The Lord Provides (Benevolence)

A word about benevolence

Is It Possible to Pay a Pastor Too Much?

The past few weeks we have been discussing The Church and our responsibility to plan for the future. Toward the end of Bible study this past week I may have said something that sounded a bit odd. So I thought I would clarify my statement in this newsletter article.

I posed the question, ‘is it possible to pay a pastor too much?’ The context of the discussion was, of course, what does 1 Timothy 5:17 mean when it says that elders who work hard at preaching and teaching are, ‘worthy of double honor’? I think we all agree, in light of Paul’s word to Timothy, that the church ought to honor widows who are ‘widows indeed’ (1 Tim. 5:3). Paul furthermore reminds Timothy that the church must not be burdened by widows who were not truly needy - in other words there are some widows that have other means of support and therefore do not need the churches support. The point I made here was that this ‘honor’ was not merely words or an attitude that we should have toward ‘widows indeed’ but rather some sort of support so that they might continue to live (food, clothing, shelter).  

So as we continue into the next paragraph of this letter, the Apostle Paul writes, ‘The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching’ I think we clearly see that Paul was talking about support (food, clothing, shelter) and not simply telling Timothy that the church needs to speak honorably about the pastor.

Also, I do not think ‘double honor’ merely means twice the amount we might give to support a qualified widow. But what does it mean? How much support should a church provide to the man that they have called to devote himself  constantly to the service of Christ?¹

When the words came out of my mouth, ‘is it possible to pay a pastor too much?’ I knew that I had not given you enough background to understand what I was thinking. I regret my haste in speaking.

But here is what was going through my mind: first, we all agree that there are limits to the funds available to the church. Yes, our Father owns the cattle on a thousand hills (a poetic metaphor to help us but we actually know that He owns everything) so that there is no limit to the support that He may grant to the church. But in His wisdom he allows us to be a part of what He is doing (we are the ‘means’ that He uses) here on earth. So He graciously gives us opportunities to support the work of the church through our tithes and offerings. The Law of the Harvest also means that our giving will reflect our priorities - if we invest little we can expect a small harvest, if we invest generously, we can expect a generous harvest. Where we invest our time and money often indicates our priorities. I believe that our priority at Trinity is investing in the sound biblical teaching and preaching.

So, because of our desire to invest in the greater blessing of sound teaching and preaching, we acknowledge the importance of fully supporting a man in order that he will not have to worry about ’secular affairs’ (2 Tim. 2:4). Whoever this man may be, we must accept that he also has a Christian responsibility to ‘provide for his’ family (1 Tim. 5:8).

Ok, so far I think we all agree. But what in the world did I mean by asking, ’is it possible to pay a pastor too much?’

The prophet Malachi, speaking for the Lord, chastised the nation of Israel because of their failure to bring their tithes and offerings to the temple.

“Will a man rob God? Yet you are robbing Me! But you say, ‘How have we robbed You?’ In tithes and offerings. “You are cursed with a curse, for you are robbing Me, the whole nation of you! “Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in My house, and test Me now in this,” says the LORD of hosts, “if I will not open for you the windows of heaven and pour out for you a blessing until it overflows.” (Malachi 3:8-10).

These are strong words of condemnation and of hope - I think this is another example of the Law of the Harvest. Yes, I know that the ‘health and wealth’ heresy uses these kind of verses to extort money out of biblically ignorant people but the wickedness of false teachers does not invalidate the truth of scripture.   

So when the Lord spoke through the prophet Malachi was God telling the people He was short of cash? Was the Lord of Glory in need of some BBQ ribs? The sacrifices were symbolic of the future Messiah’s shed blood and a picture of the redemption to be accomplished when the time was right. But our God does not need food or anything men might give! Leviticus 7 tells us that after the symbolic ceremony of sacrifice was completed, the tithes and offerings were eaten by the priests and temple workers. Why? so that they would be able to attend to the service of the temple without concern for supporting themselves. Because of the people’s offerings the priests were free to devote their time to the Lord’s service without having to worry about how they might eat or how they might feed their families.

So the condemnation that Malachi was preaching was this: the people were ‘robbing’ God by their ‘stinginess’ about their offerings. (The priests were also condemned because they willingly accepted those stingy offerings in violation of the commands for proper sacrifices.) Because they were either failing to present any tithes and offerings or they were giving sick or defiled offerings they were dishonoring God (Malachi 1:6-14). By their actions the people were showing their lack of interest in the maintenance of Temple worship and the proper proclamation of the Word of God.

So if we contrast paying the pastor too little with the possibility of paying him too much, I have to ask you, which of these two extremes do we see the scripture condemning? I am not suggesting that we give whoever we call as the full-time pastor enough money to have a summer home in the Hamptons, etc., but I am asking the question, ‘should we really be worried about paying the pastor too much or should the greater concern be the possibility that we might be paying the pastor too little?’ I think that in the interest of obeying the command to both honor God and to grant the ‘elder who works hard at preaching and teaching’ a ‘double honor’ we should be more concerned that we might not be paying him enough!

So I hope you understand now what I was trying to say. Clearly, we all agree that our ability as a church to support a man is limited by our own resources. We have bills to pay and we should be saving some money to pay for repairs and future maintenance. On the other hand, if we manage the issue of pastor’s support out of a fear that we may be overcompensating him then I believe we are being shortsighted and may be revealing a lack of  interest in the value of having a man spend his time on study in preparation for this great calling of preaching and teaching.

In conclusion, the deacons are tasked with providing for the pastor among other things. The elders are tasked with teaching the Bible and leading the church. At this point it seems clear to me that the Bible is teaching us that those who are ‘taught the Word (are) to share all good things with the one who teaches ...’ (Gal. 6:6). One of the things the rest of us may do is encourage those who teach (elders) and encourage those who manage the finances (deacons). As always, I am willing to have further discussions about what the scriptures say about this particular issue.

¹1689LBC Chapter 26, Of the Church, paragraph 10.____ The work of pastors being constantly to attend the service of Christ, in his churches, in the ministry of the word and prayer, with watching for their souls, as they that must give an account to Him; it is incumbent on the churches to whom they minister, not only to give them all due respect, but also to communicate to them of all their good things according to their ability, so as they may have a comfortable supply, without being themselves entangled in secular affairs; and may also be capable of exercising hospitality towards others; and this is required by the law of nature, and by the express order of our Lord Jesus, who hath ordained that they that preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel.
(Acts 6:4; Hebrews 13:17; 1 Timothy 5:17, 18; Galatians 6:6, 7; 2 Timothy 2:4; 1 Timothy 3:2; 1 Corinthians 9:6-14)

Benevolence

Our church doesn’t have a written benevolence policy. Nevertheless here are some thoughts in the matter of caring for the poor.

1.       The Bible seems to suggest that our benevolence ministry should be to church members in need first, and if able, we may help others in need. The context of Acts 6:1-6 and the original deacons indicates that when “the disciples (who) were increasing in number” complained that their ‘widows were being overlooked …” (verse 1), the deacons were selected. They were apparently selected to serve fellow believers. Other scripture suggesting benevolence for fellow believers: Acts 4:32-35; Philippians 4:10-16; 2 Thessalonians 3:4-5; 1 Timothy 5:3-16; James 2:15-26.
2.       Some sort of evaluation must be done in order to screen applicants. Decisions must be made between what is true need and what may be simply something that the applicant desires but is not essential. There is again, the general ‘law of the harvest’ where those who are foolish may reap poverty due to their own failure to plan for the future. Not that we do not need to have compassion but helping those who are unwilling to help themselves seems likely to encourage irresponsibility. Certainly, there are situations where the best of plans still come to nothing where, due to no fault of their own, some are thrown into poverty. We would not deny that there are true needs which believers should help with if they are able. But there is nothing noble about poverty - accountability is needed for the poor as well as the wealthy.
3.       The local church is unable to meet all needs due to limitations on its funds. In benevolent situations, where the church budget does not have enough funds to help, ought the deacons make benevolent needs within the congregation known so that individuals may make their own donations to that need above and beyond their own tithe? This is a question not resolved in my mind.

The Southern Baptists have developed a short booklet to inform churches of some issues that may cause issues with the IRS (Federal Internal Revenue Service). Excerpts follow (paraphrased in my own words):

a.       At this time the IRS does allow churches to discriminate based on religion. However, a church may not discriminate due to ethnicity or sexual orientation alone. But a church may  be specific about who is eligible for benevolence. In other words, it is legal to restrict benevolence to a specific area (Butts County), to only Christians, or to church members alone.

b.      The IRS does have a problem with those who are receiving assistance being involved in the process of deciding who gets benevolence. In other words, if the pastor were to be in charge of benevolence they might subject the church to legal action if he were to grant benevolent funds to himself or his family. At this time we are ‘small potatoes’ but if we were to be sued or a discrimination suit were to be placed against the church all these things would be brought to light.

c.       If the church were to face legal action accusing us of being unwilling to help due to improper discrimination due to race or other factors the church would need to demonstrate, either by its historical records or by a written document, that its practices are constantly applied and not due to any particular animosity toward the individual or class of individual. Again, we are ‘small potatoes’ but the future may hold many negative possibilities. Granted, the Lord is in charge but yet, we are responsible.

In the past our unwritten policy has been to only provide benevolence to our own church members. Occasionally there will be unknown persons who appear on Sunday mornings with benevolence requests. Since we are the ones giving and they are the ones asking, we should ask where they attend church and why their home church is unwilling or unable to help them. If the question answered in the negative, then the general thought is ‘why should we give you God’s money when you are unwilling to obey His command to join with other believers in worship?’ Yes, that may sound harsh and lacking in compassion but I still think it is a legitimate question. Though it would require several men to accompany this individual to a store or gas station, I suggest we may consider purchasing a meal or gas for them along with the gospel or a gospel tract. In any case, giving cash to an unknown person seems folly and may encourage the purchase of drugs or other harmful items. In the case of purchasing food or gas for individuals we should ask to make a photo copy of their driver’s license or other identification and make a note on that copy of the benevolence amount and details about the purpose of the request.

We have placed this responsibility on the deacons. We have reason to pray for them as they are the ones we have chosen to administer the benevolence account and to care for the poor.

Chapter 26, Paragraph 10 - Pastor Support

Last month I (Elder Robin Eckhardt) promised to write on the subject of what our Confession says about the church’s responsibility for supporting the full-time elder (Chapter 26, paragraph 10). In my research I found Professor Waldron’s article and thought I could not possibly write anything clearer or as concise. I give you Professor Waldron commentary on this section of the Confession:

“The thrust of paragraph 10 (of Chapter 26) is the material support of elders in the local church. Thus I want to isolate and concentrate attention on that subject. Such concentrated attention is, perhaps, especially warranted because only this paragraph of the chapter appears to have no pattern in any of the previous confessions from which the authors drew. There are, of course, not a few who have denied that an elder in the local church ought to be supported regularly. Since such a view can have devastating results for the church, it is important to focus our attention on this point. The biblical evidence is mainly to be found in three classis passages.

1 Timothy 5:17-18 describes material support as ‘honor’. What is double honor? Honor means here financial support! Honor in the New Testament frequently designates something of material value (Matt 27:6-9; Acts 4:34; 5:2-3; 7:16). Honor is used of material support in the immediate context of 1 Timothy 5:17-18. 1 Timothy 5:18 supports the statement of verse 17 (note the ‘for’) with verses used elsewhere in the New Testament to describe material support (1 Cor. 9:9; Matt. 10:10; Luke 10:7). What, then, is double honor? Two clues unlock the meaning of this unusual phrase. The first is the use of honor in verse 3. Note the connection with verse 17. Widows are to be honored (financially). Elders are to be doubly honored (financially). The second clue is the use of ‘double’ in the New Testament (Rev. 18:6; Matt. 23:15). Double is used figuratively to indicate amplitude or great extent. Double honor, then, is ample material or financial support.

Who are to be doubly honored? The answer is clearly elders who rule well, but especially those who labor in the word and teaching, the public ministry of the Word. Paul’s thought may be illustrated by means of two concentric circles. The outer circle encompasses all elders who rule well. The inner circle encompasses those elders who (are gifted to) ‘work hard at preaching and teaching’. Financial support must be focused in the inner circle and radiate outwards as the necessity and ability of the church makes this appropriate.

Galatians 6:6 describes material support as ‘sharing’. Two questions again must be put to this text. What is to be shared? ‘All good things.’ The ‘good things’ of verse 10 are clearly material blessings. The emphasis on ‘all good things’ designates an open-hearted generosity.

With whom are they to be shared? They are to be shared with the one who teaches the Word. The word translated ‘teach’ in this verse is the one from the which the English word ‘catechize’ is derived. It designates formal, regular, or systematic instruction (Romans 2:18).

The consequences of the duty stated in Galatians 6:6 must be emphasized. There are great spiritual consequences, for better or worse, depending on the performance of this duty (Galatians 6:7-9). The wicked and oppressive failure of most evangelical churches to support their pastors amply is at the root of much of the dearth and curse which is upon the professing church of Jesus Christ. Those who highly value the labor of the servant of God will find themselves blessed with highly valuable labor.

1 Corinthians 9:14 describes material support as ‘a living’. Two questions again enable us to understand its significance. Who should have a living? The one who preaches (solemnly proclaims) the gospel. What is to be earned? ‘A living’ or ‘livelihood’. This designates such a sufficiency of the world’s goods as to have a decent life, as opposed to such an insufficiency as makes life a slow death.

Other data may be found in Matthew 10:10; Luke 10:7; Philippians 4:10-20; 2 Timothy 2:4-6. Gospel ministers should be so supported as not to be necessarily entangled or distracted by worldly needs. 1 Peter 5:2 shows that the early church was marked by the custom of so comfortably supporting their teachers as to open the possibility that some should rule for the sake of sordid gain (1 Timothy 6:5).

A number of important conclusions may be drawn from this biblical data. The first is that certain elders in the local church are to be supported materially. No hair-splitting distinctions are to be found in these passages. The Bible does not fastidiously restrict support only to some rare class of teachers or itinerant missionaries. Its wording is broad. 1 Corinthians 9:14 speaks of ‘those who proclaim the gospel’. Galatians 6:6 speaks of ‘him who [regularly] teaches’. 1 Timothy 5:17 speaks of ‘the elders who rule well … especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching’. The second conclusion is that the focus of material support should be upon those elders who excel in the public ministry of the Word. This again underscores the pre-eminence of the Word in the church. The third conclusion is that the extent of material support given to such elders by the church ought to be generous and ample. It ought to be ‘a living’, ‘all good things’, and ‘double honor’ (1 Cor. 9:14; Gal. 6:6; 1 Tim. 5:17). The Confession’s language is admirable. Churches are ‘to communicate to them of all their good things, according to their ability, so as they may have a comfortable supply, without being themselves entangled in secular affairs, and may also be capable of exercising hospitality toward others’.”

Professor Waldron, S. E.  A Modern Exposition of the 1689. England: Evangelical Press, 1989

Why A Full Time Elder?

In the February article we looked at how a biblical church makes decisions. In the March newsletter we discussed the main purpose for the church, that is, the ministry of the Word (preaching and teaching). In the April newsletter we considered Christ’s command for the church to make disciples. Now let us discuss the idea that the local church has a need for a 'full-time' elder. I have been thinking about this for some time and three arguments for why the church should desire a full-time elder come to mind.

The first argument involves our purpose as a church – which is the ministry of the Word and making disciples. If the church had to choose between a pastor who was able to study and prepare full-time, and a pastor who had to divide his time between preparation for preaching/teaching and another job in order to feed his family which do you think would better accomplish the purpose of the church? The benefits of having a full-time man who is tasked with seeing that both these objectives are accomplished seem obvious. Would you prefer a doctor who ‘practiced’ full-time or a physician who had to divide his time between doctoring and a second job in order to feed his family? Coming to public worship and hearing the preaching of the Word is spiritual food and spiritual healing for the people of God.

My second argument comes from the general concept known as the law of the harvest. That is, what you sow is proportional to what you will reap¹. "Now this I say, he who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully." (2 Corinthians 9:6). What does our church value most? I am not talking about money now, just the general idea about retaining the attention of a gifted man to study and prepare for the preaching of the Word. If the ministry of the Word is not important to us, if we value the preaching/teaching little, then I suppose a man who has to divide his time between preparations for preaching and supporting his family might be acceptable. But then according to the law of the harvest, our stinginess may mean a small harvest. If we desire a generous harvest then giving a gifted man a generous amount of time for preparation seems more likely to result in a generous harvest.²

And I do not think this is primarily about money - if there was a way to relieve a man from any concerns about how he might provide for his family and how he might prudently plan for the future without talking about money, then the church ought to consider that way. Micah (Judges 17:7-13) hired a Levite to minister in his household and offered him some spending money, "... a suit of clothes” and a place to live. Any church could make that offer, I suppose. If I were Bill Gates or Warren Buffett I might consider allowing a pastor and his family to live in one of my spare homes and providing him with a generous allowance.

But I think that sparing ourselves from the financial aspect of supporting a pastor would deprive us of one of our responsibilities and one of our privileges as a church. I think supporting the pastor is one way that every member our church participates in ‘making disciples’. There is a reciprocal aspect to providing and receiving support. Elder/pastors' dependence on his own congregation for his support provides a biblical connection between “the one who is taught the Word … (and) the one who teaches” (Galatians 6:6). It is the law of the harvest - what the church sows the church will reap in due time.

Can you see that the time you spend with your children/grandchildren will be proportional to their growth and maturity? Can you see also that the time that the pastor spends in study and preparation may be proportional to the harvest in due time? Granted, all things are subject to the Lord’s will! Here again we are confronted with the tension between God’s sovereign will for his church and our responsibilities as members of His church. But I hope we would not be known as stingy Christians who are so short-sighted as to neglect one of the principle means of grace.

My third line of thinking here is that the Bible is full of evidence to suggest the importance of a full-time pastor/elder. The first examples are the Levitical priesthood. Though they were not given an inheritance in the Promised Land they were given cities and land for their flocks to pasture. They were given a tithe from the people whom they were to minister to so that they would be able to do the work at the tabernacles or temple. They were clearly, 'full-time' as servants of God and of the people. In the New Testament, the apostle Paul tells us that the "laborer is worthy of his wages" (1 Timothy 5:18) and that an elder who works “hard at preaching and teaching" is worthy of a double honor (1 Timothy 5:17).

There are some who think that pastors do little during the week and do not deserve full time support. Just as there are good, honest men who serve as pastor/elders we know there are also lazy and dishonest men. But I do not see this as an argument for stinginess in our support for pastors! Such men should be dealt with in the process of church discipline just as we ought to deal with any man who is lazy or dishonest.

There are some who view pastors as employees of the church. I think we need to be careful to recognize that we are prone to either hold pastors too highly or too subservient. Pastor/elders are not men who are infallible or above criticism. On the other hand, the Bible tells us that elders/deacons who “serve well … obtain a high standing and great confidence in the faith …” (1 Timothy 3:13) and deserve respect from those whom they serve (1 Timothy 5:17). Also, as we have discussed last month, Christ brings elders/deacons to the church - the church has a responsibility to be the means where His servants are recognized. The church recognizes elders and deacons not by chance or popularity but through wise evaluation of the office bearers conformity to the biblical qualifications. Elders/deacons are directly accountable to Christ!

In summary, there are a number of good reasons for a church to obtain a full-time pastor if possible. As in all things, we are to trust in the Lord as well as to do our best to be good stewards of the blessing that the Lord had granted to us in this life.

Next month I would like to look at what our confession says about supporting the pastor (2nd London Baptist Confession, Chapter 26; paragraph 10).

Robin

——————————————————————————————————————————–————————

¹Note: I am not suggesting a mathematical or financial formula for obtaining a blessing from the Lord! Our purpose as people of God is to glorify him and enjoy Him forever – It sounds very strange to say but biblically speaking, our goal in this life is not to obtain wealth or happiness. And it may be hard to accept but by faith we trust that the Lord will give us what will most glorify Himself and what will truly be good for us. In other words, our investment in the law of the harvest is subject to the lordship of the Almighty and we trust that everything He does is right. We may live in poverty or in wealth but as the apostle Paul stated, “… I have learned to be content in whatever circumstances I am. I know how to get along with humble means, and I also know how to live in prosperity; in any and every circumstance I have learned the secret of being filled and going hungry, both of having abundance and suffering need. I can do all things through Him who strengthens me” (Philippians 4:11-13).

²Note: I understand that there may be some churches who are unable to support a man full time. I can think of four possibilities in these cases:

First that the church is simply unable. This seems obvious but in a case such as this one must consider whether this is actually a church at all. Church plants will usually need financial help to get started but I think there ought to be a time when such a gathering of believers should evaluate whether they are able to continue in light of the fact that they apparently do not have enough people with the financial resources necessary to operate.

Secondly, that the church members are being unfaithful or short sighted. In our culture there is a sad lack of appreciation for the preaching of the Word, even among otherwise sincere believers. Again, it is likely they have not appreciated the law of the harvest and are perhaps unwilling to make the immediate sacrifices necessary for a long-term benefit. Yes, it may be difficult to take the first-fruits of your paycheck to support a man who speaks to you and your family once or twice a week. But this is what James meant when he exhorts us, "The farmer waits for the precious produce of the soil, being patient about it, until it gets the early and late rains. You too be patient; strengthen your hearts ..." (James 5:17-18). And it is not for your long term benefit alone, it is your children and your neighbors who also benefit from the preaching of the Word. I pay public school taxes even when my own children have not gone to public school simply because I have an interest in the education of my neighbors children - how much more will I eagerly support the vitally important preaching of God's Word in our own community?

  Thirdly, it may be that the pastor is wasteful and extravagant and is demanding more salary than the church is able to afford. If so, is it possible that he does not meet the qualifications for the eldership? 1 Timothy chapter 6 we read that elder/pastor should be temperate and prudent (verse 2); free from love of money (verse 3); able to manage his own household (verse 5). Such a man should not be considered for the eldership. And if this lifestyle developed in a presently serving elder it would be up to the local church to help him bring his life back into order. Matthew chapter 18 including church discipline comes to mind.

  Fourthly, it is possible that the full-time elder is hesitant to express his needs to the congregation for a concern that he may be perceived as ungrateful for the sacrifices that the church has already made for his support. In this situation, due to the fact that he is also a member of the local church, there ought to be some men in the church who will stand up for him and make the appeal on his behalf if there appears to be a valid need. I think it would be shameful for a church if their pastor needed to request benevolence funds from the church budget to meet his financial obligations.       END

Making Disciples and the Appointment of Elders

“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you …” (Matthew 28:19-20)

Some see ‘making disciples’ as a direct command to individual believers. We would say that making disciples, along with baptism and teaching, are things that ought to be done by the church. The context of the passage and the very form of this command seems to make a direct connection between disciple making and baptism. If we believe that making disciples is a command for every believer then how do we alter the sentence to say that baptism is to be only done in the context of the gathered church? It seems inconsistent to interpret this command as intended for both the individual believer and the church as a whole. I think Christ’s command is more likely intended to mean that making disciples, baptizing, and teaching are to be done by the church.

Some may wonder, isn’t the church a collection of individual believers! True, but then what is the meaning of Paul’s use of ‘the body’ metaphor?’ “For the body is not one member, but many” (1 Corinthians 12:14). In our culture we tend to confuse the American ideal of individualism with the biblical idea of believers being integral parts of the local church. Yes, Jesus loves His people as individuals – but He has also called them together into local churches.

  For those who still view ’make disciples’ as a command for every believer I would ask how they address the problem of accountability. Occasionally we hear of men and women who 'self-ordain' themselves into the ministry - we believe this is unbiblical. Many have claimed to be teachers and preachers but are unwilling to submit to any authority. We believe that the local church has an essential role in evaluating and choosing the men who are to preach and teach. When a man (or woman) is unwilling to submit to the authority of the church there is a real possibility that he or she may be headed into error in doctrine and life. One may feel ‘called’ into the ministry, but if the local church does not recognize the qualifications or the gifts then perhaps the calling does not exist. In this case one may appeal to a larger association of churches but still, the local church has the authority to permit or prohibit a man from serving as elder or as a gifted man¹. There are only two offices in a biblical church; elder and deacon.

  Making disciples, baptizing, and teaching are the responsibility of the local church. Yes, each member of the local church has his or her role in accomplishing this work. But the apostle Paul gives us specific qualifications for elder - why? Because not everyone is qualified to teach and preach, obviously. Likewise, not every believer is gifted to perform every aspect of what the church needs to be doing. Some are the hands, and some are the feet, some are the ears and some are the mouth (1 Corinthians 12:14-18). In my opinion the point of Paul’s list of gifts are not to rank believers according to value or importance, but rather his point is that the church needs each believer to exercise their own gifts for the functioning of the local church. As we have already said, the local church has an important role in evaluating and choosing the men who are to preach and teach. When the church recognizes and holds men accountable it is being obedient to the Lords command: “… make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you…” Again, we believe the Bible teaches that the local church alone has been given the authority for making disciples, baptizing, and teaching to observe all that Christ has commanded.

Note: having said all this we would not deny that each father is responsible for teaching/training their own children. But even fathers are not to be isolated from the accountability of the local church. Also, church planters/missionaries² are recognized, called, held accountable and sent by the local church. We also believe that individual believers have an obligation to tell their friends, neighbors, and relatives about what Christ has done for them. Certainly the good news is worthy of spoken words. Yet not all are called to preach or teach.

Some denominations choose and send men to pastor particular local churches. As Baptists we do not see this being taught in scripture. We see that the local church investigates the qualifications of a particular man (or men) to be elders in their own church. How else may we hold them accountable if they are not known? So in Baptist churches we see the scripture teaching that each local body of believers chooses a man to minister the Word. It actually goes even further since we expect the elder/pastor to be accessible to the people in the church where he serves. And that, of course, implies hospitality on the part of the elder and on the part of the people whom he is expected to serve. Is it possible that in the future our church may need to look outside the membership for a full-time elder/pastor? In such a case our membership in a confessional association would be very helpful. Because of our 'confessional' relationships we could widen our search for a new full-time elder to include sister churches who have knowledge of gifted and qualified men within their own congregations.

  In our particular church, the elders will investigate the qualifications of potential elders and, if the man appears qualified, present him to the membership for approval. We believe that Christ brings elders to His church – we also believe the local church is the 'means' whereby Christ reveals His will on the matter of church officers. Specifically, our constitution states that nomination for eldership is made by the elders after a successful examination of his qualifications and his possession of the graces and gifts required by Scripture. Following his nomination by the eldership, the membership will have three weeks to evaluate the man for the above mentioned qualifications and gifts. Following the evaluation period the membership will meet and vote to either approve or disapprove his selection into the eldership. The constitution also says that unanimity of the membership is preferred but if not, no less than three-fourth of those voting shall be required for approval.

  I struggle with the constitution’s implication concerning the matter of three-fourth approval. I think it may suggest that we are governed by men who represent interest groups within the church. In truth, the eldership is not a body of men who represent different factions! There is no ‘senior adult’ elder nor is there a ‘young adult’ elder. All of the elders are to biblically serve all of the church members. The constitution may also suggest a popularity contest to some. Even though elders serve the whole church there is a recognition that it is not likely that every elder will be equally ‘liked’ by every member. We evaluate potential elders on biblical qualifications. True, if there are a significant number of people in the membership who do not believe the potential elder is biblically qualified or gifted then he probably should not serve. But the key here is that we judge according to biblical qualifications including his giftedness. This is especially true of what the constitution refers to as the full-time, ‘preaching elder’.

As I have already stated, Christ rules His church and uses ‘means’ to accomplish His purposes. We believe the process of elder nomination and membership approval is a biblical ‘means’ for us to exercise our responsibility to recognizing those whom Christ has appointed to be elders.

  Next month I would like to talk about some reasons why we should desire elders and especially what benefits might come to churches who are willing to invest in a full-time elder.

Robin

footnotes:

¹The 1689 Confession talks about others who are, ‘gifted and fitted by the Holy Spirit for (the preaching the Word), and approved and called by the church …’ (Chapter 26, Of The Church, paragraph 11). For lack of a specific procedure our church will occasionally allow an otherwise qualified man within our church to preach/teach. If the preaching meets the approval of the elders and the church he may be designated as a, ‘gifted brother’ and allowed to continue preaching. He may or may not be an officer of the church as church officers are called only when and if the church requires additional officers to accomplish its purpose.

² We define missionaries as biblically qualified men who are sent to preach the gospel and plant or assist in planting local churches. We prefer the term, church planters, as we believe this is more descriptive. Their accountability comes from the local church that sends them. At this time our church is unable to fully support a man to be sent out as a church planter therefore we join together with like-minded, confessional churches to provide support. Even though we may not know the man we do trust that the churches in our association are theologically sound. That is one of the important reasons we belong to an organization (ARBCA and GACB) within which each church holds to the 1689 Confession. We send support to the sending church knowing that the church has evaluated him as a biblically qualified man and will continue to hold him accountable. If either association were to decide it was no longer confessional we would have a struggle with trusting them to hold these missionaries accountable.