What minimum age should a ruling elder be?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Maturity in the faith is key here: a young man who has followed Christ all his life and is well grounded both in the Word and his walk would be far better candidate than a 60-year-old who has only walked with Christ for a few years.

One of our better elders was a young man who just completed graduate school -- he had been reared with an excellent Christian education and had a godly wife. His grasp of Greek was so sound our (excellent!) pastor sometimes deferred to him on matters of grammar. This fella was one of the most natural preachers I've ever heard -- with no seminary background he sometimes filled our pulpit. We lost him because he stood up for what was Biblically correct and was forced out of his position teaching at a Christian college.

That said, a church's process for bringing a candidate on board is critical in weeding out those who might truly be immature -- the training and mentorship here takes about 2 years.
 
Rather than setting a artificial minimum age, would it not be more biblical to understand this as an issue of discernment? There have been men ordained in their 20s who God made into giants before their 30th year (Calvin and Spurgeon to name 2), and men ordained in their 30s who became giants in heresy by their elder years (Finney to name 1).
 
Last edited:
Given my age, I am not claiming this at all, however M'Cheyne is another young man who was used mightily in his short early life.
 
As was Matthew Henry who took his first church at 25 and died at the young age of 52. It is astonishing to think of all he accomplished in his short life and even more astonishing to think of what he might have accomplished if the Lord had seen fit to leave him another 20 or so years.
 
But those exceptions just prove the rule. Elder means old, just like deacon means to serve.
 
TimV said:
But those exceptions just prove the rule. Elder means old, just like deacon means to serve.
Click to expand...

You'll forgive me but I don't quite see how they "prove the rule."

And I think it can be argued quite cogently that the title "elder" means "mature" more so than "old." After all, it is spiritual maturity that is requisite to the office and not physical age (I Tim. 3:6).
 
TimV said:
But those exceptions just prove the rule. Elder means old, just like deacon means to serve.
Click to expand...

I would agree with Rev. Sheffield, "that the title "elder" means mature".

Why would we want to set a minimum age? In other words, what is the reasoning for this? We want to God to work in the lives of our young men and pray that they would be mature in Christ to serve and lead his church. Experience is not always the best teacher. So an abundance of experience in life is not a pre-requisite for me.

This reminds me of my position as a parent to train my children and to ensure that my sons know the Scriptures. So that they can one day be able to lead and manage their households well, and if the Lord calls them to be elders in his church, I will have laid the foundation.

May the Lord raise up shepherds for his blood bought flock.
 
Why would we want to set a minimum age?
Click to expand...

You wouldn't want to set a minimum age. You just need to realise that young people are exceptions. The modern Sanhedrin has a rule of 40 years, but expressly states that in cases of unusual learning a younger man can serve.
 
TimV said:
Why would we want to set a minimum age?
Click to expand...

You wouldn't want to set a minimum age. You just need to realise that young people are exceptions. The modern Sanhedrin has a rule of 40 years, but expressly states that in cases of unusual learning a younger man can serve.
Click to expand...

Why are young leaders exceptions?

1 Timothy 3:6, says, "and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil".

If they are to be exceptions may it not be because parents (like myself) have failed to do what God has called us to do.
 
Seems we are judging men out of their era. All the men mentioned come from a very different time. Just in education they were expected to know more. The work many did just a hundred years ago at the B.A. level would be considered Ph.D. material by our standards. Without even going "back in time" men outside of the US are expected to become men at much younger ages. They are expected to handle responsibilities. While it may seem unpopular to set a limit it is definitely unrealistic to think that the average 22 year old North American is prepared. There are exceptions but they are the exception. While experience may not be the best teacher nothing, absolutely nothing can take the place of having lived a righteous life for at least a decade or two. Having a mental assent to the effect of sexual immorality is nothing when confronted face-to-face with it. In the last two years I know of 5 men who have been Christians their "whole lives" who have fallen. Each to sexual sins and each have preached, studied, sung, and a few even held conferences about it. Knowing and doing are not synonymous.

I would say that the Church is too quick to push young men into positions they are not ready for versus not recognizing a young man's gifts soon enough. It's all a case by case basis but I encourage the younger men at our church not into the ministry, at least not yet. I encourage them to live righteous and holy lives; to study their school work and Bibles as to unto the Lord. There are a few who I think might have the gifts but without being tested they are lambs being led to the slaughter.
 
My personal opinion is that the person should be a mature adult and a person who has a good understanding of the Reformed Protestant theology and the Westminster standards and the Bible and perhaps at least reached middle age of 35 to 40 years old.
 
puritanhope said:
The question isn't age, but maturity. Let us not forget the example of Robert Murray M'Cheyne who went to be with the Lord before he was 30.
Click to expand...

DD2009 said:
What is the minimum age for a ruling elder either official or in your opinion in your denomination? I'm PCA and I have no idea. However, I have heard of some ruling elders I thought might be a little less than elderly....I guess.
Click to expand...

MLCOPE2 said:
62.5ish
Click to expand...

Them's retirement years!
 
Age does matter. Consider this scenario. A young man is zealous for the Lord, knowledgeable of Scripture, has a fulltime job, family, young children, and wants to rule. Another man semi-retired, solid in doctrine, zealous for the Lord, grown children, and wants to rule. Who would you vote for? I’d vote for the older man in the congregation who is not tied too so many other responsibilities. One thing to observe men who are older and have the qualifications to rule will more than likely be able to give more time to the church. Younger men, with young families, careers, etc, should focus their time and energy on their families.
 
Blue Tick said:
Age does matter. Consider this scenario. A young man is zealous for the Lord, knowledgeable of Scripture, has a fulltime job, family, young children, and wants to rule. Another man semi-retired, solid in doctrine, zealous for the Lord, grown children, and wants to rule. Who would you vote for? I’d vote for the older man in the congregation who is not tied too so many other responsibilities. One thing to observe men who are older and have the qualifications to rule will more than likely be able to give more time to the church. Younger men, with young families, careers, etc, should focus their time and energy on their families.
Click to expand...

If both men have been called to the office of Ruling Elder, and both are found to be qualified, then why is there a question of "who would you vote for"? They should both be made Ruling Elders! The church isn't a democracy where we have campaigns to elect one qualified man a Ruling Elder instead of another, equally qualified man.
 
Blue Tick said:
Age does matter. Consider this scenario. A young man is zealous for the Lord, knowledgeable of Scripture, has a fulltime job, family, young children, and wants to rule. Another man semi-retired, solid in doctrine, zealous for the Lord, grown children, and wants to rule. Who would you vote for? I’d vote for the older man in the congregation who is not tied too so many other responsibilities. One thing to observe men who are older and have the qualifications to rule will more than likely be able to give more time to the church. Younger men, with young families, careers, etc, should focus their time and energy on their families.
Click to expand...

Considering you have to be about 70 now to retire and collect social security that seems like a late start to the eldership. (by the time I get to retirement it will be about 90 probably). Thanks for holding on to my money for me Uncle Sam. :rolleyes:
 
Blue Tick said:
Age does matter. Consider this scenario. A young man is zealous for the Lord, knowledgeable of Scripture, has a fulltime job, family, young children, and wants to rule. Another man semi-retired, solid in doctrine, zealous for the Lord, grown children, and wants to rule. Who would you vote for? I’d vote for the older man in the congregation who is not tied too so many other responsibilities. One thing to observe men who are older and have the qualifications to rule will more than likely be able to give more time to the church. Younger men, with young families, careers, etc, should focus their time and energy on their families.
Click to expand...

It isn't a voting for one or the other, you are voting on both. Is the old man qualified and called to be an elder in the Church? If so, vote for him. Same for the young man.
 
Age should not be used as a factor. The congregation should be more concerned that the man is well seasoned and mature.

The scriptures tells us that the congregation should look upon how the man has ruled his own house. With this said, if the man has no house of what to speak of, or does not have some kind of equivalent experiences then he should not be consider to become an elder. To me this does not mean he can not teach, but that do to his lack of seasoning, he is not qualified to rule in God's house. And quite frankly I don't care how much schooling he has. Nothing is compared to real life experiences and how one has govern their life and others.
 
A wise older pastor once warned a session about setting age restrictions on the session. He warned that ignoring younger men would be to the detriment of the church. While its been several years here was his sentiment(I was a student invited to sit in on the meeting at the time): When your all 40 you'll say the youngest we'll accept an RE is 35, When your 50 you'll say its 45 and when your 70 you'll say its 65.
 
sastark said:
Blue Tick said:
Age does matter. Consider this scenario. A young man is zealous for the Lord, knowledgeable of Scripture, has a fulltime job, family, young children, and wants to rule. Another man semi-retired, solid in doctrine, zealous for the Lord, grown children, and wants to rule. Who would you vote for? I’d vote for the older man in the congregation who is not tied too so many other responsibilities. One thing to observe men who are older and have the qualifications to rule will more than likely be able to give more time to the church. Younger men, with young families, careers, etc, should focus their time and energy on their families.
Click to expand...

If both men have been called to the office of Ruling Elder, and both are found to be qualified, then why is there a question of "who would you vote for"? They should both be made Ruling Elders! The church isn't a democracy where we have campaigns to elect one qualified man a Ruling Elder instead of another, equally qualified man.
Click to expand...
Focusing energy on the church is focusing on your family.
 
With respect to all parties in this debate I believe that assigning an arbitrary age requirement to the office of elder when scripture does not do so is dangerous. It is also quite clear that from many of the posts that I have read there exists a clear bias against anyone who happens to be called to preach a relatively younger age (20-30). In light of this here is some food for thought.

Isaac Watts writer of Logic and some 750 hymns took his first pastorate in 1702 at the age of 28

C.H. Spurgeon took the pastorate at the New Park Street Chapel at the age of 19

John Calvin published his Latin edition of Institutes of the Christian Religion in 1536 at the age of 29

John Owen wrote A Display of Arminianism in March of 1642 at the age of 26.

The list could be much longer but I think the point has been made. Personally, I tend to wonder if some of this animosity toward younger elders is based on sinful jealousy or personal pride. In any event, we would all do well to heed Paul's admonishment to Timothy and let no one despise us (or our elders) for their youth.
 
Since the bible doesn't give us an age I would say he just look old....so, guys, color your hair white! ;)
 
I think it is foolish to set a minimum age for eldership. Timothy was young and Paul told him not to let that be a hinderance. I would say an elder must be a mature Christian no doubt but I ahve met many 20 somethings who had more sense and ability to lead and far more maturity in Christ than many older men. Minimum age is a poor idea.
 
It can't be doubted that a grey head is a real asset in the ministry regardless of one's competence. I've known some grey-headed "pastors" who would ravage a church only to move on to the next. And it is certain that their age ingratiated them to the churches seeking pastors.
 
Let's just be careful that, in our not-despising youth, we don't start despising not-youth.

(Does that make ANY sense?)
 
raekwon said:
Let's just be careful that, in our not-despising youth, we don't start despising not-youth.

(Does that make ANY sense?)
Click to expand...

Too late! If you look at ministry opportunities available in the PCA you will see where they want a 25-35yo, who has earned a Ph.D. in theology from Edinburgh, married with 2.5kids, debtfree, with 10 years post-MDiv experience as an assistant pastor, and 5 years as a senior pastor of a congregation of no less than 1000....he must like kittens and butterflies ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top