d. Elders
[11/18/20]
Let us now make something of a lateral move from the pastoral office to the office of elder. In many regards, these are in point of fact the same, and whether elders as a group are over or under the pastor or pastors as a group is somewhat a question of church polity in practice. In some churches, the pastor is above and in charge of the elders. In others, the elders have charge of the pastor. I think, if one looks at that latter form, one will find, as I have noted in the previous section, that the pastor is still held to be somewhat the first among equals. It is a curious relationship, that between pastors and elders. They share, as I say, so much as to the nature of their office and its duties. Having served in such polity as held to the latter form, it has to be said that yes, the pastor was, in many regards, deemed a first among equals, but then, there was also the chair of the board of elders who, so far as official polity is concerned, is likewise a first among equals, and legally held to be so by the terms of our charter. Yet neither, where God is in it, see that as a thing to be stressed, nor even, necessarily, to be celebrated. It is at once an honor and a great weight to serve in either capacity.
So, sometime well back in this study, I did not note when, I left this question for myself in regard to the two lists Paul provides in which we generally find our sense of church offices. Where are the elders in these lists? They are not to be found, not by name. My present response to that would be that they are found in the mention of pastors, for again, their offices are much the same and require much the same gifting, if perhaps in differing degrees.
I want, though, to take a moment to consider the term. What we have is presbuterous, as one term at least. This, in its earliest application in the New Testament, is found applied to the members of the Sanhedrin, the governing council of Israel so far as the exercise of religion was concerned, and largely, at that juncture, so far as civil governance was concerned. They were a power, not quite on par with the king, but significant nonetheless. We have hit this term before in regards to priests, for it is the term generally applied to them as well. It speaks, rather obviously in our translation of the term, to comparative age. The expectation is that with age comes wisdom and maturity, and thus, the experiences and skills needful for management.
So, yes, this applied to the Sanhedrin, composed of chief priests and elders, a ruling council over Israel. Locally, it would be applied to the leading men of the city or its churches. Coming into the setting of the early Christian church, the elders were those set to direct and govern the local body, and here we find them connected also to the term episkopos, overseer, bishop. We will find great debate in the church as to whether this office is rightly reserved to men alone, or whether it is fit for women to serve in this office as well. That is not a debate I choose to enter into here, more than has been addressed in brief aside elsewhere. What I do find telling is that the Word Study Dictionary of the New Testament shows us with four synonymous terms that apply to the office of elder; the two I have already noted, and then, also poiemen and didaskolos, pastor and teacher. Let me, hopefully, come back to these other terms. I want to continue for the moment with presbuterous.
[11/19/20]
There are a number of things we should take notice of as concerns this term and the office it represents. Firstly, as we saw in previous portions of this study, if we look to the Church in Jerusalem, we find the elders alongside the Apostles in deliberations as to the answer to give the Church in Antioch. The article in the Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament notes that in due course, the Apostles are no longer mentioned in regard to that church, but it is James, brother of Jesus as head of a council of elders who lead that church. This hinges primarily, it seems, on Paul’s presentation to James and the elders in Acts 21:18.
A second thing to observe is that there seem to be multiple ways in which elders come to be in office. For newly planted churches, particularly, it seems a matter of Apostolic appointment, or at least appointment by their representative. Titus, for example, is instructed to appoint elders in the churches on Crete (Ti 1:5), and here again we find connection to episkopos, as a parallel identification for that office. We see as well the prayerful nature of that appointment. As Paul travelled through Asia Minor establishing churches, we read that there was a certain flow to events. They preached, Paul and Silas, and made many disciples (Ac 14:21). These became the formative members of the local church, and as time went on and Paul and Silas made their way back to base in Antioch, they came to strengthen and encourage the foundling church. Part of that effort consisted in praying and fasting in pursuit of appointing elders for them (Ac 14:23).
I have to say, this is something quite different than we find practiced in our church at this date. It draws far nearer the synodic approach than the congregational. I’m not sure one could find an example of a more congregational approach in Scripture, which is rather disconcerting, to be honest. The elders were appointed by men outside the church, planters if you will, who might remain for a season but would in due course be moving on to other churches, other peoples. I could mark this off as pertaining simply because the newness of the churches left no other course, and that might not be an unreasonable deduction to make. But I do think a general principle is to be found here, whether appointments are made from outside or from within, and that is that the congregation at large is not, in fact, the deciding factor, but rather the prayerful determination of others who have similar office.
There is a parallel, I think, to the vicinage council by which a pastoral candidate is assessed before ordination. It is not quite the same ordeal for it is not quite the same office. Yet, the parallels are strong, both as to office and as to the necessity to assay the calling as best we are able. There is good reason that prayer and fasting were involved, for the limited time of contact rendered it the more difficult to assess the true spiritual condition of those to be called upon to serve. It requires, ever and in all cases, much prayer to discern truly as God sees the man. What is more abrasive, I think, is the call for fasting. For most of us, this is not a matter we consider all that seriously. It seems more an Old Testament practice, a thing of ritual observance and law. But this is the New Testament church we are looking at, not the synagogue, not the temple. It is Christians seeing to those who will have responsibility for their guidance and will inevitably shape their growth.
An elder candidate should, I think, rather hope and pray himself that those who consider his appointment pray and fast in their deliberations. How much more, I might ask under the circumstances, those who contemplate the calling of a pastor! But the elder is called. He must, assuredly, know that calling himself if ever he is going to willingly serve, and the call is in fact to willing service. He must be confirmed in that calling, for many a sinner would feign an unwarranted piety if it led to prestige and power. Pity the one who comes to office on such terms, for he will no doubt find the office disappointing at best, and burdensome in the extreme regardless. The elder’s office is one of service, not of gain.
The elder is called upon to be capable of preaching and teaching, which again stresses the connection of elder and pastor. Indeed, it is entirely reasonable, I should think, to construe the pastor as a particular intonation of the elder office, but all who would accept the office of elder are to be capable handlers of the Word of God, and expositors of the same. At the same time, it is clear that some are more geared toward that end than others. Consider the message to Timothy. “Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching” (1Ti 5:17).
Let’s try one of the other terms, episkopos, or overseer. This ties to the office some churches put forth as that of the bishop, though it seems to me that in such denominations as have bishops, they tend to be cast in the role of wider governance rather than local governance. That is not, so far as I can see, the application given the term in the New Testament. Perhaps this draws from the idea of visitation or visiting which is entailed in the term, but that does not seem to me to apply so much to visiting a church to inspect, but rather the more local visiting of members for oversight. I rather like this from the Word Study Dictionary; they serve to consider, examine, and provide covering. Note well that last bit. The office has at its heart the care and oversight of a specific church. Thus, it brings in as well the sense of a watchman, a guard upon the wall, if we were to take an older prophetic perspective.
This once again ties us to the pastoral role, that of shepherding God’s flock, for if we would provide covering, and guard them upon the wall, we indeed serve in that shepherd’s role. It is under this term of episkopos that we find most the guidance given the church for those who would hold such office, and this mostly from Paul. “Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood” (Ac 20:28). That should be enough to humble any man who would serve. Note Paul’s declaration here. However much he or his representatives may have been involved in the process of appointing elders, it remains the Holy Spirit who has made you overseers. Paul’s actions were not so much a case of appointing as recognizing and affirming. And note the strong connection made here to the shepherd’s position. You are not shepherding your own sheep. This is not for your own profit. The sheep you shepherd, you shepherd for the One Who bought them at great price. You are ever and always an under-shepherd. Take heed, then, to those warnings in Scripture regarding the paid under-shepherd who does not care as he ought for the sheep. Don’t be that guy.
Do you wonder if you are called, perhaps, to serve in this capacity? Consider well the qualifications required. “An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, uncontentious, free from the love of money. He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?); and not a new convert, lest he become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he may not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil” (1Ti 3:2-7). That’s a tall order! Who, after all, is above reproach? That may in fact be the most challenging qualification. The others one might consider that he has met, but above reproach? At all times and in every matter? That’s going to be hard to maintain.
More surprising to me, given when this is written, is the call for experience – not a new convert. One wonders at what point does the new convert cease to be new? How many years are sufficient, or is it measured in months or weeks? I think it must be years, given we have the luxury of years. It takes, after all, a goodly season to attain to such wisdom and knowledge as would equip one to teach – and that, I would stress, not just by word, but by example. It is that latter part that renders so much of the rest of this list needful. If it were simply a matter of gaining knowledge of the material and being able to present it, that’s one level of ability. But to truly teach requires that our lives demonstrate that the lessons have been learned. Honestly, whether one looks at the Jewish methods of teaching or the Greek, this really doesn’t change so much as some would posit. The teacher who does not demonstrate with reasonable degrees of consistency that he has himself taken to heart his own lessons will not readily cause others to heed his words.
Well, let’s ratchet it up a step, then, since this seems so achievable a standard. “The overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict” (Ti 1:7-9). Perhaps that is not so much of a ratcheting up after all, but rather a fairly direct parallel. We see, then, that the matter of being above reproach pertains particularly, if not specifically, to the stewardship entailed in the office. How is that to be measured or assessed? I should think by the growth, or lack thereof, to be found in the flock over which he has been given oversight. Are they being deceived and no correction made? That’s not going to lead to a good review. Are they being taught well the true Gospel of Christ, without softening the hard parts and without adding demands that it never made? Well and good. Are they caring for those they oversee? Do they even know what’s going on in the lives of their flock? Are they, in fact, serving, or are they seeking prestige at no real cost? If it’s the latter, I fear, the cost will be great indeed, and not just to themselves!
“For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, who must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families, teaching things they should not teach, for the sake of sordid gain” (Ti 1:10-11). Heaven forefend such a one should attain to the office of overseer, for the harm would be great indeed, and has proven so, it seems to me, in many a church and even denomination at large. Here, then, is cause indeed for careful examination of the one who would be elder, and not just by questioning. Questions can be finessed. A proper assay will require familiarity and length of acquaintance, that the true habit of life can be discerned. Does he live a believer’s life outside the confines of the church or no? Does he practice what he professes, or does he merely put a good face on things come Sundays?
I very much appreciate the fact that there is that call for extra-church reputation. What do his coworkers have to say about him? If you asked them, would they have knowledge of his being a Christian? Would they consider him a positive example for Christianity? Or is he a foul tyrant at work, while all sweetness and light at church? These are the things that must be measured, and it is a thing most difficult to do. There is great cause for prayer and, yes, for fasting, if we would be sure of those we entrust with the care of God’s flock. But there is also that most comforting assurance to be found in Paul’s recognition that whatever our processes and checks, it is the Holy Spirit who appoints.
[11/20/20]
Is there more to be said as to this office? It would be easy to see it reduced to a purely administrative role, and to some degree, the legal necessities force that model upon the elders, such that from their number is drawn one who will serve as CEO. But he is not CEO after the manner of the world. He leads by serving, if he leads well. He leads with a fatherly care for all those who have been entrusted into his guardianship. He leads, as well, knowing it is for a season.
In my own time of service, I found the guidance from Peter to be most valuable and also most exemplary. “Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed,” (1Pe 5:1). Let me pause there for a moment. How loving, how encouraging, how exemplary that this Peter, in spite of his rather loft claim to being eyewitness to Christ’s sufferings, sets himself as something of an equal, rather than a superior. He says, “I am your fellow elder. I, like you, am partaker of the glory to be revealed.” While making no bones about his Apostolic authority, he stresses his kinship. I am one of you, no better and no worse. There is the example of godly leadership.
So, what has he to say to his partners? “Shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock” (1Pe 5:2-3). There are a number of valuable reminders contained in that brief advisory. The flock is not yours, but God’s. They have been allotted to your charge, but not for your profit. The Church has never been a get rich quick scheme when she was after her proper course, and her leadership was pursuing godly charge. To be sure, there have been periods of opulence and excess, and I suppose it continues to be so in certain regions. But that is the aberration, not the model given. That is not to say that vows of poverty are somehow evidence of greater holiness, nor that we ought to go about rejecting every sort of ornamentation or beautification of the places and things we construe as holy unto our Lord. By no means! I’ve been over this already. But God, when He took a more direct managerial role over the construction of His temple, commissioned a work of skill and beauty to reflect His own beauty and worth. There is no evil in doing likewise. There is great evil in making it a matter of our own increase, our own comfort and ease.
The biggest piece of advice, though, I find consists in the discussion of attitude. Don’t exercise oversight as if under compulsion, but voluntarily, eagerly even. The one who acts under compulsion may well tend towards a certain surliness in the exercise of his perceived duties. He does, but he does grudgingly. He may comply, but remain wholly dissatisfied with the necessity of complying. He may resent the duties he performs and therefore fall far short in the compassion department.
This is a significant duty that is entrusted to the elder. In some ways it is much like the duty laid upon the husband, except amplified a hundredfold. In an age of women’s rights and a perverse assault upon the nature of the male, the message of Scripture as regards the relative role of husband and wife is not well received. It is, however, unchanged, for God who speaks is unchanging. Here, I look of course at the directive given the husband. “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her; that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she should be holy and blameless. So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of His body” (Eph 5:25-30).
As I have said before, it is difficult to find a stopping point with Paul. But look! Look at the level of care to which the husband is called. Love her as Christ loved the Church. Well! Christ died for His Church, doing to the uttermost that which was needful to see her made holy and blameless. There’s the measure of your duty, husband. Love her as if she were your own body, care for her as if she were the most precious part of yourself, for that she should be if we’re going to be honest. Nourish her. Cherish her. She is not your slave to order about, nor your servant to give you ease. She is not your plaything to satisfy your desires and please you with her amusements. She is you, every bit as much as you are you. This has been declared a one-flesh relationship, you may recall, and that is likewise significant. To harm her is to harm yourself. To demean her is to demean yourself. But, to the happy contrary, to see her nourished, washed by the Word, and growing in Christ? That is to see yourself nourished, washed, and growing. To see her guarded against the vile deceits of the enemy? That is to guard yourself. Just consider, if you will, the number of godly men who found themselves led far astray by wives fallen into error. I do not lay the blame on the wives, for their straying was the result of their husbands’ failures every bit as much as it was the result of those who led astray.
But I am here discussing elders, not husbands per se. I say this applies in spades, for those who have been allotted into the elder’s charge are in fact the bride of Christ, even as he is numbered among the bride of Christ. If the husband/wife relationship is a one-flesh relationship, and if this in turn reflects and models the relationship of Christ to His Church, how much more is it a one-flesh relationship between the elder and the flock? For he, like Eve, is taken from their body, and set amongst them to be as a helpmate, is he not? The elder in Christ does not lord it over the flock, nor has he authority to do so, though he does in fact have authority. His authority extends just so far as he is obedient to the authority of Christ. To take on lordly airs, and begin demanding rights for himself, or haughtily insisting on obedience at the very least threatens to exceed that authority. At the very least, it expresses that authority most poorly.
Rather, let him see the church he serves as his own bride, his own self, if you will. Let the straying of even one of the least of his charges be felt as keenly as if it were himself straying into sin. Let their repentance be as great a relief to him as if it were his own. Indeed, I could readily suggest that the need for repentance in any one of his charges might readily suggest a need for repentance on his own part. There’s no use becoming frustrated with the immaturity of the flock, for it seems to me that immaturity reflects the nature of the oversight. That is not, to be sure, a hundred percent accurate reflection. Any parent knows that the child may well stray in spite of the most thorough and tender efforts on their part to train them up in the way they should go. Any parent knows the long hours of prayer for that child, hoping always that they might yet turn and return. There is your elder leadership modelled. But in all of this, let the elder serve voluntarily, cheerfully, gladly; not as if under compulsion and left no choice but to go on. Honestly, if that last attitude creeps in, and it likely will in due course, it is an evidence, I should think, that one’s season in office is at an end. It’s time to give over the shepherding of this flock to one whose care for them is in keeping with Christ’s example.
Now, I have to observe that the call upon the elders places also a call upon the flock. Here, too, I suppose I could find parallel to the instruction given to spouses. “Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything” (Eph 4:22-24). Replace ‘wives’ with ‘church’, and ‘husbands’ with ‘elders’, and really, the picture doesn’t change so very much, does it? Subject to your own elders; not to random preachers on TV or internet; not to this paraministry or that, not to the leaders of your sister church down the street, but to your own elders. Christ your head has seen fit to allot you to their charge, and will you now insist on your superior insight by refusing their leadership, by refusing to accept their instruction and direction? I don’t care who you are, or what your role has been in the past. Nor do I particularly care what your role may be in future. Here and now, this is what your Lord and theirs has ordained for you both, and will you, o, lump of clay, rise up and gainsay your Potter? Not to any great effect, you won’t!
This is not, I must stress, a call for blind obedience no matter what instruction may come. By no means! The false shepherd, should we be so in need of discipline as to suffer such a one, is no excuse for falsity amongst the sheep stuck under his charge. We may be dumb sheep, but we are not ignorant. Or, if we are ignorant, that ignorance is no excuse. We, too, are given to know our God, our husband, our Lord; to know His character and to know His command. “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me” (Jn 10:27). “The sheep hear His voice, and He calls His own by name, and leads them out. When He puts forth all His own, He goes before them, and the sheep follow Him because they know His voice. And a stranger they simply will not follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers” (Jn 10:3-5). I have taken the liberty of making the reference to Christ our Shepherd explicit in that last, whereas He expresses His role and our security in parable. But you see my point? The interposition of an elder does not alter the relationship of sheep to Shepherd. We hear His voice. The elder, whatever else he may be, is not mediator between Church and Christ, any more than is the pastor (who is, after all, an elder effectively, and every elder, like it or not, effectively a pastor).
I need to divert, just a moment on that last, parenthetical thought. Do you know, during my whole time as an elder, I very carefully convinced myself that this was not in fact a pastor’s role. Somehow it was different. Well, it was, I suppose, in that the pastor, in his office, experiences the weight and the duty more fully, more heavily, I should think. We elders are not called upon all that often to counsel. We are not, by and large, brought in to aid those in crisis – at least not directly. We are not often called upon to prayerfully prepare a sermon for the church; to seek that we might feed the flock according to their need at this juncture by our presentation of God’s Word. We are to be ready, but we are not often enlisted into action on that level. So, to that degree, perhaps my impression holds. Yet, experience says that however much I may have denied to myself that this was in fact a pastoral role, a pastoral role it remained. The charge is the same in nature, if not in duration or intensity. The care, while necessarily less intimately familiar with the details of various situations, is no less for all that. It is, perhaps more, because the ability to do anything about it apart from prayer is that much less, and we are, however wise in the Lord and however prayerful in habit, still inclined to want to do something.
[11/21/20]
Let me return to my prior thought, now, as regards the obligation set upon the sheep by the interposition of these shepherding elders. I keep wanting to turn to Peter’s advice on this front. “You younger men, likewise, be subject to your elders” (1Pe 5:5a). Given how this follows on the heels of Peter’s exhortation for the elders, in which he clearly addresses the elder office, it doesn’t seem entirely unreasonable to suppose that it is still the office that is in view here. Yet, the contrast is to younger men specifically, and the instruction continues expansively. “And all of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, for God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble” (1Pe 5:5b). But, why would it be only the men called to be subject to the elders? Is it not the case that the whole church body ought to be thus subjected? Indeed it is, for the elder’s oversight is not restricted to young men. Their shepherding does not consider only the male population of the church. As to the expansion, it is well that it is there, for all are in need of reminding that we’re not looking at power structures such as the grasping, worldly sort vie for. We are looking at a mutual aid society, if you please; where all care for all, and the office of shepherd offers not so much prestige, as duty of care. As for those under the care of the shepherd, be it elder or pastor, they have a reciprocal duty to care for him, and, though I cannot for the life of me locate my reference point, that care consists largely in cheerful obedience to godly direction and instruction, in making their duty that much easier.
I will then circle back to Paul’s instruction to Timothy, which is, in fact, instruction for the Church generally, given we have it preserved to that end. “Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching” (1Ti 5:17). This is not a message specifically for Timothy, for he, after all, is a preaching and teaching elder in his own right. Beyond a call for pastors and elders to hold each other in esteem, that doesn’t go very far. Rather, it’s an exhortation to the flock in general. Esteem those the Lord has seen fit to set over you for your benefit. Again: No blind allegiance in spite of every obviously heretical teaching and every willful persistence in sin; but that is, one hopes, the exceptional case. What tends to throw us off our obedience here are much lesser matters of taste and opinion. Oh, I didn’t care for that message. Well! He could have worded that a bit more elegantly. Why can’t we have so and so as elder instead? These are petty arguments, and I suspect, more recognizable to us because we are petty people, if we’re honest. We have our opinions and our preferences, and woe be unto that one who bucks us. But, brothers, these things ought not to be. And, to be painfully, sadly clear, I speak to myself as much as any other who might happen across these musings.
“Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses” (1Ti 5:19). Oh, how I would that we took such instruction to heart! To be fair, it is the same standard the elders would adhere to in matters of sin concerning their charges, for that is the standard of discipline which is set for the Church, as it has been even prior to the Church under Mosaic law. Anything less is effectively hearsay (not to be confused with heresy, though potentially claiming that as the issue). How much more the elder? How much more those who, given the necessary respect for privacy also inherent in Christ’s instruction for discipline, cannot in good conscience give defense for themselves, not because conscience accuses, but because godliness requires that silence uphold justice in this case. It is not that the elders are a secretive bunch, who refuse to give answer for their actions. It is that their hands are tied by Christ in the matter. What they can share, I dare say they do share, for the good of the body. But what they cannot, the do not, and that, too, is for the good of the body, if to the pain and sorrow of the elder who must accept the slights and slanders as Christ also bore the slander of our sins charged against Himself. I don’t lightly make such comparison, but it is awareness of the aptness of that comparison, if only by degree, that lends strength to the elder to persevere.
But there are also joys for the elder. There is joy when there is growth in those they tend. There is joy when one who has strayed into sin repents and returns to holiness. There is joy as the body grows, whether in size, in strength, or in action. There is joy, albeit bittersweet, when one or more among our number find they are called to serve the gospel elsewhere, perhaps in planting of churches, perhaps in missions far afield, perhaps for even so mundane a reason as relocation. There is joy in recognizing that this gift which we have enjoyed in our body is now to be shared with others of like faith, though there is, to be sure, a hole left where that gift once stood. There is joy because this is evidence of bodily health, quite honestly. That is the thing that gives joy to the elder; bodily health, a strong, growing community of believers impacting not only themselves, but those around them, and even those at distance. It is the Gospel advancing, and that is, after all, the point, both for the officer and for the flock. All should rejoice.
I think I shall end with this fairly simple thought, and it touches on elders and pastors alike. If we suppose to sit in judgment upon them, we exceed our charter. Even we past elders, though, in a church such as ours they remain elders for life (unless, I suppose, significant evidence of unbelief should force expulsion), are not granted such charter. Again, to be sure, if there is heresy in the pulpit or in the leadership then, yes, something must be done, but that is best left to the current elders to address. We may justly express concerns, but to render judgment is not ours, even if that judgment remains an internal matter. It poisons our soul to suppose otherwise. How awful that we are so ready to dismiss and disregard the one God has seen fit to set over us because we find points of disagreement! And that’s all it is. In what other realm of knowledge would one utterly reject instruction in whole because of a disagreement in some small point? I guess, for a post-modernist, most any realm might fall prey to such foolishness, but it would be nice to think we are not seduced by that movement and its error.
No, God has set these men over us for His good purpose. We do well to remember that. It is for His good purpose, not for our pleasure, although we might reasonably hope the two might coincide. Far better, though, that we consider His purpose rather than our pleasure. If He has appointed these men, we must, I should think conclude one of two things. Either they are godly men appointed for wisdom and benefit to us, and we have every cause to hear and to heed, or they are appointed for our discipline because we are so derelict in our sins as to refuse any gentler instruction, in which case it is best we look very carefully at our own condition and repent post haste.
How much I have needed to hear these corrective words myself comes as something of a surprise to me, and I must confess my thankfulness to have received them, by God’s grace, from my own studies, rather than requiring some brother to give me a spiritual slap up side the head. And how blessed the result, at least if last Sunday was any evidence of continued benefit. I would be saddened to discover that it was just that last week’s message happened to concur more with my own thinking. I don’t think that was it, but I did in fact find much that was said particularly agreeable with my own views. I don’t say all was agreeable, but much. And the fact that, for a change, I did not simply shut out the whole because a point went by that was at odds with my opinions is already an improvement. Interesting that I am actually able to retain that message into the week, whereas prior weeks have left me no memory really of anything that was taught. There is, I should think, evidence of the spiritual battle that had enveloped me, and me all unaware. For shame! But God is as gracious as He is good, and has supplied the antidote for my foolishness. To Him I give thanks, and pray that He shall continue to apply that antidote that I may again grow in wisdom and stature in His sight and according to His ways.
