An elder entrusted with the care of a congregation answers for the way he treats the people under his oversight. Peter tells elders to shepherd willingly and eagerly and to become examples to the flock (1 Peter 5:1–4). Paul tells Timothy how to handle accusations against an elder, when to rebuke those who continue in sin, and how to keep prejudice and partiality out of his judgment (1 Timothy 5:19–21). Together, these instructions address two dangers a congregation can encounter in the same case. A man can be injured by a charge accepted without adequate testimony, and people under his care can be injured when those responsible refuse to hear what happened. The congregation honors faithful oversight when it takes both dangers seriously and measures the conduct of an elder by the same Scriptures he teaches.

The Flock Belongs to God

Peter addresses the elders as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ (1 Peter 5:1). He directs them to shepherd the flock of God among them, exercising oversight willingly and eagerly, free from the pursuit of sordid gain (1 Peter 5:2). The words “the flock of God” identify whose people they are. The elder has an assignment among those people and must use it for their care. His willingness to serve becomes visible in work that brings him little recognition, such as visiting a discouraged believer or taking time to explain a difficult command to someone who is struggling to obey it. His freedom from greed becomes visible when he refuses to use the congregation’s confidence in him to obtain a private advantage.

Peter tells elders to exercise their oversight without “lording it over those allotted to your charge” and to become “examples to the flock” (1 Peter 5:3, UASV). The contrast concerns how an elder leads the people entrusted to him. A faithful shepherd can correct wrongdoing firmly, explain the grounds for his correction, and demonstrate that he accepts the same standard himself. A domineering elder can make agreement with his preference a measure of loyalty, even when he cannot show that Scripture requires it. For example, he may threaten to remove a brother from a responsibility because the brother asked why a decision was made. Peter directs the elder to set an example in precisely such circumstances, where his response to a reasonable question can show whether he regards the people under his care as fellow believers or as people whose compliance he is entitled to demand.

Peter identifies Christ as the Chief Shepherd and connects the elder’s reward with His appearing (1 Peter 5:4). The man who hopes to receive that reward has reason to examine how he uses authority when other people are reluctant to challenge him. An elder who learns that a brother experienced his correction as humiliating can listen to what the brother says, determine whether his manner was unjust, and acknowledge it if it was. Jesus gave His disciples the standard when He explained that rulers among the nations lord it over people and then required those who would be great among His followers to serve (Matthew 20:25–28). The example of Christ reaches into the conduct of elders when they make decisions, handle disagreement, or respond to a complaint about themselves. Their accountability to Him includes the way they exercise the authority they have been given.

What Paul Requires Before an Accusation Is Received

Paul places his instructions about accusations immediately after his direction to honor elders who lead well, especially those who labor in speaking and teaching (1 Timothy 5:17–19). He writes, “Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses” (1 Timothy 5:19, UASV). The requirement recalls the rule that a single witness is insufficient to establish a charge, as stated in Deuteronomy 19:15. The standard gives Timothy grounds to resist gossip, personal hostility, and the temptation to treat a serious charge as true because it is repeated confidently. Three people who heard the same rumor from one person can establish that the rumor circulated, while their repetition supplies no independent testimony to the alleged conduct. The question is what each witness actually knows and how that knowledge bears on the charge.

Hearing a person’s report in order to understand it is a different step from receiving a charge for judgment on the basis Paul specifies. A brother who reports that an elder threatened him in a private conversation should be allowed to explain what was said, when it happened, and whether anyone else has firsthand knowledge of the matter. An elder reviewing the report can ask whether there are related communications or people who can speak directly to relevant facts. Messages and records can clarify dates, preserve words, and help those reviewing the matter identify what can be confirmed. Their significance depends on what they actually establish, and a private report remains distinct from a charge established on the required testimony. Refusing to hear the person at all would prevent the congregation from discovering whether the necessary testimony exists.

Fair examination also requires hearing the accused elder’s response to the substance of the allegation. Proverbs 18:13 warns against answering before hearing, and Proverbs 18:17 observes that the first account can appear right until another person examines it. A report that an elder threatened to remove a member from a responsibility may turn on his actual words and the circumstances in which they were spoken. The elder should have an opportunity to identify a misunderstanding, give his account, and point to people who know relevant facts. The same care is due to the person who raised the concern, whose account deserves to be heard without interruption, pressure, or assumptions about motive. A fair decision identifies what has been established and leaves unresolved matters open to further evidence.

Acting Responsibly While Facts Are Being Established

Some reports raise an immediate question about the safety of people in an elder’s care. If a person reports threats or violence, those hearing the report can take steps to protect the people involved while the facts are being examined. They can arrange for another elder to provide pastoral care and give the person raising the concern a way to communicate without meeting alone with the man whose conduct is at issue. Where a report concerns possible criminal conduct, the civil authorities have a responsibility distinct from the congregation’s judgment about an elder’s fitness to serve (Romans 13:3–4). A congregation’s need for sufficient testimony to establish a charge under 1 Timothy 5:19 supplies no reason to obstruct someone who seeks protection or to delay contacting the authorities about a danger. The immediate responsibility is to take the danger seriously while reserving a finding about the charge for the evidence.

The congregation also needs to protect people against pressure that would keep reliable testimony from being heard. A member who reports misconduct should be able to bring the matter to someone other than the elder involved, particularly if the alleged conduct includes intimidation. A demand that the member first face that elder alone can give the elder another opportunity to exercise the very pressure being reported. Those who receive an account can handle it discreetly by sharing its details with the people responsible for examining it and by discouraging speculation among others. They can also keep an accurate account of what each person actually said so that later decisions rest on testimony as given. Careful handling protects the accused from circulating rumor and the witnesses from having their words altered or used against them.

Judgment Without Prejudice or Partiality

Paul solemnly charges Timothy before God, Christ Jesus, and the chosen angels to observe his instructions “without any prejudice, doing nothing according to partiality” (1 Timothy 5:21, UASV). Prejudice can take hold before a witness is heard, while partiality can influence which testimony a person is willing to credit after hearing it. An elder’s years of service may explain why many people trust him, but those years cannot establish what he said in a particular meeting. The low standing of a member who brings a report gives equally little information about whether it is true. A man can also be judged unfairly because some already dislike his manner or opposed his appointment. The charge to Timothy requires the people who weigh the evidence to apply the same standard regardless of which person they are inclined to believe.

An elder whose close relative is accused, or whose own decisions are part of the complaint, has reason to leave the examination to men who can hear it impartially. This is a practical application of Paul’s charge, since a man reviewing his own decision may have a personal interest in the result. Suppose an elder and a fellow officer together instructed a member to withdraw a complaint, and the member reports the pressure they exerted. Both men can give their accounts, and the responsibility for weighing those accounts can be entrusted to qualified men who took no part in the incident. The same concern applies when a leader’s influence over a congregation’s resources makes others reluctant to question him. A decision that people can explain from the facts and the biblical standard gives the congregation firmer grounds for trusting it than a decision resting on private assurances among friends.

When Established Sin Requires Rebuke

Paul directs Timothy to rebuke those who continue in sin in the presence of all so that the rest may have fear (1 Timothy 5:20). In the immediate context, the instruction follows the standard for accusations against elders, and it shows what accountability requires when continuing sin has been established. The public character of the rebuke serves the stated purpose of warning others. If an elder has repeatedly intimidated members and persists after correction, addressing the matter openly makes clear that the conduct is contrary to the oversight Peter describes (1 Peter 5:2–3). The congregation can be told what conduct has been established, which biblical requirement it violates, and what action has been taken. That explanation can fulfill its purpose while keeping sensitive details out of public discussion where they are unnecessary to understanding the decision.

An elder’s response to correction also bears on whether he continues to meet the qualifications for oversight. Paul requires an overseer to be above reproach and free from self-will and quick temper (Titus 1:7). A finding that a man persists in serious misconduct can establish that he no longer meets the standard of the office, even if his ability to teach remains evident. If he acknowledges the wrong, his words can be considered alongside what he does to cease the conduct, repair harm where possible, and accept the consequences. The congregation can help a repentant man live faithfully while assessing his eligibility for office by the requirements Paul gives. Paul’s warning against laying hands hastily reinforces the need to judge fitness on demonstrated character (1 Timothy 5:22, 24–25).

How a Faithful Elder Responds to Examination

A shepherd who serves as an example can show the congregation what accountability looks like before a serious complaint arises. When a member asks why a decision was made, the elder can explain the relevant biblical principle and distinguish it from the practical judgment the elders made in applying it. If he learns that his account of another person’s conduct was inaccurate, he can correct what he said with the people who heard it. If a complaint is raised against him, he can give his account truthfully and allow others to assess it without recruiting supporters. Paul’s direction that overseers pay attention to themselves and to the flock places that self-examination within their pastoral duty (Acts 20:28). An elder who accepts correction when his own conduct is at issue gives the congregation a concrete example of the obedience he asks of others.

You May Also Enjoy

Developing the Willingness and Confidence to Share the Gospel

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS