As we prepare to present a candidate for elder we are at a significant point in our church’s history. We’ve affirmed new elders before, and we’ve hired staff members before, but we’ve never hired a staff elder before. In many churches this position would be called something like “Associate Pastor”. There is a real sense in which this would be our first ever hiring of an elder, for while I am an elder, the church never actually hired me. I sort of came with when we launched New City Church back in 2011. This means I never went through the process we’re going through now. That is, the church did not go through the normal process for affirming me as an elder, nor did the church take the subsequent step to hire me formally as a staff (lead) elder, which is the process we’re embarking on now for another staff elder.
In another very real sense I was hired by a much smaller group, the group that formed New City and helped us launch. I was further vetted through my ordination. It was at my ordination the church chose me—claimed me—for vocational service to the church. Now we’re at the point of hiring another staff elder. We’ve been a church for more than fourteen years and in the early days everything was new. The number of new things is shrinking, and this—hiring a staff elder—is one thing that is still “new”. Because this is true there have been questions about the process.
One significant group of questions regarding the process has to do with the timeline for it and what this potential hire means for other men in the church who may serve as elder. The latter question is simple: nothing. There is no pipeline and therefore no “jumping” the line. Let me explain.
In many churches there is a specific number of elders and deacons required. Whether the deacons function as a board or not, many churches have a specific number who are responsible for specific things in the church. We do not have a specific number of deacons, nor do we have specific roles that have to be filled if a deacon steps down. This is also true of elders. We do not have a requirement for a specific number of elders. This all has to do with our approach to both the episcopate (the office of elder) and the diaconate, for our approach is quite different from that of many Protestants.
In many churches, there is a specific number of seats to fill for elder. Let’s say a church has twelve elders. That seems to be a good, biblical number. With such a specific number they must also have terms for them for if they did not, they would only rarely appoint new elders. Often the term is three years. Every year one-third of the elders step down from their role and new men step into those seats. A significant downside to this is the rapid turnover and resultant loss of institutional memory. In such cases only the staff elders—usually just the lead elder—maintains long-term institutional memory and has to constantly remind the elders why they made a decision several years ago and how God led them to it, etc. This is not ideal. It’s not hard to see how our cultural understanding of government invades our understanding of the church. This is even more pronounced in the very recent (in church history) idea of congregational rule!
The New Testament gives no hint at a term for an elder, nor does church history. In fact, the opposite was understood. Around the year 95, Clement of Rome—the same Clement Paul mentions in his letter to the Philippians!—wrote to the church in Corinth, for they had removed several elders who were older, and installed younger men to lead the church. Clement rebukes them for this:
And our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name of the overseer’s office. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed the leaders mentioned earlier and afterward gave them a permanent character, so that, as they died, other approved men should succeed in their ministry. Therefore we consider that it is not just to remove from the ministry those who were appointed by them or afterward by other reputable men with the consent of the whole church and who, having ministered to the flock of Christ blamelessly, humbly, peaceably, and unselfishly, have been approved by all for a long time.
Clement of Rome 44:1–3
Notice Clement’s point: whether these elders had been appointed by the apostles themselves, or by others who came after them and were affirmed by the whole church in Corinth, they should not be removed from their office. This is from a man who ministered alongside Paul himself!
Here we see how church history is instructive. It guides us. It informs us. Because this is the pattern of the early church, namely, that elders serve for life—unless illness and / or disqualification later prevents them—our elders are not artificially removed from office. Clement says it is unjust to remove them if they’re serving well. The opposite would seem to be just. Those who had not ministered blamelessly, for example, would justly be removed from the office.
Our practice as a church is to look for men doing the work of an elder, that of guiding and shepherding and leading according to his own spiritual gifts, and then to ask the Lord if he is raising up a particular man to that role. Our practice has been to wait at least a year to get to know a man, though this practice would generally not work for a staff elder or a lead elder. In God’s kindness, it happens to be the case this time! In any future hires, however, it will be almost impossible for this to be so.
We do not have terms for our elders, nor do we have a specific number of seats to fill. Essentially, as God identifies men to serve as elder, we will present them to the church for affirmation and they will serve as elders. What this means is presenting an individual as an elder, whether as a lay elder or a staff elder, has no bearing on any other men serving as elders. None whatsoever. If God identified two or three men to serve as elders at the same time, they would be presented as candidates for elder at the same time, and it would not be a popular vote between them. Hiring an elder does not affect this process in any way.
We also—generally speaking—don’t look for elders to serve in particular ways. We allow them to serve according to their giftedness. All elders must be able to teach; this is a qualification for the office, but this does not require the gift of teaching. The role of elder includes protecting the church against false teaching. An elder must be able to guard the deposit of faith we have received. We don’t have, say, an administrative elder or a pastoral care elder, though we could. We have elders who are gifted uniquely and who may serve in particular ways but they are not chosen for these “positions” within the Council of Elders. While we don’t look for elders to serve in particular ways, hiring a staff elder has particular ways in mind, though a staff elder would do the same things lay elders do, but more of it, just as I do.
We approach the diaconate in the same way. Generally speaking, we do not have specific roles to fill. We look for men and women who serve the church and ask if they need delegated authority to better serve the church as facilitators of ministry. There are some diaconal roles that will seem more permanent in nature. For example, the IRS requires we provide giving statements every January. It makes sense to think of Beth’s role as a permanent role. She tracks offerings and produces year-end giving reports. Due to IRS requirements for these reports, she is the only person in the church who has access to see what every person or family gives in a year. When the time comes for her to step down, this is a diaconal role we must fill. We also have to have a nursery, so Rachael’s role in coordinating the nursery is a permanent role. If she were to step down, we’d have to appoint a new deacon. Someone needs to ensure trained, qualified volunteers are serving in the nursery. She ensures background checks are performed, the schedule is maintained, etc. On the other hand, we had an Outreach Deacon for a number of years but when that role was vacated we didn’t see a need to find a new Outreach Deacon. There are other areas of service we’re still looking at.
A significant difference between the office of elder and the office of deacon is authority and another is responsibility. The elders oversee the church. This is the title Paul uses in 1 Timothy 3. The overseers govern the church and provide direction and leadership and care for the church. Deacons facilitate the ministry of the church. They have delegated authority within their areas of responsibilities. As men and women serve the church in various ways, it may become apparent a new diaconate is necessary for a particular ministry. As God leads, that man or woman would be presented as a candidate for the office of deacon.
As I mentioned earlier, our pattern has been to observe a man for at least a year before considering him as a candidate for elder. With the exception of me, every elder we’ve ever had has been a part of this church at least a year. Again, by God’s grace, this will still be true after hiring a staff elder! However. As I also mentioned, it is extremely unlikely that a future staff elder will be able to be hired from the outside with more than the one month required by our church’s Constitution. As I shared with each City Group recently, if—God forbid—something happened to me, the church would need to look for a lead elder (many churches use the title lead pastor or senior pastor). The elders and search team would have more time with a candidate but the church would almost certainly only have a month. Unless God were to raise up someone from within our church and prepare him for the role prior (and Lord willing, we have many years to prepare!), either the church would call someone they did not know well or the church would go without a lead elder for a long time.
It isn’t quite accurate to say our Council of Elders has been praying for God to raise up new elders for a long time. It is far more accurate to say this is a permanent prayer in every meeting we have. We’re always looking for ways in which God is identifying men to serve in this important role. Over the years we’ve taken long, hard looks at certain men and God has either made it clear a certain person was not ready, perhaps due to a particular season of life with very young children, family obligations, work commitments, etc, that would prevent him from serving, or an individual was not qualified due to some character deficiency. It has been a while since we last added an elder and we’ve been praying in earnest for more elders—plural!
We look for men who are serving the church, who faithfully participate in the life of the church. When we say some are not yet ready, we cannot simply point to a list of things he must do, as if when he does these three things he will be immediately qualified. That is not how spiritual maturity is formed. We do not have curriculum for elder candidates who, upon completing the program, are now licensed or authorized or otherwise given a stamp of approval to be elders. There are obvious disqualifications. If a man is not faithful to his wife and does not manage his household well he cannot be an elder. If a man is a new believer he cannot be an elder. These are biblical qualifications that we cannot override.
What is spiritual maturity? Spiritual maturity is having the mind of Christ. That is, a spiritually mature Christian looks at the world through the lens of Jesus. To have the mind of Christ is to recognize that all decisions are spiritual decisions, whether deciding what our next sermon series should be or whether to accept a promotion at work or whether to have another child—or even whether to delete the snarkiness from that email response to that one guy at work who truly has earned the snark. You know the guy. All of life is spiritual worship. To have the mind of Christ is to think like Christ. There is not a curriculum that teaches this! Instead, spiritual maturity is the outcome of discipleship, and discipleship is the outcome of worship.
In his book “The Patient Ferment” Alan Kreider describes how the early church understood the Christian life. They were being formed by worship. Through worship they were reminded and corrected and exhorted and encouraged to find themselves rooted in the Lord Jesus. When life did not go one’s way, how they responded to dire and difficult circumstances revealed what they truly believed. If the Lord Jesus had actually risen from the dead, they can get through any difficulty. As Kreider put it, “Worship shapes character”.
When we examine a man for the role of elder, we are simply asking what is most important in his life and how he conducts himself when things don’t go his way. There are other things, of course. What sort of advice does he give? How does he spend his free time? If he has children, how does he discipline them? Because elders are to guard the church’s teaching, how a man lives is vital, for how a man lives reveals his doctrine, his theology.
Kreider points out that the early church understood that Christians believed their way of life was important, for it was not a product of belief (that is, assent to propositional truth) but a display of what they believe. By observing one’s conduct and behavior, and even more, his response to difficulty, we can see what he really believes. He may objectively claim to believe God is sovereign and good but if he is bitter and angry for not getting that promotion at work, does he really believe God is sovereign and good? What he says in that moment is less important than what he does, for what he does reveals his heart (and mind).
When we think of the high qualifications for the office of elder, we recognize they are almost entirely character qualifications. The only “job” qualification is he must be able to teach. Given a man’s manner of living teaches what he believes more truly than the words he says, his life must demonstrate the mind of Christ—spiritual maturity.
As the Council of Elders continues to seek the Lord for his direction for the church, there are a number of men we’re praying for and shepherding into the episcopate (to be elders). They’re probably not aware of this, for it is merely a matter of discipling the church, which is leading the church to have the mind of Christ. Again, there is not a list of things we can hand to a man and say, “Do these things in order to be an elder”. Rather, in the normal course of life in community, we exhort and correct and teach and encourage and edify one another. As these men grow in maturity, that is, as they begin to demonstrate the mind of Christ, they get ever closer to being presented as candidates for the office of overseer. We continue to see men and women grow in maturity, becoming more like Jesus, and when we meet twice a month we share the joys of watching God’s people become more like him. Sometimes it becomes more evident a certain person is further away than we realized, but more often—most often—we see the hand of God guiding and directing and maturing men and women to be leaders in the church, whether as elders and deacons, or simply as gifts to the church.
Are we rushing the timeline to hire a staff elder? No, for we do not truly control the timeline. If God is leading us in this direction, we are not rushing anything; we’re just obeying. Are we too slow to appoint lay elders and deacons? Again, we do not have control over this. We, the Council of Elders, must follow the Lord and his timing and as Peter tells us, a day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a day. I cannot comprehend God’s sense of time. None of us is able. All we can do is follow him and trust him. That is, all we can do is strive to have the mind of Christ. Let’s strive for this together.