Elders: Pastor, Doctor and Ruling Elder

The Public Square
1

Curious if the churches you all represent divide their office of elder into three parts. I have long understood the categories of teaching elder (pastor) and ruling elder, but not doctor. It appears, however, according to one Westminster divine that even that is not quite right.

George Gillespie in “An Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland” says:

“Elders are of three kinds:

“1. Preaching elders (or pastors).

“2. Teaching elders (or doctors).

“3. Ruling elders.

“All of these are elders, as they have a voice in presbyteries and church assemblies, and the government of the church is entrusted to them all—not only to the pastor and ruling elder but also to the doctor…

“The pastor labors in the Word of exhortation. By the gift of wisdom, he applies the Word to the conduct of his flock, both in season and out of season, addressing their particular cases as needed.

“The doctor labors in the Word of doctrine, not through application as the pastor does, but by simple teaching. His task is to preserve the truth and sound interpretation of the Scriptures against all heresy and error.

“The ruling elder does neither of these but focuses solely on the government and polity of the church.

“The Apostle Paul distinguishes these three types of elders in 1 Timothy 5:17: “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the Word and doctrine.” “

Doctors these days are ensconced in Bible Colleges or Universities, but even faithful Christian doctors go to church. Are they recognised as doctors in your churches?

2 Likes
2

Great question. Reading old sources often puts on display the inconsistency in how different fathers at different times viewed church offices. Calvin, for instance, saying the office of apostle was no longer, then mentioning that Luther was an apostle.

Teachers who love books and words, but not souls, are everywhere. Iain Murray regularly lamented that Reformed preaching wasn’t preaching, but teaching. So it’s not simply those men ensconced in legacy seminaries, but maybe even more so in pulpits. They teach. They say, “It’s the Holy Spirit’s work to convict—not the preachers.” They avoid his soul and conscience and address his mind.

If anyone is a doctor of the Reformation church, it is Calvin, and the outstanding characteristic of his doctrinal writing is its never-ending pastoral focus.

The reason for New Geneva Academy’s existence is grief at sending sons of the church off to places like Covenant, Westminster, and Reformed where they were taught regularly by disembodied brains who dispensed what people think of as “truth,” but carefully kept free of present context and application.

We brought the training of pastors back under pastors so men would not be taught a subject without being taught the meaning and application of that subject to themselves and the souls they will care for. Love,

5 Likes
3

What I saw fairly frequently in my time as a Pentecostal, was the practice of “promoting from the ranks”, men who might not have had the academic background of most Reformed clergy, but who had the life-experience to make them very good pastors. Is this the sort of thing which could be done more in your setting? I.e. looking specifically for men who have the ‘knack’ for pastoring which might well represent a Calling.

3 Likes
4

Reading Cotton Mather’s Magnalia Christi (Mighty Deeds) of Christ in America, it’s noteworthy how long Pilgrims of Plymouth went without a pastor. Years. Mather says an elder proved exceptional at preaching and all facets of pastoral care, so he served them very well. Then Mather adds that, not being a pastor, he refrained from administering the sacraments. The Plymouth men and their families went maybe as many as nine years without regular observance of the sacraments. Fascinating.

3 Likes
5

I would have thought that such a man would be a candidate for the church to ordain as a minister.

What I haven’t considered is that Paul and Timothy did not teach churches to ordain their own elders, let alone ministers (Acts 14:23, 1 Timothy 3:14-15, Titus 1:5). Having spent many years in Baptist and non-denominational churches, I’m recognising I have significant holes in my ecclesiology.

1 Like
6

This is really troubling to me. Seems an overscrupulous division between ‘pastor’ and ‘elder’. Surely it would have been better to appoint one of their elders pastor than live without the sacraments, dare I say, in disobedience to Christ’s command.

2 Likes
7

Yes, but we need to be able to understand their reasons. What were they and what was the context for them?

1 Like