Elders must “take heed” to themselves, as well as those under their care. This means they must monitor their own conduct and, when necessary, correct each other. If believers generally are to be so “full of goodness and filled with all knowledge” that they are equipped to “admonish one another,” then surely those who take the lead must be open to the same discipline among themselves (Rom. 15:14).
One of the brethren involved in shepherding may hold an executive position in the world and be accustomed to his word being respected and obeyed in a business sphere. He needs to be watchful lest he, unintentionally perhaps, expects the same response from his fellow elders, and does not take kindly to any modification of his ideas. On the part of the other elders, too, there must be care, lest they become so passive that they allow one man to become dominant.
The needs of any flock are varied, and we can see how an elder with the gift of mercy might take the lead when a case calling for compassion arises, whereas another might be more active when a theological error has to be corrected. Nevertheless, no individual, however many gifts he may appear to have, should be allowed to have the last word in every situation.
At the first sign of over-assertiveness on the part of one of their number, fellow elders need to prayerfully and graciously, but firmly, tell their brother in the Lord that he is going beyond the mandate the Chief Shepherd has given him (Gal. 6:1).
AND TO THE FLOCK…
We would like to think that you have been able to escape the type of situation mentioned above, but it is not uncommon for elders to fail to discipline themselves in the way we have outlined. It may seem easier to go along with the dominance of the most assertive man and even to rally behind him in a show of loyalty. What will happen next? The elders have now formed themselves into a block or board of men who are threatened by any appeal made to them. They may read such an approach as a budding rebellion, stiffening their position and developing a siege mentality. They are now on the defensive: the drawbridge goes up, and they are not open to any suggestions except those originating within their castle.
Of course, the impending split is not entirely their fault. There are those who are hungering for power and recognition who may presume to speak for the people and arouse them to rebellion against their leaders—a man like Absalom, who won the hearts of many, or Jeroboam the son of Nebat, whose appeal had some reason and support but which came from the lips of a man evil at heart (2 Sam. 15:4-6; 1 Ki. 12:1-16). In the latter case, King Rehoboam had inherited a problem created by Solomon, his father, and was not entirely to blame for the oppressive situation that caused the people to complain; but, he was blameworthy for the way he way he handled it. Elders may learn a lesson here, to treat discontent with wisdom and compassion, and not assume Rehoboam’s threatening, self-defensive stance.
Let me close with an appeal to all to pray for elders. Their work is not easy and they are made of the same stuff as the rest of us. At the same time, may those of us who are elders be careful not to put too great a distance between ourselves and those we are called to lead.