A couple of weeks ago, I was looking for some information about the appointment of elders. I happened to look at J.W. McGarvey’s commentary on Acts, and read the following in his comments on Acts 14:
A full exhibition of the duties of the elder’s office, and of the moral and intellectual qualifications requisite to an appointment thereto, belongs to a commentary on the First Epistle to Timothy, rather than on Acts of Apostles. We will not, therefore, consider them here, further than to observe that the duties were such as can not be safely dispensed with in any congregation; while the qualifications were such as were then, and are now, but seldom combined in a single individual. Indeed, it can not be supposed that Paul found in the young congregations of Lystra, Iconium, Antioch, and every other planted during this tour, men who could fill up the measure of the qualifications which he prescribes for this office. [1 Timothy 3:1-7.] But he appointed elders in every Church, hence he must have selected those who came nearest the standard. It is not an admissible objection to this argument, that inspiration may have supplied the defects of certain brethren in each congregation, so as to fully qualify them; for moral excellencies, which are the principal of these qualifications, are not supplied by inspiration.… Common sense and Scripture authority both unite in demanding that we should rather follow Paul’s example, and appoint elders in every Church from the best material which the Church affords.
So McGarvey says that Paul isn’t saying that each elder should have these qualifications, but that the eldership as a whole needs these qualifications. He also argues that churches choose the best men they have, even if they lack one or more of these qualities. (I’ve about decided that most of the respected leaders from the past wouldn’t make it in today’s church. Can you imagine someone writing such things today? What would he be called? Liberal… change agent… digressive…)
Any thoughts on brother J.W.’s ideas?
We do pick and choose what we like about the pioneers and ignore the rest. I vaguely remember a story about a female song leader in JD Tant’s circle.
Elders should be picked from those who are looked up to for their leadership, Deacons should be picked from those who are looked up to for their workmanship. and if one man filled the bill in either office, we would need only one. yet the office of elder cannot exist with only one, anyhow that has been the way in all churches I have attended.
Actually I believe the elders in early days were exactly that, the elder people within a tribe, the one with more experience , the respected.
If elders did their “work” then we wouldn’t be as concerned as some seem to be bothered.
Lead by EXAMPLE.
This has become a lost art for most elderships I am aware of save Joelton.
I’m going to have to disagree with J.W. McGarvey on this one.
Paul wrote in Titus1:7, “Since an overseer is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless…” In 1 Timothy 3:2, he wrote, “Now the overseer must be above reproach…” Since Paul says that they “must” have such qualities, I can’t go along with J.W. McGarvey on this one.
The congregations in Acts must have been comprised with at least a few men who could have been described as Paul described elders in 1 Timothy and Titus. I know that someone will say, “But the congregations were too new to have had anyone except novices in them. They could not have had men who would have possessed those qualities. They had not had time to develop.” I’m not sure about that objection. Jewish men and Gentile proselytes would not necessarily have been seen as novices to the faith. They could have developed those qualities over a long period of time. It’s very possible that they became the first elders of the young churches.
Interesting quote.
“Above reproach,” does seem like it would be necessary. Not all the qualifications in Timothy could have been observed by Paul in Asia Minor. Everyone Paul picked must have been a recent convert. Paul does seem to have definite on leaving a congress of elders in each congregation. That is one example that we have been a bit loose with.
Is it possible that Paul’s instructions to Timothy went beyond Paul’s own practice. The elders that young Timothy named would have needed and extra dose of respect if they were going to serve on a par with the elders that had been named in the beginning by the apostle Paul.
We don’t do that with the plan of salvation.
“Plan” of salvation? What did I miss? Didn’t know there was a plan. I heard about salvation, but not a plan? Sounds man made to me….
Great post Sir!!
Trent
Trent,
You know what John meant when he said plan of salvation and he was responding to the original post. Disagree, debate, argue, etc., but there’s no reason to be antagonistic and sarcastic.
Jeremy
Interesting comments. I’m afraid I didn’t understand John’s comment. What is it that we don’t do with the plan of salvation?
For the record, I don’t know that I agree with McGarvey either. I do have real problems with doing a cut and paste between 1 Timothy and Titus, but I’m not sure that I’m ready to go as far as he does.
I really was marvelling at the fact that such a widely used and respected commentary as McGarvey’s could make such an assertion without people calling him a heretic.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Ok, I will go forward Sunday, just couln’t pass it up. Corrected I stand by my fellow colleagues…peace
Very true Tim, I like your last point about McGarvey having that view and yet being well used and respected by many…very interesting.
Some poeple are labeled as heretic just because they see something a different way, different than the way its “always been taught”….Sometimes that “always been taught way” was merely made to “fit” a particular doctrine, plan, or heritage….thats the most frustrating thing to me in ministry today….peace…
I responded briefly on purpose to see if anyone else picked up on what I was getting from McGarvey. He is one of my favorite commentators. I’ve read The Fourfold Gospel twice.
We don’t omit steps in the plan of salvation – he believed, this guy repented, and that one over there was baptized – so we’re covered as a group. Or, one has faith, another has works, so, as a group – we’re in compliance. Why would we apply this kind of reasoning to appointing elders?
Trent, no need to go forward…just send me $20 and we’re cool. Just kidding, if I can’t take candor in comments, I have no business commenting myself.
I see what you mean John.
I do see a difference here between a list of items occurring together in context and a group of things gleaned from several different passages. I would also make a difference between an individual’s salvation and the way that Christ equips the body. Aren’t we taught to expect differences in giftedness, yet similarity in salvation?
That being said, I remain unconvinced by McGarvey, but willing to investigate more.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Hi Tim
I don’t see the relevance of the two examples you give. Both cases would involve doing what God says whether the location of the teaching is one place or many or whether it is becoming a Christian or functioning as a congregation. I have heard a denominational argument about faith that says, to me at least, that the faith to become a Christian is a different faith from the faith to live the Christian life. The latter involves works, the former does not. I don’t think that will fly. Your second case reminds me of that position, though I am sure that was not your intent.
I will withdraw the plan of salvation analogy and substitute a fruit of the Spirit one. The results are the same.
It seems inescapable to me that if some of the requirements may be omitted, then the criteria themselves become meaningless. Once that happens, one’s own list may be introduced (such as, “He’s a good businessman”) and off we go.
My humble feeling is that we need to give more precise attention to the qualifications, not less. I fear sometimes we gloss the apt to teach and child rearing items as it is.
Tim, I think McGarvey’s statement is true on a practical level. If we are honest most of the men we pick as elders don’t meet fully each and every qualification. We tend to look the other way on certain ones and emphasize the ones in which they excel. Theologically I think McGarvey’s viewpoint could be dangerous because then we could choose men who met none of the qualifications but we wanted in the eldership. I have known of some congregations (not many) where the eldership was really decided by congregational politics.
My view is that the men should have all the qualifications but in reality they will always be strong in some and weaker in the others. Hopefully their weaknesses will be covered by other elders and hopefully their weaknesses will not work against them or the congregation.
Have you discussed previously why Paul has two sets of lists that although are similar yet have some differences? Would that mean that each list has a different context in which the qualifications would be used?
Bob,
I discussed this a bit in this post:
http://www.timothyarcher.com/kitchen/?p=1015
Tim, your thoughts on the different contexts of the two lists is about what I was thinking as well. It seems to me that Titus is in missionary mode in Crete and establishing churches but still in need of elders to lead the church. Qualifications are similar but slightly downgraded (do you think that is in accurate way to describe the list to Titus?) so that elders can be had in their congregations.
I don’t know if I like the term downgraded, but I get the idea. It seems apparent to me that Paul and Barnabas didn’t apply the “no new convert” rule in Acts 14. It would be logical for the expectations to be higher in an Ephesian church that had existed for decades.
The emphasis on “not a lover of money” is important in Titus because of the Cretan culture. Different aspects of life are important in different places. In Las Vegas, “not a gambler” might need to be on the list.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
I see this topic has been dormant a while, but in case anyone’s interested in a follow-up, McGarvey’s Treatise on the Eldership is available here: http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/jwmcgarvey/atote/ATOTE00.HTM. In this work McGarvey pretty clearly considers all the qualifications to be necessary, so the excerpt from his Acts commentary is puzzling. (The eldership treatise was published at least by 1860, the commentary in 1863.) Perhaps he meant only to point out the imperfection of the material they had to work with, which is true under any circumstances, especially with qualities of character which are by nature relative.
Just a thought on the “novice convert” aspect–some of the elders appointed by Paul might have been former synagogue elders, a similar kind of office, so not as inexperienced as others. Anyway, I recommend his longer work on the eldership. His approach to authority of office vs. leadership by example is quite good.
Grace and peace.
Jesus Christ is the same today yesterday and forever. No how matter how smart we are or what time of high scale corporation jobs we may have. God is in control . The sooner we realize it the better for us all. We are not to suggest, criticize or take charge but rather to follow. If you are not willing to do that then get out of the way so I can. Jeff Watt Medina, TN
Hi Jeff. I very much agree with your statement, as I think just about who commented on this thread over the last 9 years would do. Do you have a specific issue with what someone has said? Or are you just encouraging us on to faithfulness?