What is the calling of an elder?
There are three words used in Acts 20 and 1 Peter 5 to describe the same people or function: elder (or older), presbuteros (bishop), and poimain (shepherd). Elder is what they are—older, mature people. Bishop is what they do. Bishop literally means “take care of—the caretaker.” Shepherd is how they do it. Elders are mature people who take care of the church by shepherding people.

Do the elders have a policy-setting role?
I would say that yes, there is a policy-setting role, to establish core beliefs, core values, and overall direction. However, those are only obliquely implied in Scripture. If you see the word elder used in old Hebrew and Greek settings sometimes it applies to city managers. As I understand from Scripture, the role is primarily shepherding.

What’s the best thing elders can do for a church?
Build team environments and trust. Create flocks. The definition of a shepherd is someone who has a flock. In the pasture the hireling was just out there taking care of strangers’ sheep. A shepherd works 24/7/365 to help sheep negotiate the green pastures and the still waters. The sheep won’t listen to anyone else’s voice because there’s trust. There’s a relationship. One of the ways to do this is to have small-group leaders being shepherds. It’s not just a way to grow a church, but it’s a way to grow people, to take care of people.

Does the “double honor” (1 Timothy 5:17) of an elder who has been called to preach set him apart from the rest of the group?
I don’t think it sets him apart. I think the passage is obviously talking about salary issues since the next verse says, “do not muzzle the ox.” All of the shepherds in a given congregation could be paid a full-time salary. That doesn’t mean they have more clout or authority, it just means they’re in a position to give more time. Of course a paid preacher may or may not be an elder, it doesn’t mean he has more authority, it just means he has a specialized function.

How does being an elder, a leader in the church, square with Jesus’ teaching of being a servant of all?
In Matthew 20:25-28, Jesus makes it clear that leadership in the kingdom is not like leadership in the pagan culture. Then he says, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them.” But then he says, “It is not this way among you.” In the Greek language there is no stronger assertive form than Jesus uses here—it is “not so with you.” Then of course he says whoever is greatest shall be the servant.

What about other Scriptures that refer specifically to the respect afforded to elders as leaders?
Anything that you would pull from 1 Peter 5:2 and 3, Peter emphasizes what Jesus said, not lording it over them, but being an example. People sometimes pull references from the King James Version of 1 Thessalonians 5:12 and 13 or Hebrews 13:17—“Obey your leaders and submit to them.” Those are not good translations. They really say respect those who lead you. Besides, the basic Christian principle is mutual respect, like in Ephesians 5:21.

It does appear different than the teachings of Christ.
If you were able to prove to me that Hebrews 13 and 1 Thessalonians 5 were demanding submission to authority figures, that would put those writers totally at odds with Jesus. I cannot imagine those authors flying in the face of something that Jesus made so clear. The term leadership is not used in the New Testament, except to respect those who lead. Servant leadership is strong.

Do you see 1 Timothy 3 as a checklist to qualify someone as an elder?
No, I don’t think it’s a checklist. I think Paul would be stunned to see the way the modern church uses that passage. These lists represent a very common literary device from Paul’s time. People would heap on words to describe a person of virtue, like a sea captain or a local leader. No one would have assumed these to be checklists.

But you do have to have something here to work from.
I call these qualities rather than qualifications. There are two lists of qualities for elders in the New Testament: one in Titus and one in 1 Timothy. These two lists are not the same. Rather they sketch out the kind of person who can best serve, contextually. The context was different in Crete than it was in Ephesus.

So it’s a cultural context.
There are many other important qualities that aren’t on either list! For example, neither list asks if he has been baptized or has been a man of prayer. When I preached in Abilene, Texas, the church had a policy that no one could serve who used tobacco or alcohol in any form. In that culture it mattered. It probably wouldn’t matter that much in Italy.

What if a quality is missing in a person? For example, someone is gifted as a leader, but isn’t “able to teach.”
“Gifted leader” is not mentioned in Scripture as one of the qualities for an elder. If you had to choose between a trait that the Bible refers to and one that is not mentioned you should probably go with one that the Bible includes. Like “teach,” instead of “lead.” Teaching is not necessarily public presentations. We teach in a lot of ways. Whether a guy is gifted to stand in front of a class or not doesn’t mean he can’t teach. It’s not just public presentations. Gifted leading always implies teaching in some form.

Is a church missing out on a large pool of potential leaders by not having women as elders?
I believe, first of all, the issue needs to be addressed locally and contextually. Even if your theology allowed for women in leadership, it may not be a prudent thing to do if your church culture is not ready for it. If your congregation's hermeneutic/theology makes room for women to fill a church leadership role (preaching, teaching, etc.), then yes, we are obviously missing a great deal having only male elders. The yin is missing from the yang.

What if a church’s hermeneutic doesn’t allow for women as elders?
Then, of course, this is a moot question. This issue must be addressed in the context of the local church. However, again, even if your theology/hermeneutic allows for women in leadership roles, that does not necessarily mean it is the prudent thing to do “at your place” and “now.”

Is eldership a matter of age?
I think it is. The very word elder implies older, aged, or mature. Many of the functions of Scripture describe experience or maturity. Elder (older) is a relative term, so it may need to be decided contextually. If you’re in a new church and you don’t have anyone over age 35 in the church, you may have to have younger elders. If I’m in a church with older people however, I’m certainly not ready to call the young man riding a bicycle with peach fuzz an elder.

At what point should a brand-new church submit to elders?
This could take a whole book! In some New Testament churches elders were appointed in years, even months. In some brand-new churches today there are persons with enough maturity to be elders right out of the box. In all new churches someone is already shepherding and leading. Small-group leaders are shepherds in training.

Why do some new churches appear reticent to appoint elders?
Church planters often resist appointing elders because they have been burned in the past by controlling, authoritarian boards of elders. They feel, “that’s how elders work,” and thus the planters fear that appointing elders might restrict the freedom of the lead planter and might stall the growth curve of the church. New planters should begin training and equipping shepherds from day one to make sure a biblical shepherding model becomes a part of the DNA of the church

How would you define a healthy eldership?
I think this is the first time I have ever been asked to spell this out. I would describe elders as a plurality of persons who are spiritually qualified and have the proper gift mix to shepherd, mentor, and equip people toward spiritual maturity and usefulness and who seek to shape them into grace-filled, redemptive community, to the glory of God for the good of the world.

Is there a scriptural definition, or example, that is roughly equivalent to a “paid staff” and a volunteer board of elders?
Probably there isn’t a scriptural equivalent to our modern paid staff and board of elders, although Paul was supported as an elder and some elders received “double honor.” It may have been true that Titus and Timothy were paid. There isn’t really anything that is the equivalent of the modern setting. We shouldn’t worry about it. We just need to make sure we have the principles in the right context while at the same time attempting to keep nonbiblical cultural factors from distorting scriptural intent.

How does a paid staff respond to a board of elders that seems to be making bad decisions?
I run into this a lot. First, I would try to get both elders and paid staff to see their whole leadership team as a team, not as the elders and the “hireling” staff. If I have any success there then I try to get them to hammer out principles of interaction. Agreements about how we treat each other. For example: no hidden agendas or holding back information; treat each other with Christian respect; and so on. And when someone is acting out of line you can say, “We don’t do that around here.”

Second, I would get them to hammer out their core beliefs and values. Then to clarify operational policy. Things like: What is the role of the staff and of shepherds? What are the expectations? Where are the banks between which this river runs? When there is clear policy and all parties function within this policy, no one will be breathing down your neck. But if you violate the policy, somebody makes you accountable—and the leadership must define who that somebody is. Make sure that staff participates in creating policy, strategies, and the decision-making process. That’s part of being a team.

It sounds like they have to start listening to one another.
For staff-elder relations, everything must be done to build trust. The idea that it’s easier to get forgiveness than permission is a real trust-buster. One of the things my dad told me was to spend most of your coffee money on your biggest critic. When you need to confront, practice Matthew 18. Don’t talk to Charlie about John’s problem, talk to Charlie. And talk toward resolution, not for condemnation.

Are there similarities between a group of elders and a nonprofit board of directors?
A group of elders and a nonprofit board are both responsible, for example, to clarify basic organizational policies. Both are responsible for clarifying overall mission. Both are responsible for preservation of basic values. Both require a plurality of minds to provide wisdom and guidance. Both require persons of sound judgment and integrity.

So what sets elders apart from a nonprofit board?
Unfortunately, in many churches there aren’t many differences, though I believe there are significant differences. Some examples would be that boards of nonprofits satisfy government regulations (that’s one of their tasks), but elders and shepherds nurture communities of devoted Christ-followers. Nonprofit boards require no biblical qualities of spiritual leadership. But the role of biblical shepherds does rely on those characteristics of moral suasion, faith, and character. A spiritual leader is the kind of person God-hungry people want to be like. A board member is a corporate functionary primarily responsible for fiduciary and legal matters. A board member functions primarily in governance. A shepherd builds godly persons into a redemptive community. A board member takes care of things. A biblical elder shepherds people.

You never refer to a “board” of elders. Why not?
The term board is not used in Scripture. In modern context it implies a sort of corporate structure rather than the picture of the body of Christ, like in the New Testament. The use of those words today may obscure the picture of an elder’s calling. Vocabulary shapes paradigm, and if you use the term board you start thinking like one. And I wouldn’t use eldership, either. I think it might actually shape a more corporate, institutional view of leadership than Jesus’ actual intention for spiritual shepherds. I much prefer for now, the term shepherd to offset the baggage and the distorted expectations that come with the word elder or bishop. “Eldership” is kind of like saying “board”—I’d like to sink that “ship!”

Is there a time when a local church’s elders should submit to other, outside elders?
There’s a time when everybody needs to submit to Jesus. Sometimes it’s good for the elders to call for a consultant. It’s not a shame, it’s a wise practice to get help when you don’t know what you’re doing. Sometimes you need someone outside the family to get things sorted out.

Is it ever healthy for a church to oppose its elders?
Sometimes the church does need to act. Sometimes the church needs to call elders to accountability—very rarely and very carefully. Also of course, if the elders become gridlocked they might be wise to ask the church for help in solving some kinds of problems.

How does a church protect against having an adversarial relationship with its elders?
It’s a matter of trust-building and clear policy. When things are getting out of hand there needs to be a policy already in place where a rogue elder can be nipped in the bud, where the church can address that elder or the whole group.

Elders are certainly not infallible.
Sometimes the elders can get into a negative groupthink. Keep urging the elders to put in place the things I’ve talked about—what’s good behavior, what are our core beliefs, what are our values, how much secrecy is there? Churches can do this in respectful ways, to press for an established policy and proper channels to express dissatisfaction, rather than the political way we sometimes see this done. Our approach should be hat of trusting leadership and wanting to understand.