Thread: The Training of Ruling Elders

Friends,

What do you recommend for the training of ruling elders? Who should do this training? How does a minister go about doing this if he has not seen it modeled?

Thanks for asking this Nathan.

I dont know if there are any specific rules for this, but I know our last pastor was the one who did the training. He taught the WCF and the Book of Church Order for several months to the nominees.

This is a good question. I would like to hear the input from pastors and elders.

My training took just over a year. It was under my Pastor, but could have been under any member of Session. I was trained in the Westminster Standards, Book of Church Order, Christian experience, and the Bible.

The test itself was about two hours of the Session asking questions and probing into how i might handle certain situations that come up.

Basically it was comprised of doctrine, Christian life, church government, and Bible.

The Senior Minister should take the lead in the training, and the ruling elders should participate. The examination process should be done by the whole Session.

I don't see in Scripture that Elders are trained. The example we have in the Scriptures is of the Congregation looking amongst themselves for those who meet the qualifications. All men in a Congregation should always be receiving training in the Scriptures and Westminster Standards. Those that are qualified should then be nominated by the Congregation and examined by the Session. If they're qualified then they should be ordained. If they need training then they're not qualified to begin with.

Originally Posted by PresReformed

I don't see in Scripture that Elders are trained. The example we have in the Scriptures is of the Congregation looking amongst themselves for those who meet the qualifications. All men in a Congregation should always be receiving training in the Scriptures and Westminster Standards. Those that are qualified should then be nominated by the Congregation and examined by the Session. If they're qualified then they should be ordained. If they need training then they're not qualified to begin with.

And if no one is found to fill the office, I assume that the "indirect training" will continue until someone is ready.

I don't see in Scripture that Elders are trained. The example we have in the Scriptures is of the Congregation looking amongst themselves for those who meet the qualifications. All men in a Congregation should always be receiving training in the Scriptures and Westminster Standards. Those that are qualified should then be nominated by the Congregation and examined by the Session. If they're qualified then they should be ordained. If they need training then they're not qualified to begin with.

True in one sense Elders are not "trained" but they are required to know what's expected from them. Lets look at the scriptural duties of Elders. It's important that Elders have an understanding of the following scriptures and what it means to walk in this office. One can have the gifts of eldership but not know how to use them.

1Timothy 5:17
Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.

What does it mean to rule well? The training is given by men who have walked in that role and know what it means to rule well.

1 Peter 5
5:1 So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: 2 shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; 3 not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. 4 And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. 5 Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”

The "training" here is Elders are to be examples to the flock. Men under care do need direction knowing this is how they are to conduct themselves. There are people watching them. Further "training" is given when men under care are trained in the Book of Church Order according to their denomination. This is very important. Without this knowledge it's hard to "manage" the church. Additionally, potential Elders should be trained and or aware of certain heresies and aberrant teachings that plague the church. Additional "training" should be given in how the church should conduct elders visits, church discipline, and administrating the Lords Supper.

Originally Posted by Blue Tick

I don't see in Scripture that Elders are trained. The example we have in the Scriptures is of the Congregation looking amongst themselves for those who meet the qualifications. All men in a Congregation should always be receiving training in the Scriptures and Westminster Standards. Those that are qualified should then be nominated by the Congregation and examined by the Session. If they're qualified then they should be ordained. If they need training then they're not qualified to begin with.

True in one sense Elders are not "trained" but they are required to know what's expected from them. Lets look at the scriptural duties of Elders. It's important that Elders have an understanding of the following scriptures and what it means to walk in this office. One can have the gifts of eldership but not know how to use them.

1Timothy 5:17
Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.

What does it mean to rule well? The training is given by men who have walked in that role and know what it means to rule well.

1 Peter 5
5:1 So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: 2 shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; 3 not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. 4 And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. 5 Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”

The "training" here is Elders are to be examples to the flock. Men under care do need direction knowing this is how they are to conduct themselves. There are people watching them. Further "training" is given when men under care are trained in the Book of Church Order according to their denomination. This is very important. Without this knowledge it's hard to "manage" the church. Additionally, potential Elders should be trained and or aware of certain heresies and aberrant teachings that plague the church. Additional "training" should be given in how the church should conduct elders visits, church discipline, and administrating the Lords Supper.

John,

None of the verses you quoted speak of training. They are all addressing ordained, practicing Elders. True, once ordained, an Elder will learn how to better perform his duties, that is true of any calling. What I am speaking against is the practice of nominating men then giving them "Elder training" to meet the Scriptural qualifications. The regulative principle applies to Church government also. Sessions do not have the authority to invent procedures and processes without scriptural warrant. The scriptural example of calling and ordaining an Elder is what I wrote above. If a man is qualified he should already be able to identify heresies and know his Church's standards. I also believe that a potential Ruling Elder should be examined as thoroughly as a potential Teaching Elder, minus the Hebrew and Greek examination..

Originally Posted by PresReformed

None of the verses you quoted speak of training. They are all addressing ordained, practicing Elders. True, once ordained, an Elder will learn how to better perform his duties, that is true of any calling. What I am speaking against is the practice of nominating men then giving them "Elder training" to meet the Scriptural qualifications. The regulative principle applies to Church government also. Sessions do not have the authority to invent procedures and processes without scriptural warrant. The scriptural example of calling and ordaining an Elder is what I wrote above. If a man is qualified he should already be able to identify heresies and know his Church's standards. I also believe that a potential Ruling Elder should be examined as thoroughly as a potential Teaching Elder, minus the Hebrew and Greek examination..

This would certainly be nice, but the fact is, many churches, particularly newer ones do not have men that would meet the qualification of being able to pass the same examination the pastor does.

Is it really scriptural for the congregation to be nominating the elders? I have found this to be puzzling because sometimes there are members in the congregation who do not make wise nominations.

Originally Posted by Grace Alone

Originally Posted by PresReformed

I also believe that a potential Ruling Elder should be examined as thoroughly as a potential Teaching Elder, minus the Hebrew and Greek examination..

This would certainly be nice, but the fact is, many churches, particularly newer ones do not have men that would meet the qualification of being able to pass the same examination the pastor does.

Then those men you speak of are not qualified. The Scriptures do not differentiate between Ruling and Teaching Elders in their qualifications. Ruling Elders can cast votes in Presbyteries just like Teaching Elders can, so they should be held to the same standards.

Originally Posted by Grace Alone

Is it really scriptural for the congregation to be nominating the elders? I have found this to be puzzling because sometimes there are members in the congregation who do not make wise nominations.

We have two examples in Scripture of the election of Church officers.(Acts 1:15-26, Acts 6:1-7) In both instances the nomination came from the Congregation. In Acts 6 the nominees were presented to the Apostles who then ordained them implying the Apostles approved of the Congregation's choice. I'm sure that if they thought those men weren't qualified then they wouldn't have ordained them.

Greg,

Ideally I would say you are right. But considering most of our teaching elders have been to seminary for at least 3 years, I do not understand how all the ruling elders could have the same level of knowledge. Our reformed denominations surely would need to change their church planting vision in order to do that. You just don't find large numbers of seminary level ruling elders in church plants in Small Town, USA.

Originally Posted by PresReformed

The Scriptures do not differentiate between Ruling and Teaching Elders in their qualifications.

A preacher must be "sent." This is not a qualification for ruling eldership. I maintain that it is this qualification which necessitates the broad, technical training of the minister, and is not applicable to ruling elders.

Originally Posted by Grace Alone

Greg,

Ideally I would say you are right. But considering most of our teaching elders have been to seminary for at least 3 years, I do not understand how all the ruling elders could have the same level of knowledge. Our reformed denominations surely would need to change their church planting vision in order to do that. You just don't find large numbers of seminary level ruling elders in church plants in Small Town, USA.

Sometimes it happens. Currently there are (in addition to our Pastor) three ruling elders on our session who are seminary graduates, and a fourth is currently in his third (I believe) year of seminary.

1Timothy 5:17
Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.

May I ask who it is that is to judge whether an Elder is ruling well or not?

May I ask who it is that is to judge whether an Elder is ruling well or not?

Good question. That's what I was referring to somewhat in my above post. How does a new Elder know how to rule well and what does it mean to rule well?

Originally Posted by PresReformed

I don't see in Scripture that Elders are trained. The example we have in the Scriptures is of the Congregation looking amongst themselves for those who meet the qualifications. All men in a Congregation should always be receiving training in the Scriptures and Westminster Standards. Those that are qualified should then be nominated by the Congregation and examined by the Session. If they're qualified then they should be ordained. If they need training then they're not qualified to begin with.

Respectfully disagree. On matters of confidentiality alone, many have no clue that you shouldn't go home and tell you wife you talked about in the meeting. This is but one example.

Originally Posted by PresReformed

I don't see in Scripture that Elders are trained. The example we have in the Scriptures is of the Congregation looking amongst themselves for those who meet the qualifications. All men in a Congregation should always be receiving training in the Scriptures and Westminster Standards. Those that are qualified should then be nominated by the Congregation and examined by the Session. If they're qualified then they should be ordained. If they need training then they're not qualified to begin with.

Doesn't 2nd Timothy 2:2 speak of training of elders?

Originally Posted by py3ak

Originally Posted by PresReformed

I don't see in Scripture that Elders are trained. The example we have in the Scriptures is of the Congregation looking amongst themselves for those who meet the qualifications. All men in a Congregation should always be receiving training in the Scriptures and Westminster Standards. Those that are qualified should then be nominated by the Congregation and examined by the Session. If they're qualified then they should be ordained. If they need training then they're not qualified to begin with.

Doesn't 2nd Timothy 2:2 speak of training of elders?

2Ti 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

I don't see anything about Elders in this passage. What I do see is the duty of a preacher to his congregation. Elders come from the congregation. This goes with what I've already said about training all the men in the congregation in the Scriptures.

Originally Posted by py3ak

Doesn't 2nd Timothy 2:2 speak of training of elders?

Yes, elders whose office authorises them to teach the congregation: "who shall be abe to teach others also" -- ministers.

Latent in this discussion is a different view of the ruling eldership. The old Presbyterian view is that the minister or teaching elder fulfils all the functions of the bishop of the New Testament. The ruling elder only fulfils those functions which pertain to "ruling."

But if they are "faithful" men (isn't that one of the requirements for an elder? could he not be echoing 1 Timothy here?) who are "able to teach others also" it does sound like there is training going on for a teaching role. That might be for those who are to be sent, or for those who are to watch over the local congregation, but in either case it seems to me to offer at least a hint of "officer training".

Or instead of reading my post you could just see what Mr. Winzer said while I was typing my reply.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by PresReformed

The Scriptures do not differentiate between Ruling and Teaching Elders in their qualifications.

A preacher must be "sent." This is not a qualification for ruling eldership. I maintain that it is this qualification which necessitates the broad, technical training of the minister, and is not applicable to ruling elders.

I understand what you're trying to say Matthew, but the qualifications for Elders in the Pastoral Epistles do not differentiate between teaching or ruling Elders. In fact, one qualification for elders is that they be apt to teach. So Ruling Elders may be needed to preach the Gospel also, maybe even sent to do so. Sadly, I think the office of Ruling Elder is viewed as a lesser office in a lot of Presbyterian denominations nowadays as if the office of Teaching Elder is somehow superior to it. An Elder is an Elder and both vote in Presbyteries. If Ruling Elders don't know their Theology they could easily send a Presbytery down the road of heresy.

Originally Posted by PresReformed

I understand what you're trying to say Matthew, but the qualifications for Elders in the Pastoral Epistles do not differentiate between teaching or ruling Elders. In fact, one qualification for elders is that they be apt to teach. So Ruling Elders may be needed to preach the Gospel also, maybe even sent to do so. Sadly, I think the office of Ruling Elder is viewed as a lesser office in a lot of Presbyterian denominations nowadays as if the office of Teaching Elder is somehow superior to it. An Elder is an Elder and both vote in Presbyteries. If Ruling Elders don't know their Theology they could easily send a Presbytery down the road of heresy.

It used to be the dominant position that ruling elders did not examine controversies of faith. That has changed, whether for better or worse history will have to decide.

The word "superior" might apply to function though not to person. There is no doubt that the minister undertakes all the functions of the NT bishop, and on that account might be considered as exercising a superior function.

Greg, I fail to see the problem in potential ruling elders going through a time of more intensive training for office. I understand what you're getting at. Ideally, yes, a congregation will have men who are already very competent in Scripture & doctrine, and meet the character qualifications (and I'm with you on the minimizing of differences in requirements between teaching and ruling elders).

Still, if that's not the case, what in the world is wrong with men who want to serve the church as elders getting together, studying Scripture and doctrine intensely in order to prepare for examination? How is this any different than a potential teaching elder taking a few years out of his life for seminary?

(Plus, you can't "teach" character. No matter how much training you give a guy, if he's a drunk, inhospitable, a philanderer, or a bully, he doesn't get to be an elder.)

Greg, I fail to see the problem in potential ruling elders going through a time of more intensive training for office. I understand what you're getting at. Ideally, yes, a congregation will have men who are already very competent in Scripture & doctrine, and meet the character qualifications (and I'm with you on the minimizing of differences in requirements between teaching and ruling elders).

Still, if that's not the case, what in the world is wrong with men who want to serve the church as elders getting together, studying Scripture and doctrine intensely in order to prepare for examination? How is this any different than a potential teaching elder taking a few years out of his life for seminary?

(Plus, you can't "teach" character. No matter how much training you give a guy, if he's a drunk, inhospitable, a philanderer, or a bully, he doesn't get to be an elder.)

Originally Posted by raekwon

Still, if that's not the case, what in the world is wrong with men who want to serve the church as elders getting together, studying Scripture and doctrine intensely in order to prepare for examination? How is this any different than a potential teaching elder taking a few years out of his life for seminary?

Nothing. Men should always be studying Scripture and doctrine in a Congregation. That is part of a minister's duty to be training the men in his Congregation. What I am speaking against is the procedure of picking unqualified men that you want to make into Elders and then putting them through classes that "qualify" them. The same thing goes for Seminary training. Just because a man goes through Seminary doesn't mean he's qualified to be a Pastor. It never hurts to learn, we should always be learning, but you don't see Seminary or "Elder Training" in the process of electing officers in Scripture. The training of all men in the Congregation is the Pastor's duty, not for just a select few. If a Pastor is doing his job well then all the men in his Congregation should know doctrine and the standards. When it comes to electing elders the qualifications are primarily those having to do with character. If his Pastor has been teaching him and he possesses the character then he should be ordained.

Originally Posted by PresReformed

Originally Posted by raekwon

Still, if that's not the case, what in the world is wrong with men who want to serve the church as elders getting together, studying Scripture and doctrine intensely in order to prepare for examination? How is this any different than a potential teaching elder taking a few years out of his life for seminary?

Nothing. Men should always be studying Scripture and doctrine in a Congregation. That is part of a minister's duty to be training the men in his Congregation. What I am speaking against is the procedure of picking unqualified men that you want to make into Elders and then putting them through classes that "qualify" them. The same thing goes for Seminary training. Just because a man goes through Seminary doesn't mean he's qualified to be a Pastor. It never hurts to learn, we should always be learning, but you don't see Seminary or "Elder Training" in the process of electing officers in Scripture. The training of all men in the Congregation is the Pastor's duty, not for just a select few. If a Pastor is doing his job well then all the men in his Congregation should know doctrine and the standards. When it comes to electing elders the qualifications are primarily those having to do with character. If his Pastor has been teaching him and he possesses the character then he should be ordained.

I'd say that with the amount of detail and scrutiny in officer exams (at least in most Presbyterian congregations), it would be darn near impossible for anyone to pass muster if all they're hearing is a weekly sermon. Even if a man is diligent in the Word throughout the week, concentrated study time in the scriptures and the standards is necessary. (And I'm not necessarily advocating the usual presbyterian way of examining potential officers . . . but if that's the lot that's cast a man's way, he'd better be ready.)

While it's true that the pastor's job includes the training of all men (and women) in the congregation, not all men are called to hold the office of Elder. You're right -- men who don't even meet the scriptural qualifications for office shouldn't be put into some training program to bring them up to snuff so they can be ordained. But the qualifications laid out by a denomination, presbytery, or a church are often much more specific than the scriptural qualifications. For instance, scripture doesn't say that I have to know the books of the Bible in order or that I have to be familiar with what the Larger Catechism says about the Sabbath. Scripture says that I "must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught" -- my knowledge of the books of the Bible in order and the WLC are a couple valid of ways that my presbytery tested whether or not I hold firm to the Word, but if a guy doesn't necessarily know that, he very well could still meet the scriptural qualifications for office. Guys like that should most certainly be trained so that they can pass whatever exam is thrown their way.