To be or not to be an Elder?

[Elisabeth]

It grieves me to see these things happening in God's Church. I have seen countless people leave the church they were in because the church "leaders" failed to address a major problem such as this. What is wrong with these people in leadership that they are afraid to stand in truth and follow Scripture?

I used to go to a church where the pastor's family was severely dysfunctional, and it was a huge strain on him. In addition, he truly failed to address these family problems, and consequently it affected his ministry and our church. There is a reason why the Bible says that church leaders must be able to manage their homes. We saw the result of what happened when they didn't.

How can this man effectively be an elder for our Lord when he has this major issue in his life. We all go through seasons, and this man is in a season where his ministry needs to be put on hold.

[Rebmilc]

So far you have confirmed my answer to my cousin when she asked me the question.

I too do not think the guy should never have been appointed to an eldership position. I feel sorry for him because of his wife's actions and it obviously is not his fault that she had an affair, but we are talking about a leadership position in a large church here and to my mind the office has to be blameless in the congregations eyes.

St Worm made in interesting comment When he said that the congregation WILL find out about it, already some of the ccongregation know and are quite dismayed.

What I didn't tell you in my original post is that the youth leader is only a young guy, so it is another case of appointing to Eldership a young man without experience in some of these matters. Recently I spoke to someone from the church who knew about the whole situation and I told him my views that (1) The guy shouldn't be an elder because of his wife's indiscretion and (2) He was to young for the post anyway.

His reply was that Jesus and his disciples were only young men.

Another thing I didn't tell you was that the youth leaders wife met the guy she had an affair with at a nightclub, that raises the question, what on earth was she doing in a nightclub in the first place? Apparently she went on a regular basis and even took some of the young people with her, and her husband, as youth leader must have known about that.

It has grieved me over the last few months to see this church destroying itself from within, but if the Pastor and elder could appoint this guy to leadership knowing what was happening I can understand why.

[st. Worm]

An elder must "rule his own house well" (1 Timothy 3). I don't see how anyone who knows this situation could possibly appoint this man to be an elder. Or conversely, if the man concealed this situation in order to become an elder it either means he was not examined properly or he intentionally concealed it. Either way he should be removed as one not meeting the biblical qualifications. Sounds like a mess waiting to happen, especially if the congregation finds out (and they eventually will).

sw

Ruling the household has to do with management and children. Don't think you can use that one.

However, asking a man to be an elder when his wife is having an active affair is like asking a man hospitalized and unable to walk to manage a hotel. Also, he does not have the support of his wife, rather she is directly withholding support and giving it to another.

Under no circumstances would I ever support anyone in that circumstance as an elder. And I agree, it is a mess waiting to happen!

Not sure what you base your first comment on. Ruling over your household surely includes your relationship of authority with your wife. There is no basis for you saying it has nothing to do with that.

sw

[irishcowboy]

It grieves me to see these things happening in God's Church. I have seen countless people leave the church they were in because the church "leaders" failed to address a major problem such as this. What is wrong with these people in leadership that they are afraid to stand in truth and follow Scripture?

I used to go to a church where the pastor's family was severely dysfunctional, and it was a huge strain on him. In addition, he truly failed to address these family problems, and consequently it affected his ministry and our church. There is a reason why the Bible says that church leaders must be able to manage their homes. We saw the result of what happened when they didn't.

How can this man effectively be an elder for our Lord when he has this major issue in his life. We all go through seasons, and this man is in a season where his ministry needs to be put on hold.

there are many "dysfunctional" families through out the Bible. and many great leaders came from them. many.... more then i wish to count.

dysfunctional.... hmmm

seems to me, that this word is used more for a copout, sorry, but I am from a dysfunctional family, so i can act this way......

now, if the woman is not living the Christian life, and the man is, and she refuses to fall in line and live the Christian life, she will bring him down also.... should he stop living for Christ? and stay with her? or should he continue to live for Christ, and allow her to leave????

he would not be the one living in sin, she would be as would be her friend.

with her departing as such, no fault of his, her sinful nature, would this disqualify him from working in the Lords House?

physical age is of little value.... seen people that were 16 - 18 years old that were more spiritually mature, then some that were in their 80's and 90's..... some are more leaders then others, and some are better followers then others.... have seen young men stand up and take on responsibilities that most physically mature men would shutter at the thought of even thinking about handeling them....

18 year olds in charge of multi-billion dollar properties, and 60 year olds not able to live payday to payday..... just because a person is young, do not be so quick to knock them out of the running for a position.... all things must be placed on the scale....

youth leaders usually are younger men or couples, in some fellowships, a person has to be a youth pastor for a set number of years ( some are only 2 years, others may vary) before they are allowed to step into a position of pastor.... some fellowships do not want anyone over 30 in as a youth pastor/leader, but they also like them if they are married......(keeps them more accountable)

how old was Timothy?

how about Stephen?

Paul was a young man when he was out hunting down Christians.... full of zeal.... and very much used by the Lord......

David was only a teen... very smart, very wise in the Lord..... king saul was very ignorant in the workings of the Lord......

there may be more to the story then even those that think they know what is going on.....

sometimes there is a deeper problem....

mike

[LadyRaven]

My cousin and her family attend a local AOG church where they have been members for many years.

They have a teenage daughter who was taken under the wing of the Youth leader and his wife and she was really going on well with God.

Over a period of time my cousin and her husband noticed that their daughter's personality was starting to change and that she was becoming very withdrawn which wasn't like her at all. When my cousin questioned her about this she assured mum that everything was ok.

One day my cousin saw a questionable text message that had been sent to her daughter from the youth leaders wife, her and her husband questioned the daughter about this message and she broke down and told them that the youth leaders wife was having an affair with someone she had met outside the church, she was now pregnant and wasn't sure who the father was, and that she had confided in the daughter. That was why she had been withdrawn because of carrying this burden.

My cousin and her husband immediately made an appointment with the pastor and elder, and along with their daughter they told them the story.

The pastor and elder informed them that they already knew about the situation and as they were counselling the youth leader and his wife the matter was nothing whatsoever to do with my cousin and her family. They did advise the youth leader's wife to apologise to my cousin/husband/daughter because of the upset she had caused, which she did. The apology however was insincere since my cousin's daughter knew that the affair was still on going.

Because of the secrecy surrounding the issue and the way in which they were treated by the pastor and elder my cousin and her family left the church and now fellowship somewhere else.

Not long after these events my cousin contacted me to inform me that the youth leader had been appointed as elder of the church and her question was this " In view of the fact of his wife's affair and that they were still willing to make a go of their marriage, did this absolve the youth leader from an eldership appointment"?

I have my own thoughts on the matter but would really like a consensus of opinion regarding my cousins question.

Well, I can say for sure that if the situation continues he should step down and see to his marriage as best he can. For many reasons...whether it should be something the church asks of him at this point is something up for question due to the fact that they are in counseling. It is possible the counsel gets them nowhere and I am sure at that point the church should definately ask him to at least take a sabbatical for a while. Personally, if I were him I would have stepped down immediately when I found out my household was falling apart under my nose.

[Guest drbelitz]

Priest

This word (etymologically "elder", from presbyteros, presbyter) has taken the meaning of "sacerdos", from which no substantive has been formed in various modern languages (English, French, German).

The priest is the minister of Divine worship, and especially of the highest act of worship, sacrifice. In this sense, every religion has its priests, exercising more or less exalted sacerdotal functions as intermediaries between man and the Divinity (cf. Heb., v, 1: "for every high priest taken from among men, is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins"). In various ages and countries we find numerous and important differences: the priest properly so called may be assisted by inferior ministers of many kinds; he may belong to a special class or caste, to a clergy, or else may be like other citizens except in what concerns his sacerdotal functions; he may be a member of a hierarchy, or, on the contrary, may exercise an independent priesthood (e.g. Melchisedech, Hebrews 7:1-33); lastly, the methods of recruiting the ministers of worship, the rites by which they receive their powers, the authority that establishes them, may all differ. But, amid all these accidental differences, one fundamental idea is common to all religions: the priest is the person authoritatively appointed to do homage to God in the name of society, even the primitive society of the family (cf. Job 1:5), and to offer Him sacrifice (in the broad, but especially in the strict sense of the word). Omitting further discussion of the general idea of the priesthood, and neglecting all reference to pagan worship, we may call attention to the organization among the people of God of a Divine service with ministers properly so-called: the priests, the inferior clergy, the Levites, and at their head the high-priest. We know the detailed regulations contained in Leviticus as to the different sacrifices offered to God in the Temple at Jerusalem, and the character and duty of the priests and Levites. Their ranks were recruited, in virtue not of the free choice of individuals, but of descent in the tribe of Levi (especially the family of Aaron), which had been called by God to His ritual service to the exclusion of all others. The elders (presbyteroi) formed a kind of council, but had no sacerdotal power; it was they who took counsel with the chief priests to capture Jesus (Matthew 26:3). It is this name presbyter (elder) which has passed into the Christian speech to signify the minister of Divine service, the priest.

The Christian law also has necessarily its priesthood to carry out the Divine service, the principal act of which is the Eucharistic Sacrifice, the figure and renewal of that of Calvary. This priesthood has two degrees: the first, total and complete, the second an incomplete participation of the first. The first belongs to the bishop. The bishop is truly a priest (sacerdos), and even a high-priest; he has chief control of the Divine worship (sacrorum antistes), is the president of liturgical meetings; he has the fullness of the priesthood, and administers all the sacraments. The second degree belongs to the priest (presbyter), who is also a sacerdos, but of the second rank ("secundi sacerdotes" Innocent I ad Eugub.); by his priestly ordination he receives the power to offer sacrifice (i.e. to celebrate the Eucharist), to forgive sins, to bless, to preach, to sanctify, and in a word to fulfil the non-reserved liturgical duties or priestly functions. In the exercise of these functions, however, he is subject to the authority of the bishop to whom he has promised canonical obedience; in certain cases even he requires not only authorization, but real jurisdiction, particularly to forgive sins and to take care of souls. Moreover, certain acts of the sacerdotal power, affecting the society of which the bishop is the head, are reserved to the latter -- e.g. confirmation, the final rite of Christian initiation, ordination, by which the ranks of the clergy are recruited, and the solemn consecration of new temples to God. Sacerdotal powers are conferred on priests by priestly ordination, and it is this ordination which puts them in the highest rank of the hierarchy after the bishop.

As the word sacerdos was applicable to both bishops and priests, and one became a presbyter only by sacerdotal ordination, the word presbyter soon lost its primitive meaning of "ancient" and was applied only to the minister of worship and of the sacrifice (hence our priest). Originally, however, the presbyteri were the members of the high council which, under the presidency of the bishop, administered the affairs of the local church. Doubtless in general these members entered the presbyterate only by the imposition of hands which made them priests; however, that there could be, and actually were presbyteri who were not priests, is seen from canons 43-47 of Hippolytus (cf. Duchesne, "Origines du culte chretien", append.), which show that some of those who had confessed the Faith before the tribunals were admitted into the presbyterium without ordination. These exceptions were, however, merely isolated instances, and from time immemorial ordination has been the sole manner of recruiting the presbyteral order. The documents of antiquity show us the priests as the permanent council, the auxiliaries of the bishop, whom they surround and aid in the solemn functions of Divine Worship. When the bishop is absent, he is replaced by a priest, who presides in his name over the liturgical assembly. The priests replace him especially in the different parts of the diocese, where they are stationed by him; here they provide for the Divine Service, as the bishop does in the episcopal city, except that certain functions are reserved to the latter, and the others are performed with less liturgical solemnity. As the churches multiplied in the country and towns, the priests served them with a permanent title, becoming rectors or titulars. Thus, the bond uniting such priests to the cathedral church gradually became weaker, whereas it grew stronger in the case of those who served in the cathedral with the bishop (i.e. the canons); at the same time the lower clergy tended to decrease in number, inasmuch as the clerics passed through the inferior orders only to arrive at the sacerdotal ordination, which was indispensable for the administration of the churches and the exercise of a useful ministry among the faithful. Hence ordinarily the priest was not isolated, but was regularly attached to a definite church or connected with a cathedral. Accordingly, the Council of Trent (Sess. XXIII, cap. xvi, renewing canon vi of Chalcedon) desires bishops not to ordain any clerics but those necessary or useful to the church or ecclesiastical establishment to which they are to be attached and which they are to serve.

The nature of this service depends especially on the nature of the benefice, office, or function assigned to the priest; the Council in particular desires (cap. xiv) priests to celebrate Mass at least on Sundays and holydays, while those who are charged with the care of souls are to celebrate as often as their office demands.

Consequently, it is not easy to say in a way applicable to all cases what are the duties and rights of a priest; both vary considerably in individual cases. By his ordination a priest is invested with powers rather than with rights, the exercise of these powers (to celebrate Mass, remit sins, preach, administer the sacraments, direct and minister to the Christian people) being regulated by the common laws of the church, the jurisdiction of the bishop, and the office or charge of each priest. The exercise of the sacerdotal powers is both a duty and a right for priests having the care of souls, either in their own name (e.g. parish priests) or as auxiliaries (e.g. parochial curates). Except in the matter of the care of souls the sacerdotal functions are likewise obligatory in the case of priests having any benefice or office in a church (e.g. canons); otherwise they are optional, and their exercise depends upon the favour of the bishop (e.g. the permission to hear confessions or to preach granted to simple priests or to priests from outside the diocese). As for the case of a priest who is entirely free, moralists limit his obligations, as far as the exercise of his sacerdotal powers is concerned, to the celebration of Mass several times a year (St. Alphonsus Liguori, l. VI, no. 313) and to the administration of the sacraments in case of necessity, in addition to fulfilling certain other obligations not strictly sacerdotal (e.g. the Breviary, celibacy). But canonical writers, not considering such a condition regular, hold that the bishop is obliged in this case to attach such a priest to a church and impose some duty on him, even if it be only an obligatory attendance at solemn functions and processions (Innocent XIII, Constitution "Apostolici ministerii", 23 March, 1723; Benedict XIII, Const. "In supremo", 23 Sept., 1724; Roman Council of 1725, tit. vi, c. ii).

As to the material situation of the priest, his rights are clearly laid down by canon law, which varies considerably with the actual condition of the Church in different countries. As a matter of principle, each cleric ought to have from his ordination to the sub-diaconate a benefice, the revenues of which ensure him a respectable living and, if he is ordained with a title of patrimony (i.e. the possession of independent means sufficient to provide a decent livelihood), he has the right to receive a benefice as soon as possible. Practically the question seldom arises in the case of priests, for clerics are ordinarily ordained with the title of ecclesiastical service, and they cannot usefully fill a remunerated post unless they are priests. Each priest ordained with the title of ecclesiastical service has therefore the right to ask of his bishop, and the bishop is under an obligation to assign him, a benefice or ecclesiastical office which will ensure him a respectable living; in this office the priest has therefore the right to collect the emoluments attached to his ministry, including the offerings which a legitimate custom allows him to receive or even demand on the occasion of certain definite functions (stipends for Masses, curial rights for burial, etc.). Even when old or infirm, a priest who has not rendered himself unworthy and who is unable to fulfil his ministry remains a charge on his bishop, unless other arrangements have been made. It is thus apparent that the rights and duties of a priest are, in the concrete reality, conditioned by his situation. (See BENEFICE; PASTOR; PARISH PRIEST; PRIESTHOOD.)

[Guest drbelitz]

I don't think looking into the Catholic traditions will clarify it for non Catholics.

there is a word for priest/ iereus; and it is not interchangeable with either elder/prestuteron, or supervisor/episkopos.

Just noticed too, that our discussion is confusing the responsibility of supervisor/overseer with that of elder. this is one complaint I have with so many English translations. The translators have often been too loose in the different ways they translate the same Greek word.

the Bishops are the overseers and ordainers of the priests(prebyters, elders)

the priests are appointed to every church and pastor that church.

The deacons preach, baptize and marry persons.

history proves this to be true and in accord with the scriptures.

[Guest drbelitz]

I don't think looking into the Catholic traditions will clarify it for non Catholics.

there is a word for priest/ iereus; and it is not interchangeable with either elder/prestuteron, or supervisor/episkopos.

Just noticed too, that our discussion is confusing the responsibility of supervisor/overseer with that of elder. this is one complaint I have with so many English translations. The translators have often been too loose in the different ways they translate the same Greek word.

the Bishops are the overseers and ordainers of the priests(prebyters, elders)

the priests are appointed to every church and pastor that church.

The deacons preach, baptize and marry persons.

sure there is one way, and an only way. The church was formed by Christ in that way and it won't change.

All of the first 1500 years of the Church verify this fact.

All Churches conformed to the way it was from the beginning, and all practiced that way.

history proves this to be true and in accord with the scriptures.

History proves that how it is organized is different in every denomination. The Scriptures are very general. Churches today are not organized the same as they were in Biblical times. there is no one way or only way.

So we can talk about how it was organized in Biblical times. Or we can talk about how different churches organize themselves.

[Guest kephasrock]

amen

[Floatingaxe]

If the young man in question were wise, he would step down until his house is in order. The church has jumped the gun and appointed him knowing full well he has had this difficulty. What were they thinking, loading him down with added responsibility? They also are unwise.