Have Your Elder Call My Elder
The power-trip of eldership has gone straight to some people’s heads. Here’s the Biblical reason why elder authority is confined to its jurisdiction.
I think we all look back at thoughts of ourselves and grimace from the cringe, from time to time. My moment of cringe-grimace comes from sitting across from a church planting catalyst from the Arkansas Baptist State Convention, Phil, in the Pizza Den in Hoxie, Arkansas.
“So, we’re going to have an elder-rule church,” I told him.
I had met with Phil to discuss planting a church with a former college friend. I had already planted one church in partnership with the ABSC, a few years prior, and was explaining to Phil how my ecclesiology had changed.
Phil nodded and said, “You mean elder-led.”
“No,” I snapped back. “Elder-ruled.”
This was shortly after the period in which, amidst managing a car lot after leaving ministry in my early 20s, I came across Romans 9 and it changed my life. Every day, for a period of about 4 months or so, I read Romans 9, trying to find a way for it not to say what it clearly seemed to say. I cross-referenced Romans 9 and topics like election and predestination to everywhere in Scripture my Bible would take me. And danged if I couldn’t find a way out of this.
Apparently God is sovereign and stuff. Who knew? The heavens kind of opened for me during this time. Until recently, I thought Calvinism rent the veil of the skies for me, but looking back, I’m pretty sure it was just the intensive study of God’s Word that set my mind aflame.
Anyway, after months of studying nothing but the Scripture, I typed “Calvinism” into the web browser on the company computer. The first search result that popped up was “Mark Driscoll.” The year was 2007.
When I had discovered that my very well-meaning pastors growing up didn’t exactly teach me everything God’s Word would have one know – as I discovered from their omission of Romans 9 from every sermon ever – I went out to discover what else might be hidden in the pages of Holy Writ that had been concealed. And as God would have it, I found a few things.
Born-and-raised Southern Baptist, I learned about the concept of “church discipline” for the first time, in that Bible-searching era of mine. I learned about a concept known as the “Means of Grace.” And, I learned about the concept of “elder leadership,” which might be surprising to most millennials and certainly Gen Z’ers, but for those of us on the tail-end of Gen X, that’s not a concept you would have heard about in the Lifeway Sunday School quarterly.
Anyway, the church planting catalyst wasn’t interested in helping an “elder-rule” church because, he told me, it led to too many disagreements or problems. But not long after that, we decided the 104th Southern Baptist Church in that community probably wasn’t that necessary, and I found myself in Montana. And shortly after arriving there, we approved a new church constitution that installed elders in the congregation for the first time.
The church treasurer immediately turned in his membership, claiming – and I quote – “the elders killed Jesus.” We carried on anyway.
Ultimately, we stayed true to Baptist polity. We had elders and deacons, the first of which had authority within the church and the latter had no authority, but were merely servants dedicated to specific tasks. Elders, of which the lead pastor would be one, were appointed by a vote of the congregation. Their nomination would be made by elders only, approved by the church council, and then voted upon by the church after a mandatory period of prayer and fasting (ditto for deacons).
The congregation maintained ultimate say over who was an elder and could dismiss them if they became unqualified. The congregation also maintained the ultimate say in matters of church discipline because – frankly – that’s the way Jesus told us to handle discipline in Matthew 18. Elders could implement temporary discipline if it were an emergency or if immediate action was necessary, but according to the constitution, church members could appeal directly to the congregation in the third step of church discipline (also lined out by Jesus in Matthew 18).
The church also had say over the church budget, and elders had authority to spend within their budgeted guidelines without permission, understanding that the guidelines were sufficiently detailed. But those amounts, and what the budgeted items were for and how they were defined, were the purview of the congregation via democratic vote of church members over the age of 16. It turns out I did not believe in elder-rule government after all, once the Scripture was considered in this process, but elder-led government.
HAVE YOUR ELDER CALL ME, WE’LL TALK
It’s gotten really weird on X lately, with the notion that elders have censor-power over tweets being almost ubiquitous out there in the Reformed Evangelical realm. David and I discussed this recently in a Bulldogmatic Polemics Round Table, heard by our Protestia Insiders.
Can elders demand that you edit your tweets (which is the equivalent of editing your thoughts)?
Neil Shenvi, the JD Greear apologist who has some convinced he’s an opponent of Critical Theory instead of the Devil’s Rodeo Clown that he is, recently told a critic on X, “Show this tweet to your pastor, and have him call me.”
This one is especially weird. Apparently, in Shenvi’s thinking, he – who is not an elder – will only listen to an elder, having refused to speak to someone who’s not an elder.
Can elders intervene in controversies and disagreements, based on the virtue of their eldership authority?
It appears as though some Internet apologists and “scholars in residence,” a Director for Apologia Church (I have no idea what a church “director” does) and Douglas Wilson – who I’ve also admired, albeit with *asterisks on my endorsements – seem to have implied that those who are not elders must listen to others who are elders, despite them not being their elders.
Do elders have a “walking authority,” to go around insisting that they have carte blanche authority over those not even in their congregation?
Tom Buck recently opined as to whether or not the elders of the church could intervene on a husband exercising domineering control over his wife, in the hypothetical situation in which he wanted her to exclusively wear red dresses.
Can elders step in when a father or husband isn’t exercising his authority incorrectly?
These are all questions I’ll attempt to answer here, although briefly.
WE’LL WALK YOU DOWN THE AISLE
When I – and everyone else – discovered that I had a serious dependency upon prescription Xanax, I was carted off to rehab at the insistence of loved ones (as I should have been). I was then summarily fired from the church (as I should have been, although it would have been better had they accepted my resignation to begin with).
So far, no harm – no foul, right?
But then, a few strange things started to occur. First, deacons stepped in and strong-armed the one remaining elder in the church, who took a soft back seat to their contrived authority. Suddenly, over night, it became a deacon-ruled church.
Secondly, some of these men began to say some really odd and creepy things to my wife. One example includes a response to her hesitancy to attend church without me, “Lots of men would be lucky to take you to church.” It was then followed with insistence that she move into their home to have “spiritual covering.” Keep in mind, I never taught any of that covering nonsense, as most of my readers very well know. That’s not even in the orbit of our theology.
Third, almost immediately, they cornered my daughter who was soon to be married, and encouraged her to disinvite me from her wedding, under the promise that they – the new church authorities – would “walk her down the aisle.”
Both of those things were enough to set the Hall women against them pretty dang quickly, as well as raise their spidey senses and also their hackles.
In the weeks that followed, congregational meetings were held in which members were informed of the “discipline process” against me – which amounted to texting me “once an addict, always an addict” in rehab. The membership had voiced opposition, with some pleading with them to slow down the process, allowing me time to process and for my mind to heal before the proceeded. I could not comprehend how it was possible that the church was acting so vastly different from the way I taught them, or how we had ever done discipline before, or how divergent it was from our governing documents.
But then, more than a year later, that quandary was solved.
Our investigation, which was necessary because of charges they eventually made against me, reveal that one woman who made the plea of patience was quieted, and she was told in a business meeting, “You don’t get a say, because you aren’t leadership.”
I was aghast at that, because it was so fundamentally different from the polity we designed in the Constitution, or had ever modeled. Words as ugly as, “You don’t get a say,” was never anything remotely suggested in my long tenure there. In the weeks that followed, many left the church over actions they believed were contrary to our polity. Most never got a phone call from their new “leadership” to say they were missed.
When I asked to speak directly to the congregation, among my many pleas of apology, they refused to follow constitutional guidelines. When Mandy asked to conduct Matthew 18 against those who had demanded she divorce because I had become dependent upon a prescription drug, they refused to let her. When church members asked to see the accounting with their own eyes, which was their right according to our bylaws, they were denied. Each time, they appealed to their authority as “leaders,” despite the constitution not enumerating them those powers.
And, as you’ve read in the papers probably, those who wrestled control of the congregation made an accusation of “theft” because I spent funds precisely as the Constitution and bylaws allowed, as I did for 15 years without complaint. They marked money spent on fuel as theft, for example, despite having a fuel budget and the budget defined in the church bylaws. They marked flowers sent to missionary funerals as theft, despite the bylaws authorizing the pastor to use funds marked as hospitality and benevolence. They marked funds spent on background checks for AWANA workers as theft, despite a vote of the congregation mandating it. And despite all of those expenses having legitimate ministry purposes having been already voted upon by the congregation each year, they made their accusations anyway.
By the time they charged me, neither police nor the prosecutor had even reviewed church documentation to determine what the polity of the church actually was. They did not know for example, that claims we stopped having budget meetings were fictional, that budget meetings were had just as they should have been, and the witness claiming we stopped having budget meetings, was recorded in the meetings as not only being present, but opening them in prayer.
And once we performed a professional forensics audit and compelled discovery from the church regarding our polity and meeting minutes where these expenditures had already been approved, the prosecutor was eager to drop charges in a period of 18 months, so long as I paid them only the amount that neither side could demonstrate what it was for (or even who spent it), which amounted to – over five years – less than I gave in tithe in a single year. I was happy with this, and immediately gave them a check in the full amount, happy to have it behind me.
In any event, I describe this hellacious experience of my own to demonstrate that the best church polity in the world cannot prevent the church (or elders) from ignoring their own polity. In that event, it will always become anarchy and chaos.
With it understood that no polity is perfect in every scenario, and it’s only so good as it’s followed, let’s review key Baptist doctrines dealing with the issue at hand.
THE LIMITS OF ELDER AUTHORITY
Three Baptist distinctives (although they’re not exclusive to Baptists, per se, but all Baptists hold them by default) are key to understanding this issue.
The first, is Priesthood of the Believer. The second, Soul Competency. And the third, Soul Liberty.
Priesthood of the Believer is a simple concept, and is held widely in Protestant Christianity, although for Baptists it’s what one might call a Cardinal Doctrine, if one wanted to steal that designation from the Papists.
Priesthood of the Believer teaches that every believer is a priest, at least in a sense. Drawing upon 1 Peter 2:5-9, in which Peter refers to the recipients of his epistle as a “holy priesthood,” this doctrine rends asunder the clergy-laity divide. Offices, such as elder and deacon exist, but the Romanist notion of only some believers having special access to God is rejected on the grounds that Jesus is our high-priest, the only one legitimately above us in the spiritual hierarchy.
We access God the Father through God the Son, absent any other intermediary. We are, therefore, equal to one another despite Christians having differing giftedness or callings. Some are called to be pastors, and others, teachers, but we are all equal before God.
Baptist polity reflects this doctrine in numerous ways. One of those is church governance, in which all church members in good standing – presuming that membership consists of baptized believers in Jesus – may take part in directing church governance, just as they take complete authority over governing their own spiritual relationship with Christ.
Calvin wrote, “For we, though in ourselves polluted, in him being priests (Rev. 1:6), offer ourselves and our all to God, and freely enter the heavenly sanctuary.”
Soul Competency is a similar, but different Baptist doctrine. This doctrine is more uniquely Baptist than Priesthood of the Believer. It holds that all believers are competent before God to know and respond to God’s will.
Although some consider this only a soteriological doctrine (dealing only with salvation) it is far from it. In fact, Soul Competency doesn’t really begin until salvation. The concept is that by being led by the Holy Ghost, and informed by Scripture, Christians have the competency to make their own decisions.
This, of course, does not mean that all decisions a Christian may make are good or Biblical. It does not imply a license to sin. It does, however, free the Christian from incessant demands placed upon them as “rules of holiness” by a clergy class.
Combined with the doctrine of the “perspicuity of Scripture” – that the Scripture was given to be understood – this doctrine conveys the belief that a man who is born again can read the Bible for himself and come to an adequate understanding of right and wrong.
Soul Competency does not imply that one cannot benefit from teachers who have been gifted to the church by God, from training, or from academic learning of the Scripture. Rather, it holds that none of these things are essential for the Christian to obey God because the Scripture, alone, is sufficient.
Conclusions drawn from Soul Competency include the following (some of which you can find here):
–Individuals have a God-given competency to know God and his will.
–This competency is a gift from God and not a human creation.
–Persons therefore are free to make choices; they are not puppets.
–God does not force or coerce compliance with his will; neither faith nor love can be forced.
–The individual is responsible for choices. Faith response must be by the individual and not by a group of which the individual is part.
Soul Liberty is a third doctrine of Baptist distinction. Largely, this doctrine is predicated by both the Priesthood of the Believer and Soul Competency. Because we do not believe in Popes or magisterial church authorities, and because each believer is competent to discern God’s will, each believer is free to discern God’s will.
Although Soul Competency and Soul Liberty are often spoken of as synonymous, Soul Competency is the indicative and Soul Liberty is the imperative; or to put it another way, because we are capable to discern God’s will, we are free to discern God’s will.
THE EXTENT OF ELDER AUTHORITY
God gifted to the church elders (Ephesians 4:11-12). Synonyms for this office include pastor, shepherd, bishop, overseer, and steward.
Elders – and it appears multiple elders – were to be appointed in every church (Acts 14:23).
Their qualifications were given in 1 Timothy 3:1-7. Their qualifications are the same as those for deacons, with the exception that elders had to be “apt to teach.” In years past, I considered “apt” to mean “able,” or “competent.” Given my recent experience, I believe I was in error with some elders I personally surrounded myself with. I believe a better interpretation of “apt” (διδακτικόν) in 1 Timothy 2:24 is better rendered “gifted,” in the same way that the Bible at several points refers to “mighty men of valor who were apt at war.” Mere competency at war is not enough to be a “mighty man of valor,” and I don’t think mere competence at teaching is enough to qualify an elder. They must be gifted at it.
It’s just that in my personal experience, I thought mere competency to teach was sufficient, especially if I was leading the elders as lead pastor. But in my absence and disqualification, it appears their lack of giftedness and their mere competency proved dangerous…and stupid.
The elders’ primary job is to teach and preach, which they are to do “when it is convenient and when it is inconvenient” (2 Timothy 4:2), as well as to “reprove, rebuke, and exhort. Reproving means to intervene with Scripture to prevent error, rebuke means to chastise when error has already been committed, and exhort means to encourage. Most of this is done within the act of preaching, but it does not rule out fulfillment of these tasks at other opportunities.
Elders do indeed rule (Hebrews 13:17), in a sense, because they give an account of your soul to God.
Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
Some interpret this to mean that elders may intervene at any juncture, into your life, and demand obedience to their command or conformity to their thoughts. But is this what the author of Hebrews intended?
John Gill explained in his commentary, “they watch not for themselves, for their worldly gain and advantage, and for the estates of men; but for the souls of men, to do them good, to comfort and edify them, to feed them with knowledge and understanding, and for the salvation of them; as such that must give an account to their own consciences, that they discharge their work aright, or they cannot be satisfied; and to the church, to whom they minister, to whom they are accountable, if they are dilatory and negligent; and especially as such as must stand before the judgment seat of Christ, and give an account to him of their ministry, of their use of talents committed to them, and of souls that are put under their care and charge; how they have discharged their duty to the souls of men, and how these have behaved towards them under the ministry of the word.”
Matthew Poole echoed this, “For they watch for your souls, as they that must give account: good reason have they to perform this duty, because of their concern in and care for their souls. How great, by Christ’s law, are the night watchings, and day cares, and tears, studies, exhortations, reproofs, comfortings, their preachings, and prayers with tears, and strong cries to God for their souls!”
Notice that Poole says this task is done by “studies, exhortations, reproofs, comfortings, preachings, and prayers.”
Baptists reject the idea that this means their watch over you gives them license to dictate your daily decisions or subject you to their whims and opinions. This task of the elder is done by their preaching, their studies, and their prayers.
And finally, keep in mind that the jurisdiction of elders is related to the office of elder within the church. The church, or ecclesia, is the “called out assembly,” or “assembly of believers.”
One pernicious notion I’ve dispelled over the years is the belief held by some men that they are “pastors of their home.” This is nonsense, I’ve always said, because a “pastor” is only a pastor in the church. There is no office of pastor in the home. They are leaders in their home, but not all leaders are pastors. In the context of the home, leaders are first, husbands, and secondly, parents. This does not diminish the leadership role of husbands and parents, but merely corrects the category error of the notion of “pastors” in the home. Not even a pastor is pastor in his own home.
The inverse is also true. There is no “father” or “daddy” or “husband” in church government. These are not offices in the Assembly of Believers. These are roles in the home (unless you’re a Papist, who believes the Pope – or “Papa” – is daddy, and nuns are married to the church). Protestants don’t believe such myths.
That said, it should be understood that the authority of elders does not extend to the home, and does not supersede the role of husband. The question from several weeks ago, if pastors could intervene in a hypothetical situation regarding a husband requiring his wife to wear a certain garment, is absolutely not – at least – if “intervene” means anything but providing counsel. Whatever intervention happens, it is limited to offering his opinion and not even that in his role of elder, but in his role as fellow Christian.
Simply put, the Bible does not authorize an elder to negate the authority of a husband, nor the authority of a husband.
The same would be true if a set of parents was disciplining their child in ways with which the pastor disagrees (for example, if the parents send the child to bed without dinner). The pastor may offer his counsel, just as any other Christian could, but he does not have the authority to order to them to discipline differently.
In regard to the question of social media posting, which does not affect the Assembly of Believers in any way, elders do not maintain the “walking authority” to insist a congregant edit his words. Even if the pastor believes those words to be sinful, the pastor is absolutely not the “sin police.” He may rebuke – and should feel free to rebuke – just as any other Christian could. He may even decide to address the issue from the pulpit, and if necessary, call out the individual for crassness or breach in Christian decorum. But he may not demand obedience under a threat of discipline. Elders simply do not have the authority outside the assembly to do this, at least on the grounds that they’re an elder.
In this hypothetical situation, if the tweet in question was so egregious it may indicate that the individual’s profession of faith is insincere (and that would have to be a heck of a tweet), disciplinary actions may be taken according to the Lord’s process lined out in Matthew 18. The pastor can even serve as one of the two witnesses against him. But ultimately, it is the authority of the church and the church only to excommunicate.
In regard to the question of elders online, insisting that others conform their opinions to theirs, it should go without saying they have no such authority (but sadly, it does need said). A pastor in Germany has no authority to demand a pastor in America take disciplinary action against someone who he thinks has erred. An apologist in Phoenix has no right to scream “sit down and shut up” to young men, who he thinks should obey. A pastor in Idaho has no right to characterize those with divergent ideas of being “fatherless,” if that means he’s projecting himself as their new daddy. Elders only have authority within their own assemblies.
Just as your neighbor’s wife doesn’t have to submit to you, and your wife doesn’t have to submit to the neighbor’s husband, random Christians online do not have to submit to any elders but their own. And the submission of which we speak is the submission to listen and consider their warnings and opinions.
The question of many is if church members are just allowed to say whatever they want, or believe whatever they want. So far as it doesn’t contradict the statement of faith to which they’ve covenanted themselves, the answer is both yes, and no. Yes, they are free to say what they want and believe what they want. But no, this doesn’t mean that elders cannot consider their words or actions outside the assembly when making appointments or delegating responsibilities within the assembly.
My thoughts do not conform to my own pastor’s, on several issues (which I dare not ever publicly bring up). He does not demand that I conform my beliefs to his. But I’m well aware that means that I might not get asked to perform any function within the church, perhaps not so much as greet people with bulletins (I don’t know, and neither am I interested). Those who appear unruly online might very well be forgoing any responsibility in the church that requires pastoral approval. Such is the authority of elders within the assembly.
A WORD OF CAUTION TO ELDERS WHO DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE LIMITS OF THEIR AUTHORITY
I cannot fathom the arrogance of 30 year-old pastors who think they have the right to dictate the tweets of men who’ve walked with Christ longer than they’ve been alive. Neither can I fathom elders with a few small children, usurping the role of fathers who have many children who are grown, or an elder who has been married for ten years, usurping the role of a man who’s been a husband for 30.
The role of elder is difficult, if not the most difficult job in the world. It is taxing, and draining, and will age you quickly. The job is difficult enough, just in doing the duties God has given you, to try to police the thoughts and words of church members while they’re living their daily lives. Not only do you not have that authority, you do not have the time.
I would also warn you that the office of elder easily leads to the sin of pride. Many look to you for wisdom and with great respect, if for no other reason, most every time they see you, you’re holding the Holy Bible. The pitfall, however, is pride and it will creep in. Raising yourself up as the arbiter for all disagreements, the referee of all conflict, the umpire of all ideas, calling fouls upon them at each juncture, will lead you to great personal dangers. The most important thing I can tell you is this; you are not the Holy Ghost.
You cannot sanctify men by your rebuking, and you can not lead men to Christ by your preaching. Rebuking and preaching are both things you have authority to do, but in neither case do you have authority to make these things effectual. God the Holy Ghost does that. Should you, in pride, think more highly of yourself than you ought, you will mourn with great bitterness the ineffectuality of your pleadings. Why, you will wonder, can you not bend the will of man? The answer is, because you never could. That’s what the Spirit does. Free yourself from pride by rebuking, reproving, and exhorting without trusting in your own capacities. And free yourself from heartbreak, by instead of berating someone to no good outcome, praying for them instead.
I assure you, God will do far more through prayer, than you will ever do by installing yourself as Pope over the lives of your people.
This was first posted behind the paywall at Insight to Incite, but has been included here as a benefit of your Protestia Insider membership.