The objective of this lesson: to generate awareness that the concept of elders is a complex concept, not a simple concept. (Before there can be openness in study and considerations, there must be the awareness that no one has all the answers. Since our concepts of church leadership are causing increasing problems, we need to understand this [our concepts of elders] is a complex subject.)
What would seem a simple concept because of past unquestioning acceptance is a much more complex matter than expected. For generations we have assumed that first century congregational structure was much like ours. We assumed their congregational concerns were much like ours. We assumed their congregational leadership concerns were the same or similar to ours. We assumed their congregational objectives were the same as ours. We assumed "elders" is a Christian concept with its origin in the Christian (New Testament church) organizational needs.
There is an enormous need among Christians to separate facts from long-held assumptions. The objective is not to say our structure is wrong, but to say that we hurt ourselves unnecessarily when we defend our approach to leadership on the basis of assumption--without the understanding that we are using assumption.
The objective of these considerations is to challenge you to open your thoughts to greater needs. The objective is not to challenge our structures, but to increase the awareness of our needs. Problems that typify congregational challenges will not be solved by replacing questionable structures with questionable structures. Problems will be addressed in godly approaches when Christians become a caring community of believers based on a caring God and caring Savior rather than an impersonal organization dedicated to controlling people's thinking. Problems will be addressed with godly approaches when Christians are committed to each other because we belong to a committed Savior rather than belonging to an impersonal membership that permits selfishness as we seek a spiritual insurance policy.
There is too little awareness that our congregational leadership concepts often are not built on a commitment to restoration concepts. Compare the sense of community in Acts 2:43-47 and 4:32-37 along with the situations behind the problems in Acts 5:1-11 and 6:1-7 to our concepts of community today. A comparison will reveal the stark difference between their sense of community of believers and our sense of membership.
The people of Israel had elders before they were a nation (see Exodus 3:16; 4:29; 12:21). The elders of Israel existed before Moses began his work, during the plagues, and at the deliverance. They existed in the wilderness (Exodus 17:5). After Israel settled in Canaan, seemingly each city had them (Deuteronomy 19:11-13). They kept guiltiness from coming upon the people of their city (Deuteronomy 21:1-9); decided difficult, emotional marriage questions (Deuteronomy 22:13-21); and determined difficult inheritance issues (Deuteronomy 25:5-10). They could request someone to be a judge (Judges 11:1-11); serve as witnesses (Ruth 4:11); and ask that the nation of Israel turn from a system of judges to a system of kings (1 Samuel 8).
The elders in the nation of Israel were persons (a) who had great influence and (b) were trusted by the people in extremely difficult matters. The emphasis is not on the fact that Israelite elders did no wrong. The quality of those men was dependent on (a) their relationship with God, (b) their commitment to God, (c) their commitment to the people, and (d) their motives.
As significant as these men were, we do not know when they began, why they began, or how a man became a part of these men. They seemed to be wise, intelligent, experienced men, perhaps older men, who were respected by their Jewish community. Thus, their view mattered to the Jewish people and to those who were in power (such as kings). In the Old Testament, they seem to be men of influence rather than men who occupied a designated position.
Stress that we do not know their origin or how new men became a part of them. Also stress they seemed to be men of influence.
Though such men seemed to have changed or expanded roles in Jesus' time, they existed in first-century Israel. Jesus was accused of encouraging his disciples to violate the traditions of the elders (Matthew 15:1, 2). The Jewish elders would play a role in Jesus' death (Matthew 16:21; 26:3-5). They were among those to whom Judas returned his blood money (Matthew 27:3).
Do stress that (a) men who were elders in Israel continued to exist in Jesus' ministry, and (b) the influence of past elders of former generations continued. Note that Israelite elders are often enemies of God's work in Jesus.
Men who occupied roles as elders were not limited to Israel (see Numbers 22:7). Many non-Jewish societies also had elders.
Observe there were men of influence known as elders in societies other than Israel.
There are more questions than answers. Were elders a part of all societies for centuries? Did elders exist in the early congregations because of their role in Jewish society or because of their role in all societies? Did early Christians understand the role of elders because elders long had been part of the "social fabric?" Were the basic roles of elders in congregations similar to the roles of elders in society? What was the role of elders in early congregations? Did elders exist as a matter of organizational control or a matter of influence? Was their primary responsibility evangelistic, edification, or both? Were men who were elders in a congregation a part of a leadership hierarchy, or were they volunteer encouragers? Why did a Jewish convert (Paul) establish elders in gentile congregations?
There are many questions for which we have no answers.
Perhaps you are inclined to think such questions are ridiculous. Perhaps you are more comfortable with long-held assumptions than with searching and questioning. Consider the following. Most of the crises in congregations of today directly involve an elder, a group of the elders, or the congregation's entire eldership. Does that reality make such questions relevant?
The fact that an elder, a group of elders, or all of the elders frequently are a factor in congregational problems deserves attention. Part of the problem lies in the congregation's expectations. Part of the problem lies in the background of the men that congregations select as elders.
Think of the contrast between early congregations and today's congregations. They were an illegal religious movement; we are a legal religious movement. They owned nothing as the church; we own many things as the church. They were home-based; we are church-building based. They had no legal requirements; we have many legal requirements. They defined what constituted a congregation differently than do we. Their elders had influence city-wide (Titus 1:5); we confine the influence of elders to a specific street address. When they gave, they gave to a specific purpose (most of which involved benevolence); when we give, we give to a generic purpose (which includes many things). They had minimal organizational emphasis; we have major organizational emphasis. They existed in societies dedicated to idolatries or Judaism; we do not.
Note the contrasts. Ask the class (a) which they regard as the most significant, and (b) why they think those are the most significant.
Is it fair to ask these questions? Is restoration of primitive Christianity primarily about restoring a structure or restoring relationships with their commitments? Is using their terminology all that is necessary to accomplish restoration? Must restoration be concerned about purposes? Did primitive Christianity reflect fully God's purposes in spite of human misunderstandings (Acts 10) and flaws (1 and 2 Corinthians)? Is the pursuit of restoration an ongoing process or an accomplished process?
It matters to note what Christians think is fair. The concept of restoration held also matters.
Among the most insightful passages on elders is Acts 20:17-35 occasioned by Paul speaking to the Ephesian elders at Miletas. These things are called to your attention. (1) The bulk of Paul's remarks concentrated on his (Paul's) work among them. (2) The Holy Spirit made them overseers (verse 28). (3) Their work was to shepherd (verse 28). (3) When Paul left, some of them would speak perverse things and produce their own following--yet Paul did nothing to prevent those impending circumstances. All Paul did was urge the elders (a) to involve themselves in self-examination and (b) to commit themselves to God. Paul's urging drew its power from a reminder of how he worked among them.
Have Acts 20:17-35 read aloud. Take note of what is and is not said or done.
All Christians today committed to discipleship in Jesus Christ must be committed to purpose as well as to form.
One's concept of restoration must include both God's purpose and our form. Speculation should not be substituted for either.
For Thought and Discussion
The discussion should note the content in paragraphs 2-4. Especially note how influential these men were in difficult moments and situations.
The content of paragraph 7 should be part of the discussion. It is important to realize that we do not have all the answers.
This discussion should include the content of paragraph 9. It is spiritually healthy to realize congregations of today cannot be an exact duplicate of congregations then. The objective of restoration is not to produce cultural forms from the past, but to produce revealed values and purposes.
Make certain all are looking at the text. Note what is said and not said, what is done and not done. Paul holds them responsible for what shall happen in the future. He leaves no doubt as to his personal investment and concerns. No one, not even the apostle to the gentiles, can guarantee a future of faith among a faithless people. What will be always will depend on the faith of the generation that is.
Link to Student Guide
Lesson 7