How we assess potential elders can make a world of difference. Approaching it wrongly can raise congregational tensions and cause unnecessary hurt to potential elders and future efforts. However, a thoughtful approach can make a big difference. Here are five keys to assessing potential elders without crippling their souls or the process:
1. Avoid a checklist approach.
Many years ago, I was responsible for creating a handout listing the qualities of an elder. Next to each quality, I placed a checkbox for either a yes or no response. I then gave the sheet to members of the congregation to assess three men on whether they qualified to be elder or not. Consequently, none of the men were appointed to eldership, and the matter was put on hold. When I reflect upon that effort, I am appalled and embarrassed at my naivety and how unkind such an approach was to men seeking a noble role within the Lord’s church. Firstly, reducing these qualities to a yes or no option on a piece of paper provided no filter for frivolous and immature responses that reflected more of a dislike of personality than a proper assessment. Secondly, it turned the qualities of an elder into a simple mechanical checklist without any thought to the dynamic nature of these qualities or their scope.
Although the Biblical characteristics of an elder should describe the general nature of a person seeking such a position, they should be recognised as adaptable and adjustable traits. That means, when we are considering potential elders, we need to go beyond a simple yes and no checklist and consider how a person might respond to various situations and assess the level or degree to which someone possesses the qualities of an elder.
But you might ask, is it reasonable to view the qualities of elders in terms of levels or degrees? My response is, why not? Aren’t there varying levels of faith? If not, why does Jesus, at times, accuse the apostles of having little faith (Matthew 8:26)? What about love? If godly love isn’t scalable, how could the Thessalonian Christians increase it (2 Thessalonians 3:12)? If Christian virtues can’t be graded, then why did the apostle Peter in 2 Peter 1:2-11 write, “if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ”? As with other Christian virtues, eldership qualities should be viewed in terms of degrees.
As a simple example, what if we considered the quality of hospitality on a scale of 1-10? In this case, we may find one potential elder rates between 6-8. However, we might also discover another possible elder rates between 3-4. Does that mean a person who measures at a lesser value is disqualified because they are less hospitable? I contend that the person with the lower rating still meets the requirement of being hospitable even though they may not exhibit this quality as strongly as others.
Because of this reasoning, I now believe a simple yes/no checklist fails to provide the right information to make a proper assessment. Additionally, it overlooks the fact that people often possess elder qualities at varying levels. When we fail to recognise this, we find ourselves seeking to appoint only men with the highest possible level of each quality. Unfortunately, such a perfectionistic, all-or-nothing approach makes it near impossible to appoint anyone.
2. Agree upon the A.M.L. (Acceptable Minimum Level of quality possession).
Without clear and specific information from God in scripture, each congregation will have to determine precisely how they will approach fulfilling God’s will on some issues. Since the Bible doesn’t spell out the extent to which potential elders should possess elder qualities, each congregation must decide this for themselves. In doing so, one of the most helpful things to determine is the acceptable minimum level of each quality a congregation can tolerate in someone seeking eldership. Returning to the example of hospitality, would a rating of three be enough? In practical terms, would the church accept a potential elder is hospitable if he does well at greeting and speaking with visitors to Sunday meetings, or would they also require an elder to have visitors in their home every week? It is helpful to clarify the A.M.L because I can nearly guarantee different members have different expectations based on their personality, family upbringing and cultural background. When a congregation can discuss and accept the minimum acceptable level of eldership quality a person should have, it can assist potential elders in having a clearer understanding of what they need to aim for to be appointed by the congregation. It also allows congregations to provide helpful feedback.
3. Remember that the strengths of each elder will often complement the weaknesses of other elders.
In thinking through the acceptable minimum levels for possessing eldership qualities, it is also helpful to remember that the strengths of each elder will often complement and support the weaknesses of the other elders. In saying that, I am not suggesting elders can fill qualities lacking in each other. No, each elder must possess, to some extent, each of the qualities required of elders in the Bible. That said, we should not think that every elder needs to have the quality in the same way. Again, men can qualify as long as they meet the minimum acceptable level that a congregation can tolerate. However, the value of having two or more elders in each congregation means that each elder’s strength often supports each other’s weaker areas. This understanding should alleviate fears that elders will fail if they don’t possess each quality to the fullest.
4. Consider that potential elders will grow in their abilities and qualities upon appointment.
When I suggest that each congregation consider the minimum acceptable level for the qualities of an elder, I am not suggesting that elders remain at the minimum level. Instead, once elders are appointed, they will likely continue to grow in that role and each quality. Understanding this means we can take the pressure off potential elders to be perfect and get on with appointing them.
5. Don’t overcomplicate the process.
Although we must choose elders carefully, we need to avoid overcomplicating the process. Sometimes churches turn the process of appointing elders into too big of a deal, and it overwhelms people and discourages them from wanting elders. However, it seems that the churches in Australia that have been successful in appointing elders have followed a simple process:
- They understood and taught the above principles.
- Names of potential elders were announced. Then, as long as there was no opposition to their appointment, they were appointed to the role after given period.
- The onus was on each member of the congregation to approach potential elders, decision makers or evangelist if they had any concerns about the appointments. Encouraging members to take the initiative to voice any concerns helped to sort out frivolous complaints. However, speaking to relevant parties was still easy enough for those with serious concerns.
Keeping the eldership process simple assists by moving things forward without too many unnecessary hindrances.
Final thoughts:
To appropriately and productively assess potential elders, congregations need to understand that the Biblically qualities of an elder are not static, nor should they be considered through the lens of all or nothing thinking. Instead, they should be seen as dynamic and scalable qualities. That means congregations must agree upon acceptable minimum levels of entry into an eldership. It also means avoiding the expectation that elders need to be perfect, knowing that each elder’s strengths will complement the others’ weaknesses and that elders will continue to grow in elder qualities. Finally, avoiding overcomplicating the assessment and appointment process will keep frivolous and unnecessary complaints from discouraging potential elders and keep things moving in a good direction.
