My friend Steve Kneale recently wrote in praise of unpaid elders. He began by talking. about the problems with different descriptions for paid and unpaid elders. I agree 100 percent with him. In fact the one thing I’d want to do is make explicitly clear that there is no Biblical foundation for the presbyterian distinction between teaching and ruling elders. All elders are to be able to teach. Meanwhile, the specific authority (method of ruling if you like) is through God’s word. Ruling as an elder is about teaching, it’s about providing for and protecting God’s people.
Anyway, Steve’s article left me wondering if we need to go further and make it explicitly clear that there isn’t a distinction between elders. Here are three ways we can do that
First, if you use the title “pastor”, apply it to all your elders. I think some churches got into the habit of using the title to distinguish paid and/or lead elders from unpaid. However, the terms are really equivalents.
Secondly, require the same level of training for all elders. This becomes possible when we recognise that it doesn’t have to be seminary training. Alongside that, review all elders in the same way.
Thirdly, what if instead of thinking that we pay one guy and some others give up their spare time, we said that our intent was to free up all elders as much as possible for the task. In an ideal world, all elders would be then fully available to serve. Sometimes that becomes possible by other means. In our church, one elder is paid, one freed up by retirement and the third (me) self supported.
Of course in reality it won’t be feasible to have all elders full time. Some churches won’t be able to have any elders full time and so you will have some bi-vocational elders. However, making this the intent sends a strong signal to the church about how the elders are to be regarded.
I think that this kind of approach could cause a significant and positive shift in the shape of church life.
Faithroots 
1 comment
Comments are closed.