Tim Challies identifies five ugly qualities of the anti-elder (do they have beautiful features?):
The anti-elder is a dictator. Paul says, “He must not be arrogant.” The anti-elder is marked by arrogance and aggression, and therefore he makes decisions that are to his own advantage rather than to the advantage of the people in his care. He has a kind of unrestrained ambition that causes him to run over people rather than care for them. Instead of listening carefully and leading gently, he cuts people off and demands that he have his own way. The anti-elder is a dictator over his own little dominion.
The anti-elder is short-fused. “He must not be … quick-tempered.” The anti-elder has a hot temper and a quick temper. He lives by his passions, and refuses to exhibit any kind of mastery over his anger. Instead of leading in love, he leads through fear and when people get in his way, he explodes at them. All the while he justifies his anger by his ambition or his sense of calling, convincing himself that anyone who hinders him is actually hindering the Lord.
The anti-elder is an addict. “He must not be … a drunkard.” The anti-elder is addicted to alcohol or other addicting substances. He has surrendered control of his life to some kind of substance, over-using it, and eventually becoming dependent upon it. But as an arrogant and quick-tempered man, he will not allow others to speak to his sin or curb him from his sin. He is addicted, but still considers himself suited to ministry.
The anti-elder is a bully. “He must not be … violent.” The anti-elder bullies and abuses other people in order to get his way. He is a brawler, a man who is itching for a fight, willing to use force to get his own way. He will bully people with his words or even his fists. He will use force of personality or the strength of his position to coerce people to do his will, and to be domineering over them. Rather than using the Word to gently lead and guide people, he uses the Bible to bully them and to force them to do his bidding. He is an abuser.
The anti-elder is greedy. “He must not be … greedy for gain.” The anti-elder is greedy for financial gain. For this man pastoral ministry is not a calling and not a means through which he can serve God by serving God’s people; rather, ministry is a means to personal enrichment. He demands an exorbitant salary, and hops from church-to-church to climb the financial ladder. He does not regard his congregation as people God has entrusted to his care, but as marks through which he can enrich himself. The anti-elder loves his paycheck more than his people.
For a second or so Challies had me worried. Was he thinking (all) about me? But since blogging was not on his list, the editors of Old Life must qualify as godly elders.
By the way, wouldn’t it be great if all bad officers were so readily identified?
Old Life 
Could this be more redundant?
LikeLike
He must be thinking primarily of teaching elders since ruling elders (in my experience) aren’t paid. And he must not know much about the OPC since the “financial gain” motivation has been all but removed from even paid staff, or so I hear. Of course Challies runs with the well-heeled YRR celeb crowd.
LikeLike
new one for me.
LikeLike
Cw, we pay our guy what we can.
Blogging for sure gets a pass (Though I still prefer lurking to posting(speaking of which..)).
LikeLike
@Chortles
I’m guessing that he’s talking about pastors, given that Baptists generally don’t recognize the office of ruling elder.
Also, because there’s no presbytery that has to approve the salary, I suppose these guys can cash in to their heart’s content.
LikeLike
I found his mug shot. Make sure to put on all church doors next Sunday.
LikeLike
Bobby, I erred on the side of magnanimity. I assumed Challies (the informer of the reforming) was one of those baptists who had adopted ruling elders. Wrong. His church has three full-time pastors and deacons, just like your standard baptist church. So he has it wronger than I assumed.
LikeLike
Looks like one of the three Challies elders (counting Challies) might not be on staff. If he’s all that they should be growing qualified men right and left, right? Still, not presbyterian. His post seems to have been about Driscoll without saying so. The real problem with Driscoll was not Driscoll, who was born a tool, but no accountability — no session or presbytery to reign him in/run him off.
LikeLike
“wouldn’t it be great if all bad officers were so readily identified”
sort of agreeing with you 2 Cor 11:4; yet still Gal 5:19-21
LikeLike
meant 2 Cor 11:14
LikeLike
Typical eeeeeevanjellyfish dog-piling (does that qualify as a mixed metaphor?), once Driscoll has been exposed and is down and out it is now permissible to jump on the anti-Driscoll bandwagon. Where was this post a year ago? Two years ago? Three? you get the drift.
Challies post about Driscoll focused on “character” — and this post is written long the same lines as the earlier post from August — if you don’t have a biblical form of church government (ie Presbyterian) then you have to hope that your pastors have good character. We now know that Driscoll was playing the tyrant for years thanks to poor church government and his YRR celebrity buddies.
The entire CEO-pastor phenomenon is based on a low view of sin and a high view of popular personality. If one takes stock of the reality of our sinfulness and of the tendency of power to corrupt, then one would want a system whereby the pastor is really accountable and church members have a right not only to trial, but also to appeal.
LikeLike
How many degrees of quasi- and para- is this explanation of affiliations?
http://www.gfcto.com/about/affiliations
Still looking for who comes in and drops the hammer or reviews their meeting records…
LikeLike
“if you don’t have a biblical form of church government (ie Presbyterian) then you have to hope that your pastors have good character.”
You nailed it, Mads.
LikeLike
C-dubs, ding, really about The Mark. And eeeevangelicals talk about Reformed eating their own. Maybe, but they sure like their bandwagons.
LikeLike
“if you don’t have a biblical form of church government (ie Presbyterian) then you have to hope that your pastors have good character.”
Local Baptist church was between pastors for an extended period and decided to have rotating laymen share the pulpit. Went reasonably well until one of them was picked up naked in a City park.
LikeLike
“Independence is not a posture that GFC has formally adopted, but a position it finds itself in at this time as a result of God’s providence.”
So says the divorced guy with three ex-wives and kids in two states.
LikeLike
My first Reformed Church experience included worshipping weekly with a defrocked minister who was on his third marriage (which was failing) who had many criticisms of church leadership and would often take over Sunday school discussions.
Helpful to experience something like that early in one’s Reformed journey to get out of the cage phase and ditch the rose-colored glasses.
LikeLike
Challies’ most recent post (a quote from Duguid) has drawn a lot of indignation from his readers, including a demand to take it down!
(I don’t don’t agree with everything in the quote, btw, but I wouldn’t consider it scandalous)
LikeLike
A “demand” from a Challies reader must be akin to being slapped across the face with a feather duster while being spritzed with lukewarm spring water.
LikeLike
E: Went reasonably well until one of them was picked up naked in a City park.
Without a good reason to make it okay in both fact and appearance?
There’s some other clause about wearing too many hats, not this time though.
LikeLike
Kent,
What would be a good reason for being picked up by the cops naked in a City park?
Maybe if you lived by the park and accidentally got locked out of your house after emerging from the shower, tripping, and falling out your bedroom window.
That was not the case in this instance.
LikeLike
I don’t judge.
I would be willing to hear an offered explanation; better be a good one….
LikeLike
Oops. Wrong thread.
LikeLike