I figure, if the person I’m reading has good things to say, then the people he quotes probably have even better things to say. Or they’re of equal value.

Share Aspire to be an Elder

This reasoning led me to Helmut Thielicke’s book, A Little Exercise For Young Theologians. I learned of it while reading Michael Reeves’s book, Rejoice and Tremble. Reeves wrote, “Thus Helmut Thielicke warned his theological students of the vain stage of ‘theological puberty’ many go through after a year or two of study. In that stage, infatuated with new theological concepts, the young theologian is filled with gnostic pride. His love dies in the devilish thrill of acquiring a knowledge that means power. Then this skewed knowledge proves its own perversity in his character as he becomes a graceless theological thug, ever itching for a chance to show off his prowess. And it is hardly as if older theologians are immune to this disease. We who love theology need to remember that there is no true knowledge of God where there is no right fear of him.”1

The concept of theological puberty sold me. I had to buy Thielicke’s, A Little Exercise For Young Theologians. And I read it. It is short, 74 pages. It can be read in two short sittings. It’s cheap too, $10. Audible has it for less than $4 if you’d rather to listen to it.2

Thielicke was a conservative, Lutheran theologian. He wrestled plenty with the thinking of his day, which was often swimming in the pool of existentialism (engaging the work of Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche). He lived at the same as another Lutheran pastor, Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Both men wrote on the challenges of living out the Christian faith in a secular world.

The neo-orthodox3 theologian, Karl Barth, influenced Thielicke’s thinking quite a bit. While Thielicke respected Barth's emphasis on the sovereignty of God and the primacy of revelation in Jesus Christ, he also offered critiques of Barth's dialectical method4 and his tendency to downplay the importance of human reason and natural theology.

So I read the book. It is was written for seminarians and graduates as they embarked into the Church to take up the responsibilities of shepherding the flock. Throughout it, Thielicke warns against pride and encourages the need to be circumspect. He uses some great metaphors.

For instance, in a chapter called, The Theological Change of Voice, which continues on the theme of puberty, Thielicke writes of the need for the young theologian to grow spiritually in order to catch up with his intellectual growth. In other words, he might know some things and take them for granted, yet men of the past had to suffer to learn them and to hammer them out onto paper.

He writes, “There is a hiatus between the arena of the young theologian’s actual spiritual growth and what he already knows intellectually about this arena. So to speak, he has been fitted, like a country boy, with breeches that are too big, into which he must still grow up in the same way that one who is to be confirmed must also grow into the long trousers of the Catechism. Meanwhile, they hang loosely around his body, and this ludicrous sight of course is not beautiful.”5

It is easy to picture the young graduate who still lives in a body somewhere between boyhood and mature man. It is indeed a dilemma. Most older pastors will concur, that as a younger man he desired to learn the truth, and God’s Word and theologians helped open his mind to many things, but that he needed a couple extra decades of life’s experiences and challenges to confirm and correct his convictions. Is that something a 23-year old has acquired? Probably not. (Although, 61-year olds haven’t completely arrived either.)

Yet, the thought I had as I read Thielicke’s words was, Wouldn’t it be better for a side-by-side growth of the man with his theology before he was expected to become a pastor? Is this not one of the advantages that elders6 were meant to be older men in the faith, having governed their households well?

The challenge of the office is that it requires godliness coupled with longer life experience. It takes time. Throughout a man’s life God embosses His Word into the metal of the man. It is unfair to expect a younger man to have been impressed this way. He needs time. Thielicke is correct when he writes about the need for “passing through” your own primary experiences and not simply conceptual ones.

He also reasons that someone could write a lecture about Luther and expound upon his theological significance, but hardly know anything about what God taught Luther. So, it is NOT enough to receive the “literary or intellectual deposit of what another’s primary experience, say Luther’s, has discovered.” If this is the stockyard from which your faith is drawn, it is living “second hand.”7

It is a good caution that Christians do not imagine themselves vibrant, courageous, and faithful based upon the books they read or the podcasts to which they listen. Build your faith with God and His Word by primary experience. Live!

Here is one more analogy. Thielicke talks about the study of the theologian being like the study of a geologist. His work consists of the mineralogical analyses of stone, geographical formations, maps, graphs, a set of tables, etc. However, if the geologist does not comprehend the significance and beauty of a mountain for himself, then for what purpose is he studying?

Yet, the young theologian drilling down on historical arguments and traversing meandering theological details and taking sides in historical debates can become like the geologist who is only dealing in the parts and pieces but missing the reason. Such a man is going to be at a disadvantage and “hardly in a position to comprehend at all what the Alps are.”

Thielicke recommends, “We are working here as if we were in a mineralogical laboratory. But so far as the classification of knowledge is concerned, it is all wrong unless you yourself climb the mountains and breathe the air up there.”8

In a chapter called, Pathology of the Young Theologian’s Conceit, he warns that theology can make the young man vain. He says, “Truth seduces us very easily into a kind of joy of possession: I have comprehended this and that, learned it, understood it. Knowledge is power. I am therefore more than the other man who does not know this and that. I have greater possibilities and also greater temptations. Anyone who deals with truth - as we theologians do - succumbs all too easily to the psychology of the possessor. But love is the opposite of the will to possess. It is self-giving. It boasteth not itself, but humbleth itself.”

Thielicke goes on, “Now it is almost a devilish thing that even in the case of the theologian the joy of possession can kill love. It is devilish because the truth of theology is concerned with the very love of God, with his coming down, his search, his care for souls.”9

Finally, on page 67, he writes, “Whoever ceases to be a man of the spirit automatically furthers a false theology, even if in thought it is pure, orthodox, and basically Lutheran. But in that case death lurks in the kettle…Theology is a very human business, a craft, and sometimes an art…that depends upon the hands and hearts which further it.”10

I recommend the book as a help for self-sobriety. Pull it off the shelf when you think you might be getting a little ahead yourself.

Philippians 4:2-3 reads as follows, “I entreat Euodia and I entreat Syntyche to agree in the Lord. Yes, I ask you also, true companion, help these women, who have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.”

Without question, Clement was a disciple in the first century Church. He knew Paul and Peter, too, and was likely a successor to Peter as a bishop in the Church of Rome. Clement wrote the epistle of First Clement as an authoritatively instructive letter to the Corinthian Church, but not in his own name, rather in the name of the Roman Church.

According to Schaff, “Clement fell asleep, probably soon after he despatched his letter. It is the legacy of one who reflects the apostolic age in all the beauty and evangelical truth which were the first-fruits of the Spirit’s presence with the Church.” This means the letter would have been written somewhere in the range of 95-97 AD. Though it has been argued that it could’ve been written during the tyranny of Nero before 70 AD.

The ancient historian, Eusebius [260/265-339 AD], recorded, “We are aware that this Epistle has been publicly read in very many churches both in old times, and also in our own day.”

What is more is that First Clement had attained to almost the level of the canonical writings. In the Alexandrian Church (a part of the Eastern Orthodox Church as opposed to the Roman Western Church) it was positioned immediately after the inspired books.

In the letter, Clement addresses the issue of sedition, schism and strife within the church at Corinth. Conflicts had arisen spurred on by some in the church who were envious and jealous and arrogant and conceited and angry. They became opposition leaders against the Presbyters (or Bishops).

Clement’s goal was to urge all to love and lowliness of mind and to return the church where concord ruled over discord (submissiveness, unity, honor and peace vs. defiance, unruliness, dishonor and conflict).

I’ve listed these many different words because they are regularly used by Clement. It is very clear that he saw the divisive problem as one rooted in envy and jealousy. There were some in Corinth who wanted to be important in the church and they were causing problems for those holding office as elders.

To cite a few instances:

Clement writes of the unholy sedition that was occurring in Corinth, which he says has been caused by “a few headstrong and self-willed persons” and that they “have kindled” the disputes “to such a pitch of madness” that the reputation of the church, “once revered and renowned and lovely in the sight of all men, hath been greatly reviled.” (1 Clem 1:1)

Later he instructs, “Therefore it is right and proper, brethren, that we should be obedient unto God, rather than follow those who in arrogance and unruliness have set themselves up as leaders in abominable jealousy.” (1 Clem 14:1)

And continuing, “For we shall bring upon us no common harm, but rather great peril, if we surrender ourselves recklessly to the purposes of men who launch out into strife and seditions, so as to estrange us from that which is right.” (1 Clem 14:2)

Clement’s warning is a good one to those who follow after seditious people. We should not surrender ourselves recklessly to schismatic men, for God will judge, not only the Korah’s and Dathan’s and the Abiram’s who lead the rebellion, but He will judge all who support them.

When Clement describes how self-willed antagonists take action, he uses phrases like “have kindled” and “set themselves up” and “launched out.” It started to make me think back about how some who have tried in the past to divide our church went about it. They were not blatant. They did not do things above board, but “under the covers” you might say; they were cunning. They first queried a person’s opinion before they unmasked their own contrary thoughts regarding the direction of the church, or the character of an elder, or some teaching from the pulpit.

Clement calls on the Lord to deal with such conniving. He writes, “For this cause let the deceitful lips be made dumb which speak iniquity against the righteous. And again May the Lord utterly destroy all the deceitful lips, the tongue that speaketh proud things, even them that say, Let us magnify our tongue; our lips are our own; who is lord over us?” (1 Clem 15:5)

In other words, schismatic people think they can control the narrative, not God. They feel they can impose their will, if they can simply get enough people to go along with them. This is the tongue that speaks proudly.

And so an unwary congregant has to be on guard, or, before he knows it, he’s surrendered himself to the leadership of the self-promoting naysayer. It is at that point of surrender that the congregant has joined the cause and plays a role in the ruination of the church.

Nevertheless, if the elders remain godly and act responsibly for the good of God’s people, then God will deal out just judgments in support of His ordained ones.

But back to the dispute kindlers...the motives of jealousy and envy fixate them on their goal: It is the elder’s position the schismatic wants for himself (this is jealousy), or it is an office he simply wants vacated by the existing office-bearer (this is envy).

Oftentimes, it is the entire eldership of the church that becomes his target. Why? For they often work together and try to support one another as under-shepherds. What’s more is they know from the Apostle Paul’s writing that they are not supposed to entertain an accusation against another elder without two or three witnesses coming forward (1 Timothy 5:19). So for the schismatic, to get rid of the one he may have to target them all.

Clement points out that pride, jealousy, and dishonor are not God’s way. And in the letter he gives many Old Testament examples demonstrating God’s disapproval of the seditionist and His approval of the humble, God-ordained person in authority. (See 1 Clem 4:1-4:13; 7:5-12:8; 17:1-18:4.)

He boils down the opposing characteristics: “Boldness and arrogance and daring are for them that are accursed of God; but forbearance and humility and gentleness are with them that are blessed of God.” (1 Clem 30:8)

Also, “But how shall this be, dearly beloved? If our mind be fixed through faith towards God; if we seek out those things which are well pleasing and acceptable unto Him; if we accomplish such things as beseem His faultless will, and follow the way of truth, casting off from ourselves all unrighteousness and iniquity, covetousness, strifes, malignities and deceits, whisperings and backbitings, hatred of God, pride and arrogance, vainglory and inhospitality. For they that do these things are hateful to God; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent unto them.” (1 Clem 35:5-6)

So then if we follow the way of truth and cast off the many contentious deeds Clement lists, we will then put ourselves on the peace-seeking side of church divisions. Note again, it is not only the leaders of schism that do things hateful to God, but they also that consent unto them (the people who go along with them).

Clement builds a strong case for God’s orderliness and peace in the natural world. And he uses the concept of peaceful orderliness to compel his readers to “hasten to return unto the goal of peace.” (1 Clem 19:2) Here are a handful.

“The heavens are moved by His direction and obey Him in peace.” (20:1)

“The sun and the moon and the dancing stars according to His appointment circle in harmony within the bounds assigned to them, without any swerving aside.” (20:3)

“The earth, bearing fruit in fulfillment of His will at her proper seasons, putteth forth the food that supplieth abundantly both men and beasts and all living things which are thereupon, making no dissension, neither altering anything which He hath decreed.” (20:4)

“Moreover, the inscrutable depths of the abysses and the unutterable statutes of the nether regions are constrained by the same ordinances.” (20:5)

“The seasons of spring and summer and autumn and winter give way in succession one to another in peace.” (20:9)

The solution to the problem is returning (repenting) back to love. As Jesus said, “He who loves Me will keep my commands.” And this is the instruction Clement gives.

“Love joineth us unto God; love covereth a multitude of sins; love endureth all things, is long-suffering in all things. There is nothing coarse, nothing arrogant in love. Love hath no divisions, love maketh no seditions, love doeth all things in concord. In love were all the elect of God made perfect; without love nothing is well pleasing to God: in love the Master took us unto Himself; for the love which He had toward us, Jesus Christ our Lord hath given His blood for us by the will of God, and His flesh for our flesh and His life for our lives.” (49:5-6)

Finally, and relative to the purpose of our topic of origin, how does Clement treat the subject of the office of elder, which seems to be quite relevant to this epistle?

First, he makes no distinction between different types of elders in the church. The elders being opposed in Corinth were simultaneously referred to as rulers (1:3; 21:6), the honorable (3:3), elders (21:6), bishops (42:4-5; 44:1,3), presbyters (44:4; 47:6; 54:2; 57:1), leaders of our souls (63:1).

At this early time in Church history, the Apostles had been organizing the churches by appointment of elders. The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (1952), says of Clement’s era, “the constitution of the Church, in both Rome and Corinth, is not the episcopal, but the presbyterial.” (See p.140.)

Second, Clement builds his case for doing all things according to God’s orderliness. And that just as God had ordained an order for Older Covenant through Moses involving Aaron and the priests and Levites ministering on His behalf, so God established through Jesus an ordained order for the New Covenant. (Chapters 40-44.)

“The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God. So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order.” (42:1-2)

“So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe.” (42:4)

“And this they did in no new fashion; for indeed it had been written concerning bishops and deacons from very ancient times; for thus saith the scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their bishops in righteousness and their deacons in faith.” (42:5) [F.G. - This is perhaps a reference to Jeremiah 3:15]

If God established the offices of elders and deacons for His Church, then certainly there should be honor shown to the office and any man who is circumspect while serving as an elder or deacon. Clement continues.

“And our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name of the bishop's office.” (44:1)

“For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a continuance, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration. Those therefore who were appointed by them, or afterward by other men of repute with the consent of the whole Church, and have ministered unblamably to the flock of Christ in lowliness of mind, peacefully and with all modesty, and for long time have borne a good report with all these men we consider to be unjustly thrust out from their ministration.” (44:2)

In other words, the Apostles established these offices to be perpetual – “they provided a continuance.” The Church would always need them. And if anyone opposed any of Christ’s office-bearers, while they ministered in good faith to the flock, then that person(s) is mistreating God’s ordained servant and creating discord where God wishes for concord.

“For it will be no light sin for us, if we thrust out those who have offered the gifts of the bishop's office unblamably and holily.” (44:3)

Yet the Corinthians had done this. And it is why Clement is writing this epistle.

“For we see that ye have displaced certain persons, though they were living honorably, from the ministration which had been respected by them blamelessly.” (44:5)

He tells them they should contend, but for the gospel! They are not to be contentious in the Church.

“Be ye contentious, brethren, and jealous about the things that pertain unto salvation.” (45:1)

Surely, First Clement, is sound advice for the Church. People, who aspire to be an elder, are often driven to learn and do right. And these same people can get ahead of themselves and be tempted to be haughty. You can understand why the epistle was held in esteem by first century Christians. Lowliness of mind is repeated again and again as a remedy to arrogance and seditious behavior. And love for Christ and His people is key, always, to proper motivation.

Presbyterianism Defended Against the Exclusive Claims of Prelacy as Urged by Romanists and Tractarians, is a book produced from a Lecture Crawford delivered in St. George’s Church, Edinburgh on the evening of April 10^th, 1853.

In it, Crawford lectures convincingly against the claim of the Roman Catholic church that a hierarchy (prelacy) had been established by the Apostles within the New Testament. According to their view that the Apostles ordained and laid hands on certain bishops (aka overseers) to succeed them as Church leaders. And these bishops, in turn were supposed to ordain other bishops and presbyters (aka elders) to rule as well. Levels of authority were established based upon these ordinations.

Crawford disagrees that such a hierarchy exists to govern Jesus Christ’s Church. Whereas, by his day the Roman Church government had come into full expression including a central figure known as the pope, a college of cardinals, bishops, priests and deacons. A similar hierarchical view was proposed by the Tractarians of Crawford’s time. These were Church of England (Anglican/Episcopalian) brothers who promoted similar offices without the central figure of a pope.

Crawford disagrees with both branches and argues instead that the Apostle Paul considered the office of elder (presbyter) as the highest office and one in which its office-bearers were plural and equal. On page 2, Crawford maintains that all pastors (elders) of the Christian Church possess “parity and equality.”

He points to Paul’s final farewell meeting with the Ephesian elders in Acts 20 as a proof of this. Crawford says, “They were ordinary pastors of the Ephesian Church – those to whom the care of the flock had been committed. In the 17^th verse, they were denominated ‘Presbyters;’ while in the 28^th verse, they are denominated ‘Bishops.’”

So the same men are simultaneously called elders (presbyters) and overseers (bishops). He later argues strongly on this point, from pages 24-32.

In the beginning of the lecture, Crawford dismantles the alleged Scriptural proofs of hierarchy (prelacy). I mention just one. On page eight, he presents the prelate argument, “We are told, that the high priest corresponded to the bishop or prelate; while the priests who were under him answered to the presbyters; and the Levites, who occupied a still inferior position, resembled the deacons.”

Crawford refuses these Old Testament comparisons saying, “The high priest must be held to corresponding to the Lord Jesus Christ, whom the Scriptures of the New Testament most expressly declared to be the great Bishop of souls, and the High Priest of our profession. And then, if you insist upon carrying out the parallel, it is, as you will at once see, all in favour of our Presbyterian system, - the priests and Levites corresponding to our presbyters and deacons, with no one above them but the Great Head of the Church himself!”

Of course, Crawford does not ascribe to this analogy either, as he states moments later, “The Church of the New Testament is evidently framed after the model of the synagogue, rather than the temple. The temple with its priesthood and sacrifices, has been abolished. It pertains to that ceremonial and typical system, for which there is no place under the fulness of the Gospel. Accordingly, we nowhere find the title of priests assigned to Christian ministers in the New Testament, but frequently the titles of presbyters, overseers, pastors, teachers, angels, and the like, which were formerly applied to officers of the synagogue.”

I wish that the lecturer would have given support here, for I do think the church is an extrapolation of the synagogue system. Jesus attended the synagogue and respected its worship and order. It was common as well for the apostles to worship and preach in the synagogues. It is evident that many of the first converts, and perhaps some of the churches first elders, came from the Jewish synagogues. However, you will have to find support for this outside of Crawford’s lecture.

Presbyterianism Defended also contains arguments for the cessation and not continuation of the office of apostle and evangelist, pages 11-20. Both offices were important and called extraordinary for the founding of the church, however, the ordinary and continual offices were designed to be that of the elders and deacons.

One of the highlights of Crawford’s lecture is his traverse through early church history to prove a presbyterian government. Beginning on page 41, he records the testimony of many “uninspired writers” including church fathers: Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Ignatius, and Irenaeus. Each of them supported the idea that the terms presbyter and bishop were used as synonyms.

He admits on page 45, that the system of Prelacy or “diocesan episcopacy” was introduced in about the middle of the fourth century. Here he cites the works of Hilary, Chrysostome, Augustine, and Jerome. Each of these men refer to the various church hierarchical titles. Yet not one of them suggests Scriptural support for prelacy, but only its evolved reality. Crawford provides quotes to support this clarification.

One such example is Jerome (380-420AD), who wrote, “That presbyters and bishops were originally the same – that the primitive churches were governed by a council of presbyters – that, by little and little, for the sake of preserving order and preventing schism, the government came to be devolved on individuals – and that the bishops, in his own day, ought to know that they are greater than the presbyters, rather by custom than by the appointment of the Lord.” (See page 47.)

Crawford’s lecture moves on from the church fathers and reaches the many voices of the Reformation. Again, his church history is the highlight of the lecture.

Finally, there are two Appendix at the end of the book. Note A is called, The Office of Ruling Elder. Note B is called, Apostolic Succession. The pages on Apostolic Succession are worth the price of the book. However, those on the Office of Ruling Elder are disappointing.

Note A: Building an argument from 1 Timothy 5:17, Crawford here creates a distinction between a “ruling elder” and one who teaches or labors in “word and doctrine.” On page 57, he quotes Dr. Whittaker, Regius Professor of Theology at Cambridge. Wittaker writes, “If all who rule well are worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the Word and doctrine, it is plain there were some who did not so labour; for if all had been of this description, the meaning would have been absurd; but the word ‘especially,’ points out a difference.”

He then goes to church history again, this time looking to support a distinction between the ruling elder and that of a teaching elder. Crawford believes Scripture supports a difference of function between the two (though not, presumably, in an attempt to differentiate importance).

On this point, I get the sense that Crawford’s one office of presbyter/bishop just got broken in two again. To draw a distinction of duties based on the word “especially” seems wrong-headed. Rather should the stress be placed on the word “labour.” In other words, those who labor more at the teaching should certainly be paid more. It would be the same in other forms of labor, the more time one puts in the more he or she should be paid for it.

If we assume that additional labor this is the Apostle Paul’s emphasis, then the one office imperative still stands. All elders are the same, except for their added work. Equality and parity remain. And therefore, though all elders must be “apt to teach,” as required by 2 Timothy 2:24, those who commit more to the “labour” of Word and doctrine are especially to be recompensed by the double honor.

Thomas Witherow, in contrast to Crawford, makes the more satisfying point that some elders take on more teaching and preaching work than others because of their giftedness, education and effectiveness, but this does not exclude or debar the others from their responsibilities to teach in some form or other. If 2 Timothy 2:24 requires an elder to be apt to teach, then how can 1 Timothy 5:17 absolve them of the duty?

In The Apostolic Church – which is it?, Witherow argued that Jesus Christ established and only recognizes two ongoing offices to rule with Him over His Church: elders and deacons. Witherow refuses other hierarchical offices as proposed by the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches. He calls that form of government prelacy. Both of those church traditions advocate for officers ranked above elders, such as popes, arch-bishops, bishops, etc. They make a distinction between “bishops” and “elders” calling them separate offices in the church. Witherow considers the distinction unbiblical. He argues that the words “bishop” and “elder” (or “presbyter”) are different terms for the same exact office.

He writes, “In the apostolic church, the offices of bishop and elder were identical. An elder was not inferior to a bishop, nor was a bishop superior to an elder. It was the same office-bearer who was known by these different names” (page 13).

He also argued that the apostolic church gave us the Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Elders and Deacons. The first three were temporary offices, and they ceased with the passing of the apostles. While the last two were to be perpetual.

Furthermore, Witherow maintained that each church, in the first century, was established and required more than one elder – a plurality, which in turn causes a conflict for any independent church ruled by a single pastor.

This brings me to Witherow’s more recent book, and the one I want to review.

In The New Testament Elder: His Position, Powers and Duties in the Christian Church, Witherow elaborates on the office of elder in particular. He argues that the two primary duties of an elder is to teach and to govern. He writes, “It is noteworthy that no exception whatever is made; every elder must be able to rule and also fit to teach.” [page 6, and the italics are his.]

Yet Witherow recognizes that not every elder will teach and govern equally.

He suggests, “Even although he could do so if necessary, no elder would insist on instructing the congregation in the presence of one more gifted than himself, who was willing to speak, and who as a speaker was more acceptable to the people; and no teacher, however ready as a speaker, would insist on ruling in opposition to older and wiser men. Nothing is more natural than that each should follow his bent, and do most frequently the work that he could do best...While the elder must, to some extent, be qualified for any department, yet the work will always be the best done by every man doing that portion of it for which he is best qualified...” (See pages 8-9, 11.)

So then, the elder must be qualified to teach and govern. However, the amount of attention given to those duties may vary. This is easily apparent with our “bench of elders.” Two of us have been studying and teaching for years; the third has more recently poured his time and attention into it.

Witherow admits that modern elders (i.e. the 1800’s) do not exercise the rights as possessed by elders of the apostolic age. (p.43). He believes, along the way, that elders in Reformed and Presbyterian churches relinquished their duties to “trained” ministers and that this has hampered the church.

This is certainly the contorted model of eldership we encounter today in our Christian Reformed Churches. The elders consist of the minister and the “others.” As if the minister were the quarterback and the other elders were merely offensive linemen, or maybe a more apt analogy of Santa Claus and his elves.

Witherow makes the point that legislation was added in the Presbyterian churches over time that began to disqualify elders from duties previously performed by the apostolic elders. On page 42, he writes how, “The ruling elder is interdicted from speaking to the people from the pulpit, from laying on hands in ordination, and from administrating baptism and the Lord’s Supper.”

Witherow believes the disparity should be removed.

Reading that section of the book, which Witherow called Results of False Theories, I was reminded of the same issue, the ailment “scribal-ism” that existed in the first century when the teachers of the Law and the Pharisees established a strangle hold upon God’s Word and those allowed to rule and sit in seats of honor within their religious society, etc.

It shouldn’t need to be said that the church offices must be protected and sometimes liberated from man-imposed definitions, definitions not prescribed by God.

In The New Testament Elder: His Position, Powers and Duties in the Christian Church, Witherow again records how each church is to have a plurality of elders. And he cites James 5:14 as one Scriptural proof, “Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.” Witherow makes the point, “[I]t would have been impossible to obey the admonition of James, had there not been more than one of them in every congregation” (page 5).

On page 13, Witherow adds, “The apostles, so far as we are informed, never left any church permanently in charge of an individual elder or pastor; but they themselves formed, or sent some of their associates to form a bench of elders, and under this bench of elders they placed the congregation. The work of these officers was to instruct and govern the Christian community over which they were appointed.” He also uses the phrase board of elders on page 19, to identify the plurality.

Most of Thomas Witherow’s published work was written from 1855 to 1889. Due to his combined education as theologian and historian, his clarity and precision is a valuable help to the reader.

Subscribe now