For the Bride: Elder Term Limits
There was a recent proposal for Elder term limits at my Church and subsequent questions about whether the idea is Biblical. My cards on the table, I hold that Elder appointments are for life so long as the person is qualified and able to perform the duties for the good of the Church and to the glory of Christ.
Nevertheless, I took the question as an opportunity to do research on the matter and to consider it deeper. While I do not think my basic understanding has shifted, I do believe there is more to this conversation than I originally conceived. I listened to well thought out arguments from both directions and looked at historical precedent in Elder led Churches similar to ours.
Hopefully I can effectively share some of what I think is worth thinking about.
In my reading of the New Testament, grounded in Old Testament leadership principles, I find there is no direct passage on “Elder term limits.” The Bible tells us what Elders do and what their baseline qualifications for holding office are, but a lot of the rest is silence. For instance, it does not tell us how they are tested, how they are appointed, who should appoint them, or how long they should serve. Therefore, that is not automatically a deal breaker for me but something to tread lightly around. That being said, I would argue this silence on such matters is intentionally so. The ambiguity gives local congregations flexibility for their context in accord with Biblical principles. It does not say whether we should have insurance, air conditioning, or men with great facial hair either.
One might argue this silence is instructive even. 9Marks, the ministry my Church based much of its structure on, says on the matter “the Bible is silent on this issue, which means that wisdom and a prudent application of broader biblical principles must guide our decision.”
Where there is not a clear command on an issue we look to the wisdom of clear principles.
Let me give some context of the problem so that we can size up the dragon needing slayed. There are Churches with term limits who have Elders who have stepped aside but continued to serve in other capacities. There are Elders who have died while in office. There are Elders who resign for personal or family reasons but return later to serve. There are Elders who have served long after their mental or physical health would deem wise. There are international Churches who have Elders who rotate due to the transient nature of the leadership. There are Churches who have multiple family members on the Board which seem impossible to remove even for sin. There are instances of Elders who fall victim to the danger that the longer they serve the more power and authority they seem to acquire (or worse, think they have). Tenure can make Elders domineering. Term limits can make them impotent. Those in lifelong appointments can operate without the same kind of accountability as Elders with term limits. Term limits can have stifling accountability which limits decision mobility. Elders in lifelong appointments can remain in place beyond health and ability keeping younger men from stepping into leadership. Term limits can stretch a congregation to potentially add unqualified men. Elders can hold the Church back because they are not as capable as they need to be. One author warned, “Yet the feeling can sometimes exist that one’s authority as an elder is directly proportional to the length of one’s tenure as an elder. Such thinking is false, in my opinion.” Elders with term limits may struggle to learn the leadership system or to be able to execute long term plans effectively. The list of struggles no matter what your system is myriad.
The job itself is hard and many systems make it harder. Ours is certainly not perfect.
The system you choose often chooses the problems you will have for you. If you do not have high standards and a difficult process to evaluate a candidates qualifications on the front end then it will certainly cause issues on the back end. Some just elevate Deacons and get confusion about the difference in roles. Many have the wrong idea when they became Elders that they were a “board of directors” rather than a “team of pastors.” It seems many of the root problems with tenure or term limits start there. Therefore, I think the real question is not about term limits or tenure but about how to evaluate the continuing effectiveness of an Elder in the Biblical role and expectations. Are they still shepherding and respected by the congregation? How do you hold them accountable to be the Shepherds which was expected at the start?
Also, how do you keep them healthy enough to serve and avoid burnout?
This is the place that I find a compelling amount of agreement among those who have lifelong tenure systems and those with Elder term limit systems. They both look heavily at Elder health, competency, ability to do the work, and ways to graciously remove them before it negatively affects the Church. Note two different positions on the subject and how they similarly approach the conversation:
The Bible is silent on this issue, which means that wisdom and a prudent application of broader biblical principles must guide our decision.
While there are advantages to having elders serve for either limited or indefinite terms, the best of both worlds seems to be a system in which i) the elders serve limited terms that can be renewed at the approval of the congregation and ii) the elders must take periodic sabbaticals.
In this way the church has a built in means for graciously removing men from the eldership who for one reason or another should no longer serve. This also gives all the non-staff elders a chance to rest and recuperate from their labors. (The church should find other ways to give their staff elders time to rest, such as yearly sabbatical months.)
On the other hand, apart from these periodic sabbaticals, and depending on periodic re- affirmation by the congregation, this also allows qualified men to continue serving as elders as long as they are able.
Now note a different position but same emphasis:
Question: How long should an elder serve?
There are those who conclude that an elder is an elder for life. I am not one of those. This is more an argument from silence that from clear biblical statement. I would say that a man is an elder. . .
1. so long as he meets the qualifications
2. so long as he is able to fulfill the duties of an elder
3. so long as the church continues to acknowledge him as a leader (functionally or formally)
4. so long as the elder desires to serve in this capacity
Conclusion:
My position has remained but I would add that if you have more of a lifelong system you need to balance it out with much more strict and intensive accountability and support. I would not hesitate to join a Church nor lead a Church that has Elder term limits, it is not a dividing matter for me. Since our Church has an indefinite, lifelong tenure system it seems wise that we should have a renewal system like what is mentioned above where there must be approval from the congregation to renew and that Elders should be required to take periodic sabbaticals. This way there is gracious ways to remove Elders who are no longer able to shepherd effectively, to give Elders rest to recuperate and also for them to serve as long as they are able. This gives the congregation regular opportunity to evaluate qualification and potential new candidates who meet them. If reaffirmed then it encourages the Elders with support and helps them keep a pulse on the congregation. I think the principle is also helpful for Deacons, when we are considering the workload and the potential for anyone in leadership to burnout or remain when they are no longer qualified. If Elder term limits is just an easier way to remove an ineffective Elder or Deacon then I think it’s the wrong solution to a different problem. If a person is no longer a good fit for the position then there should be structures in place to deal with that without subjecting all Elders to a system that might not be best for the shepherding of the Church.
Again, no easy answers, but your response will likely be due to the Biblical principles you think best address your context and weaknesses.
If I was the one exclusively responsible for making the adjustments to our current system I would prefer to build in some safe guards like this to a lifelong system rather than move to a term limit rotation. In a smaller Church, a term limit rotation may prove challenging for other reasons which would take a dissertation to explain. The only exception I might be willing to consider is a combination of the two which might set apart 10 qualified men who are lifelong “Elders” but only 5 are active in the administrative aspects of the Church for a 2 year term (for example). All 10 would be serving their families, making disciples, preaching the Gospel and praying, but they would rotate who is responsible for the business of the Church or meetings so to avoid burnout or other issues. The main thing is that all Elders are shepherding the flock and that might help keep the minor things of the business of the Church from replacing that critical work. That would be my runner up position, which granted is really just another form of lifelong Eldership.
I could be convinced I am wrong but without getting into tedious historical precedent and the council of Dort and a dozen other ways Churches are doing it, I would presently land in this conviction.
Verses to consider:
Exodus 18, James 5:14, Acts 14:23, Titus 1:6-9, Acts 20:28, 1 Timothy 3:2, 1 Timothy 5:17-19, Titus 1:5, 1 Timothy 3:1-16, Hebrews 13:17, Acts 11:30, Acts 20:17, 1 Peter 5:1-5, Acts 6:1-15, Eph 4:11, 1 Thess 5:12, James 3:1, 1 Cor 12, Rom 12, Gal 6:9, Heb 4, Prov 26:20, Mark 6:31-32