Mortification of Spin

The latest Mortification of Spin is up and running:

Your favorite comedian/theologians, Todd Pruitt and Carl Trueman, team up yet again - this time to answer some important questions about how the church should be run and who should be running it. We'll learn that faithful teaching, a willingness to contend for truth and godly maturity are all important characteristics of a good pastor or elder. But women listeners won't be surprised to learn what Todd and Carl eventually conclude...that the way an elder treats his wife may be the best indicator of his ability to lead well.

The only skill required of church leaders...

“In the church the risen Christ rules through His word. This is why the only skill required of church leaders is that they can teach, rightly handling and applying the word of God. Their authority is a mediated authority. They have no authority in and of themselves. Instead they exercise Christ’s authority on His behalf as they teach and apply the word. This defines the amazing extent of their authority: when they apply the word they are exercising the authority of God himself. But it also defines the limit of their authority: they have authority only as they teach God’s word. They should not exercise an authority that comes because of the position they hold or the force of their personality. It is through their teaching that leaders exercise the authority of Christ, the Head of the church.”

Tim Chester & Steve Timmis from Total Church

Elders, Pastors, and Protection

From Mike McKinley:

Last Spring, Thabiti shared some statistics about pastors compiled by the Schaeffer Institute. These numbers emerged from research done from 1989-2006, and my guess is that things have gotten worse, not better, since then. The one that struck me most in the report was the fact that 1,700 pastors left the ministry every month. That number is astounding to me.

At a recent gathering, Carl Trueman was asked what churches could do to stem the tide of men leaving the pastorate. His answer was that elders of the church needed to do a good job protecting the pastor of the church (for the sake of brevity, allow me to make the distinction between "elders" and "pastors" in the church).

I think Trueman is right. Pastoral ministry requires a lot of work with sin-sick, spiritually wounded people. It can require unpleasant confrontation and rebuke. And while church members often appreciate the pastoral care they receive, sometimes spiritually unhealthy people react in spiritually unhealthy ways. And so pastors are particularly vulnerable to attack and accusation from the very people they are called to serve and love. I Timothy 5:19 seems to assume that this is the case, thus the apostle's instruction not to consider accusations against him lightly.

So it might be good for you to think about how you can protect your pastor, particularly if you are in church leadership.. Do you listen willingly when people complain about him. Do you pray for his spiritual protection regularly? If your pastor is discouraged, what can you do to help him?

Keeping Snakes out of the Garden

Typically good stuff from Carl Trueman on the vital role of elders:

Greg Beale has a fascinating section on elders in his new A New Testament Biblical Theology, pp. 819-23. Here he underscores the importance of the office for protecting the church from false teachers, especially those who arise within her ranks. It is this internal struggle which is part, a significant part, of the tribulation of the church since the inauguration of the last days. This is one reason why elders are necessary: they are the bodyguards of the flock; and the flock more often than not needs to be protected from the wolves in sheep's clothing who have sneaked in under the fence.

Two questions flow from this. First, what implications does this have for those who play with false teaching or false teachers within a churchly context, be it a church conference, a Sunday service or a presbytery meeting? I do not mean those who appear on seminar panels with atheists and heretics outside of the ecclesiastical realm. I mean those who bring these people into things such meetings of the church as the church or platforms where all are proposed as believers. It surely means that they have failed to fulfill their role as elders and have become part of the problem, not part of the solution. Alleged open-mindedness, curiosity or outward-looking geniality are no excuse. The office of the elder is to keep the serpent out of the garden. It is that simple. And if you cannot stand the social stigma and cultural marginalisation that goes with the task -- inevitably goes with the task, one might stress -- that is OK; you simply need to step down from your position and do something for which you are better equipped.

Second, why do evangelicals, who claim to be people of the Bible, so often try to solve the problems of the church by looking to non-ecclesiastical confederations as the primary platforms to make their stands for the truth? Faced with blasphemy and false teaching in Ephesus, Paul does not develop a strategy of setting up parallel organisations above and beyond the church to solve the problem; rather he instructs Timothy to appoint qualified men as elders. Not a perfect solution -- these men were presumably fallible and sinful like the rest of us -- but it is the biblical solution. That should surely count for a lot in any context where the Bible is taken with appropriate seriousness.

On Guard

To be an elder is a high and sober calling. Scripture makes clear what that calling requires from the man who fills that office. I am fortunate to serve in a church whose elders I am able to honor with a clear conscience. If you are part of a church with faithful elders give thanks to God. They are a blessing.

Carl Trueman writes well of the distinictive qualification for elders:

Last week, I posted a note on Ref21 concerning the importance of guarding the teaching office in the church. As a result of that, I was asked what the implications of such might be for those often called 'ruling elders' in Presbyterianism, men who are called to leadership roles within the church which involve significant doctrinal responsibility but who are not regularly engaged in preaching or the administration of the sacraments.

Such elders are, according to Paul, to be competent to teach (1 Tim. 3:2) and doctrinally sound and trustworthy (Tit. 1:9), in addition to being competent managers of their own lives, above reproach and respected in the wider community outside the church. Needless to say, the vows they take are as serious and as binding as those who preach (incidentally, membership vows are just as solemnly binding; a vow is, after all, a vow). And they do need to take such vows -- accountability is critical for all involved in any way in the public teaching of God's word.

Doctrinal competence is non-negotiable. It is the one major difference between qualifications for being a deacon and being an elder and it speaks clearly to the nature of the office. Elders have responsibility for the doctrinal integrity of the congregations in which they are placed. They are to be sound in life and doctrine and be able to teach. This does not necessarily mean pulpit ministry; but it does mean the ability to instruct others in the faith in some church context, as, for example Sunday school or pastoral visitation or in so

This means that the elders are have a responsibility to make sure that the minister's teaching each week is orthodox. If it is not so, and if they then fail to act, they are as culpable for the propagation of error as the minister himself.

It also means that the elders are to help ensure an environment conducive to the sound teaching of the word. This may take many forms. Most significant, I believe, is the consistent protection of the minister from hypercritical members of the congregation. This is not because the minister is above criticism but because he is always vulnerable to discouragement at the hands of cranks with assorted axes to grind. Elders should function as his bodyguard, weeding out unfair criticism and rebuking crackpots.

Because of the huge responsibility towards the church which elders carry, they are also to continue to study diligently and thus to make sure that their knowledge of theology is constantly being strengthened.

Finally, elders find their place in a structure of accountability which connects
congregation to eldership to presbytery, at least if one is a Presbyterian. The call comes from the congregation. There is no self-appointment to this role any more than there is with ministers. Public accountability to the church is the name of the game. After all, when it comes to the public teaching of the Word and the promotion of that teaching, there are no biblical structures of accountability which are not simultaneously churchly structures of accountability.