speaks of the eldership as something that is "desired." The man who wants to be an elder desires a good thing, or words to that effect. One of the qualifications for the eldership is that a man must want to do it, to feel God's leading.

 

[py3ak]

Forgive me a brief departure from the OP. What if there is a person who is qualified to be an elder but doesn't want to serve? They don't want the responsibility or the work that goes into the office. Would that be considered sin or should we defer to preference?

Isn't lack of a desire in itself a disqualifying characteristic?

Ruben - yeah, I would think so. But what drives the lack of desire? A person once told me, "Since God is going to judge more harshly teachers of the word, I won't teach." What kind of an attitude is that?

I think desire varies from person to person. And if a man absolutely refuses to serve, that could be sin: it would be disqualifying sin. But if a man is hesitant and yet convinceable, then the lack of desire is not absolute. But just as the motivations for reluctance to be an elder can be good (even if founded on a misapprehension) or bad, so can the desire to be an elder.

 

[bookslover]

And if a man absolutely refuses to serve, that could be sin: it would be disqualifying sin.

If refusing to serve is a disqualifying sin, then the man was right to refuse to serve in the first place!

 

[MW]

I think it's worth noting that the thing for which the office is to be desired is the "work." There are many valid reasons why one who is otherwise qualified might not feel competent to fulfil the labour necessary. Family, secular work commitments, sickness, etc. It is not necessarily sin to not desire the "work" of oversight. I think it is a virtue when men take an honest look at themselves, a realistic look at the office, and humbly resolve that it is a task they are not ready to undertake. Regrettably the opposite is often the case, where men think the office in and of itself is some kind of commendation of their talents, and pursue it without any thought of the work and the sacrifices involved in undertaking it.

 

[py3ak]

And if a man absolutely refuses to serve, that could be sin: it would be disqualifying sin.

If refusing to serve is a disqualifying sin, then the man was right to refuse to serve in the first place!

Hmm. Except that he hadn't committed the sin and thus disqualified himself until he did refuse to serve. And to be clear, I was thinking of Calvin and Farel in making that comment.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I think it's worth noting that the thing for which the office is to be desired is the "work." There are many valid reasons why one who is otherwise qualified might not feel competent to fulfil the labour necessary. Family, secular work commitments, sickness, etc. It is not necessarily sin to not desire the "work" of oversight. I think it is a virtue when men take an honest look at themselves, a realistic look at the office, and humbly resolve that it is a task they are not ready to undertake. Regrettably the opposite is often the case, where men think the office in and of itself is some kind of commendation of their talents, and pursue it without any thought of the work and the sacrifices involved in undertaking it.

Well said. To honestly assess myself, I sin in my pride many times. Yet, I have turned down RE twice because I was fearful of taking the office while my pride and piety were still very much immature. I don't solicit the comments but many ask me if I'll be a Pastor some day. I do desire the work and recent events in my life are starting to reveal to me that the waiting was the right thing. I was telling Sonya the other day that I took far too much stock in myself when I was 34 and am thankful to God I did not accept RE at a certain point as I was really close to being called. I think it's just now that I'm starting to seriously deal with sin that will prepare me well in a few years for the work if the Lord wills.

 

[raekwon]

As a very green 29-year-old RE candidate, I'd like to say "thanks" for the wise words, Rich.