Problems of Reformed Eldership, Iain Murray
I am trying to work through this article and would like your thoughts.
I am trying to work through this article and would like your thoughts.
THE PROBLEM OF THE ELDERSHIP AND ITS WIDER IMPLICATIONS by Iain Murray
- Thread starter Pergamum
- Start date
- Status
As an OPC-man, I'm modestly convinced that our system does as good or better justice to the available biblical (primary) and historical evidence, relative to the other proposals. I think that we are duty bound to have a conviction that what we are doing in church-government is "the" biblical way, even if we should be found sincerely wrong. That is not to say that I am inflexible as to detailed application, but that there are limits to what forms can fall between bounds.
Our constitutional documents fairly describe a three-office structure. We maintain plurality of rulers (elders) for every congregation, the majority of whom are home-grown, lay-leaders. We (usually) expect these elders to be competent at some level to teach in our churches, per 1Tim.3:2. And they do teach, most often in a Sunday-school setting. These men are expected to know the Bible and confessional doctrine.
It happens that we also distinguish between ordinary teaching and preaching. Preaching as we see it is a peculiar function of the ministry, along with administration of the sacraments (hence the designation: Word and Sacrament minister). We want these men to be worthy of that "double honor," to be professional at this task, to be expert in the Bible and Christian faith, by some objective measures. Thus, our extra demands placed on would-be ministers. They must meet the highest of our standards, that we might find them competent to the burdens they will take up.
I'm not convinced that C.Hodge had it entirely correct; but I do think he had many of the best insights and instincts in his era.
Our constitutional documents fairly describe a three-office structure. We maintain plurality of rulers (elders) for every congregation, the majority of whom are home-grown, lay-leaders. We (usually) expect these elders to be competent at some level to teach in our churches, per 1Tim.3:2. And they do teach, most often in a Sunday-school setting. These men are expected to know the Bible and confessional doctrine.
It happens that we also distinguish between ordinary teaching and preaching. Preaching as we see it is a peculiar function of the ministry, along with administration of the sacraments (hence the designation: Word and Sacrament minister). We want these men to be worthy of that "double honor," to be professional at this task, to be expert in the Bible and Christian faith, by some objective measures. Thus, our extra demands placed on would-be ministers. They must meet the highest of our standards, that we might find them competent to the burdens they will take up.
I'm not convinced that C.Hodge had it entirely correct; but I do think he had many of the best insights and instincts in his era.
Jackie Kaulitz
Puritan Board Freshman
Interesting article. Thanks for sharing 
"All round the world a chorus of voices have repeated the words of such authors as Paul Benjamin who writes: The idea of every Christian being a minister of Christ is finally dawning upon the American mind. During a long night, growth has been thwarted by the 'one minister one congregation' concept of ministry. (5)"
Yikes. Reading this makes me so sad. It seems like today, just about anyone can become a minister and in most places there are no requirements/restrictions. Often the people elect anyone they "like" regardless of doctrine. The general church is so ignorant that there are different theologies and that these teachings do matter! For example, how many professing Christians do we meet that see no difference at all between all Protestant churches? And this "every man is a minister" just opens us up to adopt a little bit of this and a little of that and make up our own religions and require everyone to respect them as true. I feel like this is exactly where non-denominationalism is leading us. Why claim no denomination? Every church is teaching a theology so why not admit it instead of hiding it? Adhering to no denomination or no theology allows us to pick and choose from what we like with no accountability.
"Alexander Strauch, says: The one-man-professional-ministry concept is totally unsuited for the body of Christ. Outwardly it may be successful, but in reality it is harmful to the sanctification of the members of Christ's body. (6)"
I fully agree. How sad it is that so many small town churches do not have trained pastors or have one-man churches. Where are all those guys going who graduate from seminary? Where can we put up ads to recruit them to our areas as elders or to start new churches as pastors where they are badly needed?
"All round the world a chorus of voices have repeated the words of such authors as Paul Benjamin who writes: The idea of every Christian being a minister of Christ is finally dawning upon the American mind. During a long night, growth has been thwarted by the 'one minister one congregation' concept of ministry. (5)"
Yikes. Reading this makes me so sad. It seems like today, just about anyone can become a minister and in most places there are no requirements/restrictions. Often the people elect anyone they "like" regardless of doctrine. The general church is so ignorant that there are different theologies and that these teachings do matter! For example, how many professing Christians do we meet that see no difference at all between all Protestant churches? And this "every man is a minister" just opens us up to adopt a little bit of this and a little of that and make up our own religions and require everyone to respect them as true. I feel like this is exactly where non-denominationalism is leading us. Why claim no denomination? Every church is teaching a theology so why not admit it instead of hiding it? Adhering to no denomination or no theology allows us to pick and choose from what we like with no accountability.
"Alexander Strauch, says: The one-man-professional-ministry concept is totally unsuited for the body of Christ. Outwardly it may be successful, but in reality it is harmful to the sanctification of the members of Christ's body. (6)"
I fully agree. How sad it is that so many small town churches do not have trained pastors or have one-man churches. Where are all those guys going who graduate from seminary? Where can we put up ads to recruit them to our areas as elders or to start new churches as pastors where they are badly needed?
Scott1
Puritanboard Commissioner
The qualifications for church office, whether termed bishop or minister or elder or deacon, are explicit and fairly detailed in I Timothy 3 and Titus 1. There are instructions to ordain elders "in every city." (e.g. Titus 1:5, Acts 14:23)
A congregation of believers looks to God, in faith to supply, those whom God would appoint for their benefit.
What's amazing, is how often I have seen this- uniquely qualified men to the office of teaching elder (minister, etc.) and then those for deacon and ruling elder.
The latter, without pay!
And when this is followed, at least in the PCA, I see the pattern of a very high level of involvement of members of the congregation in all sorts of service and ministry. Men and women do this, even boys and girls.
I can't help but think it is evidence that biblical faithfulness in polity works, and has good fruit.
A congregation of believers looks to God, in faith to supply, those whom God would appoint for their benefit.
What's amazing, is how often I have seen this- uniquely qualified men to the office of teaching elder (minister, etc.) and then those for deacon and ruling elder.
The latter, without pay!
And when this is followed, at least in the PCA, I see the pattern of a very high level of involvement of members of the congregation in all sorts of service and ministry. Men and women do this, even boys and girls.
I can't help but think it is evidence that biblical faithfulness in polity works, and has good fruit.
SRoper
Puritan Board Graduate
Thanks for the article. Much to think about. I came away finding the single elder assisted by deacons view more plausible than before and find Hodge's view less plausible. I still find some form of two office view with a plurality of elders the most convincing.
Rev. Buchanan, by expecting "elders to be competent at some level to teach in our churches, per 1Tim.3:2" aren't you sharply departing from Hodge's view? Somewhat related, do you understand the office of ruling elder to be by divine appointment or practical necessity?
Rev. Buchanan, by expecting "elders to be competent at some level to teach in our churches, per 1Tim.3:2" aren't you sharply departing from Hodge's view? Somewhat related, do you understand the office of ruling elder to be by divine appointment or practical necessity?
In answer of the first, I suspect I may be departing sharply; but I've already admitted that I'm not in lock-step agreement with him, although I find much about his views to appreciate.
I'll stick my neck out for de jure Presbyterianism, and state that I believe the office of elder to be by divine appointment. I think its origins are partly to be found in a natural office of the patriarch, and heads of the tribes and clans of Israel. I believe that it receives refinement starting with the wisdom expressed from Jethro, Moses father-in-law, concerning the duties of ruler/judge of the people, Ex.18:17-23.
Moses (the mediator) chose him men from among the people, but as M.Poole points out, "Moses chose them not solely, but together with the people, as appears from Dt.1:13."
9 At that time I said to you, 'I am not able to bear you by myself.... 12 How can I bear by myself the weight and burden of you and your strife? 13 Choose for your tribes wise, understanding, and experienced men, and I will appoint them as your heads.
So, here is the mediator of the Old Covenant calling men into office, and the mechanism for effecting the choice is a popular selection--akin to the way in which our elders are chosen today.Poole again points out that Moses acted on Jethro's counsel after he was satisfied that God had approved this notion, demonstrating that it did not proceed from nothing more than human wisdom and expediency, "Moses did all that he had said, not immediately, but after he had received God’s approbation, Num.11:16."
16 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Gather for me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom you know to be the elders of the people and officers over them, and bring them to the tent of meeting, and let them take their stand there with you..... 24 So Moses went out and told the people the words of the LORD. And he gathered seventy men of the elders of the people and placed them around the tent. 25 Then the LORD came down in the cloud and spoke to him, and took some of the Spirit that was on him and put it on the seventy elders. And as soon as the Spirit rested on them, they prophesied.
We believe the church of the New Testament is nothing but the church of the Old Testament continued, with due allowances for changes in the conditions upon which it is settled. These men were denominated "elders" of old. I do not believe that that title has been transferred in the NT only to ministers.
I agree with Bruce. It's interesting how Dr. Murray kind of moves in and out of GNC and "light of nature" arguments but then sort of remains skeptical about the eldership based on a "proof text" heremeneutic. In other words, he points out that, historically, certain things did and didn't work but that's not an exegetical argument.
In fact, one of the arguments for Presbyterianism (in the Divine Right) is that it accords with the light of nature. It's the way you see organizations effectively forming themselves naturally. It's not an air tight "proof text" argument but neither is Jethro's advice to Moses about appointing elders and God acknowledges that Jethro is wise in his assessment that one man can't do everything.
I think the bottom line is that some things will never be viewed as Biblical unless they can get a chapter and verse reading and I believe that's why you see some tension on this. It's not that I accuse Dr. Murray of this but an issue of "the way things are" or "light of nature" things that sort of formed in OT history and then were carried over into the NT Churches are not going to always be explicitly cited. There's a lot, for instance, in some Jewish writings outside the OT that give us insight as to how the tribes had both Princes and Elders and there's a lot about the organization of Jewish synagogues and how it all tied together centrally. After a few thousand years of things working then you may not have an airtight exegetical case but you have enough of what we know God sanctioned with Moses and enough indications about the history and culture to use a grammatico-historical method that says: "Paul is basically setting up the NT Church like the Synagogue system."
I did, however, find the article extremely useful for historical reasons and it explains to me how the whole one Pastor with deacons model was formed. I came away with a greater appreciation that Presbyterianism was Biblical because of the historical problems with congregationalism that sort of make it implode on itself.
In fact, one of the arguments for Presbyterianism (in the Divine Right) is that it accords with the light of nature. It's the way you see organizations effectively forming themselves naturally. It's not an air tight "proof text" argument but neither is Jethro's advice to Moses about appointing elders and God acknowledges that Jethro is wise in his assessment that one man can't do everything.
I think the bottom line is that some things will never be viewed as Biblical unless they can get a chapter and verse reading and I believe that's why you see some tension on this. It's not that I accuse Dr. Murray of this but an issue of "the way things are" or "light of nature" things that sort of formed in OT history and then were carried over into the NT Churches are not going to always be explicitly cited. There's a lot, for instance, in some Jewish writings outside the OT that give us insight as to how the tribes had both Princes and Elders and there's a lot about the organization of Jewish synagogues and how it all tied together centrally. After a few thousand years of things working then you may not have an airtight exegetical case but you have enough of what we know God sanctioned with Moses and enough indications about the history and culture to use a grammatico-historical method that says: "Paul is basically setting up the NT Church like the Synagogue system."
I did, however, find the article extremely useful for historical reasons and it explains to me how the whole one Pastor with deacons model was formed. I came away with a greater appreciation that Presbyterianism was Biblical because of the historical problems with congregationalism that sort of make it implode on itself.
- Status