A while ago now, I wrote this post on whether to have indefinite or limited terms for elders. I largely stand by what I wrote there. Whilst I don’t think it is a matter of biblical fidelity exactly – it is more of a wisdom issue – I do prefer indefinite terms. You can read that post to find out why. However, one point I didn’t make in that post, and I’m not sure I’ve made explicit anywhere else, is worth mentioning. Which is what I am going to do here.

I have written extensively on this blog about the need for elderships to be plural and co-equal. This, I believe, is a matter of biblical fidelity. I have also written about the subtle (and not-so-subtle) ways we can undermine co-equal plural eldership. For example, you can read this and this – or search the blog for several others – that outline some of those things. I won’t rehash here the things I have said previously on this.

However, one of the things that always seems to be assumed as a given in discussions about terms is that the pastor (or, full-time elder) wouldn’t be subject to re-election. That is to say, it is usually mooted that lay elders will all be up for re-election at some arbitrarily determined term but the full-time pastor won’t be. That is sometimes a matter of deferring to his contract, but often that isn’t a given reason. It is simply assumed that elders need re-electing but pastors don’t (NB: I am using those terms for ease of distinguishing paid/unpaid elders, with the pastor usually holding a contract or memorandum of understanding unlike the other elders).

Here, then, I perceive a problem as far as plurality and co-equality is concerned. I have never been keen on the terms ‘lead’ or ‘senior’ pastor because it implies a level of hierarchy within the eldership and a sense of superiority over the other elders (see here for more on that). But it seems hard to avoid that same sense of superiority and hierarchy being seen in practice if we insist on term limits for unpaid elders but indefinite terms of office for the paid ones. At the very least it puts an unhelpful and unnecessary distinction between the elders. At worst, it cements an already prevalent and unbiblical view of eldership in practice; namely, the pastor is superior and senior to the other subordinate elders.

If there is an argument that makes the issue a bit more than a mere matter of wisdom, I think it is this. Most of the discussions around whether to have limited terms or not are entirely pragmatic matters of wisdom. But if we believe in the plural and co-equal nature of eldership – as most Independents and Baptists do – and we do not want to say we believe in it whilst undermining it in practice (as some Independents and Baptists do with their senior pastors and firsts-amongst-equals), are we not doing exactly that when we say lay elders require re-election whilst staff pastors do not?

Of course, one way around that is to have terms of office for everybody. All elders – staff and non-staff, paid and unpaid – must be regularly re-elected. There is no get-out clause for your pastor just because he is paid and has a contract or MoU. That would at least kill off the artificial division created between the elders. It would, however, potentially lead to a lot of instability and cause not a little worry and stress for your pastor who, every few years, may find his livelihood, his house and his future in the church altogether on the line despite having done nothing to be disqualified from office.

For me, I think indefinite terms are better, with appropriate means of removing those who fail in office. I won’t rehash all my reasons here. Whilst I think, for the most part, it is a matter of wisdom, I do think this particular argument pushes the case a little further towards questions of what the bible says and at least begins to ask whether some ways of working these things out might be more or less faithful than others.