Ridgell's Originals

One of the interesting things about being a traveling preacher is that I get to learn a lot from different congregations about how things work in local churches.  Different people do things in different ways and I enjoy learning from others.  And I get asked a lot of questions about different things.  Usually I am at a church to either talk about evangelism or to do evangelistic preaching, but I also seem to function as an informal church consultant.  I guess it is because I am old.  Or maybe because I travel so much.  But people seem to think I have insight on how to do certain things.

Lately I have been asked frequently about how to appoint/pick/select elders.  I have to say ... I don't really know.  I have been heavily involved in elder appointments.  I have been asked to serve (and accepted) several times.  I have seen great shepherds who could never get appointed as elders.  And I have elders appointed who were terrible shepherds. 

So I typically just talk about the different way I have seen it done and share the pros and cons.

I most often see elder selection done by democratic vote.  Most of the churches I spend time with are in America.  I know that we are never ever influenced by culture, but still... Anyway, the advantages to this seem to be:  congregational buy-in because they have a voice, opportunist for new blood to be recognized, and we Americans are comfortable with elections.

The disadvantages of this are pretty obvious.  It is easy to become a popularity contest.  I have seen men (and their wives) "running" for elder.  If not careful, it is easy to elect men who will take us where we want to go instead of selecting men who will lead us where God wants us to go.

I still sometimes see congregations where elders select the additional elders.  The obvious advantage is that our spiritual shepherds should know those best qualified and equipped to help get the flock to heaven.  Some places even "pre-select" men and mentor them with the intention of making them elders.

The disadvantage is that it is natural and easy to only select men that the current elders know and are comfortable with.  Self-perpetuating.  Tho I will tell you I think this is really a matter of trust and confidence more than any thing else.

The third way that I hear more of recently is to have the preacher/minister/staff select the elders.  Some even have the senior pastor select the pastors.  One huge positive for this.  Titus was told to appoint elders.  Paul and Barnabas appointed elders.  So there is a Biblical precedent. 

The biggest problem with this is that most, if not all, of the ministers in most churches are not like Paul, Barnabas, or Titus.  Located ministers, not traveling evangelists.  Salaried employees selecting the men who will decide how much to pay, or even if they remain employed.  I get the whole tension between do not treat ministers as employees versus pay me a salary.  Hard to have it both ways. 

So what is the best way to select elders?

I don't know.  Scripture says the evangelists do it.  But I don't know many churches that have evangelists like the Acts church did.  And I am a little uncomfortable with the democratic process. 

Probably I would lean to letting members put names forward, let the elders select them, and let the ministers ordain/install them. 

So I'm just thinking out loud.  Mostly for me.  And when all is said and done it matters more the kind of men that serve and what they do.  Scripture does say way more about who they are and what they do than how they are selected.

So blessings on my elder buddies.  And thanks for all the real shepherds out there.  Whether you are an elder or not.

Just get you flock home.