5 I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, 6 namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. 7 For the overseer must be above reproach as God's steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, 8 but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, 9 holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict (Titus 1:5-9).We are people of the Word. In the Reformation they departed from the Roman Catholic Church because of the singular doctrine of sola scriptura -- Scripture is the sole source for matters of faith and practice. We hold that the Bible is God-breathed, accurate, inerrant, infallible. Amen and amen! And then we get to passages like this.
The passage is a near-duplicate of Paul's instructions to Timothy on the topic of appointing elders, and both are full of ... well, problems. Let's look at a few, assuming that we take Scripture at face value.
1. Paul directed Titus to appoint elders. They weren't elected, voted on, chosen by the local church, or put in place for a renewable 4-year term. Now, I know churches that have no elders. (They equate "head pastor" with "elders", as if a single pastor is the same as a group of elders.) I know a lot of churches that have elders, but they are not appointed; they are elected. I know of no churches where elders are appointed by an outside entity. (Note that most churches select their own pastor as well, so if "pastor" = "elder", then we've run into this "appoint" quandary there, too.) So it raises questions.
2. Qualification: "Above reproach." The man must be blameless. Who, pray tell, is blameless? I mean, we're all sinners, right? And we all sin, right? We have as a basic belief that no one arrives at sinlessness in this life. So ... how are we to understand this qualification? Appoint the man ... until he commits a sin, then kick him out of the elders? A little help here.
3. Qualification: "Husband of one wife". This one has been a hot button for a long time, but, remember, we're taking the list at face value. If we take this qualification at face value, who is excluded? Well, obviously polygamists are excluded. Whew! That was easy. But wait, it gets harder. No "never-married" men would be allowed. Certainly no divorced men would be allowed, remarried or not. And if an elder is married and his wife dies, he would no longer be qualified because he is no longer the husband of one wife. I'll let you debate among yourselves about whether he would re-qualify if he married again. I mean, isn't that two wives consecutively?
4. Qualification: "Children who believe". Talk about a thorny issue! I mean, children who are "not accused of dissipation or rebellion" ... that's understandable. The elder is not working through what it means to be a good father. He's already a good father. Of course, if he's a good father now, but wasn't in the early years and ended up with rebellious children, then he'd be excluded, right? But "children who believe" -- that one is a bit tougher. You see, the suggestion is that a good father will always produce "children who believe". If he doesn't, then he has failed to properly manage his household and, as such, is not qualified to be an elder. Or if he has "believing children" and is an elder and then, when they leave home one leaves the faith, well, then, we'd need to fire him, right? The truth is that most of the PK's (pastor's kids) that I've known in my life were little hellions, the worst behaved kids in the youth group. So ... given this qualification, we'd need to fire most pastors ... right?
Most of the rest of these qualifications don't cause much of a problem for people. I mean, maybe someone will ask, "What about 'not addicted to wine'? Can they drink wine with a meal and be qualified?" And it is possible to wonder "How do you quantify this? How do you determine 'devout' or 'hold fast the faithful word'? Everyone has variations." I'm not talking about small stuff. I'm talking about our position that we take the Bible at face value. I've read -- and written -- lots of stuff that explains these qualifications in more "friendly" terms. "Oh, 'above reproach' simply means that when he sins he takes care of it. And 'husband of one wife' simply means that he is a 'one woman man' -- devoted to his wife. And that whole 'children who believe' thing ... that's about children who are not unfaithful, not in rebellion." But it seems to me that there is a valid concern that we are mitigating our own sola scriptura position here. Are we reevaluating these passages because they're unclear? They don't seem unclear. Are we reinterpreting them because they contradict other Scriptures? I don't know of other Scriptures they would contradict. Or are we simply changing what they plainly say to fit our feelings and experiences? If the latter, we had best step carefully, because now we are standing precisely where we complain the liberals stand -- deciding what Scripture is valid and what it says by something other than Scripture.
I am not actually offering an opinion here. I am not chiding or exhorting. I'm asking. On what basis do we reinterpret these qualifications? If we reinterpret based on experience and circumstance, how are we different than those who have a view of the Bible that we reject? If we do not reinterpret these qualifications, is there actually anyone qualified? Are there actually men (sorry, ladies, but "husband of one wife", no matter how you interpret it, precludes female elders) who are completely blameless and remain so, married and only once, without possibility of fallen children, and meeting all the rest? If not, what then? If they violate it later (e.g., fall into blame, no longer "husband of one wife", have children who believe and then no longer do) what then? Can I get an actual elder? Questions ... always questions.
9 comments:
Good, honest questions, it seems to me.
Where you say, "On what basis do we reinterpret these qualifications? If we reinterpret based on experience and circumstance, how are we different than those who have a view of the Bible that we reject?"...
I would agree. You're doing the same thing we (assuming you classify churches such as mine as "liberal...") do, and that's a good thing. We have to use our reason and sometimes, reason may conflict with a woodenly literal reading of the Bible.
We have to look for larger Truths when we read the Bible. Circumstances and times change. Situations change. But Truths remain consistent.
The Bigger Truth here is that Paul is looking for good, decent, reasonable people to be elders. He lists some specifics that seemed reasonable at the time and perhaps they were. But the Little Specifics need not be assumed to be the One and Only way for reaching that Bigger Truth.
It may have been the case that the times were not ready for women elders at that particular church. But that does nothing to negate the reality that women ARE entirely capable of being good, reasonable leaders - fulfilling that Bigger Truth, if not the Little Specifics.
It may have made sense for them to appoint at the time, but now it makes some sense for us to vote and that does not negate the Bigger Truth.
Seems to me.
As to this comment...
Are there actually men (sorry, ladies, but "husband of one wife", no matter how you interpret it, precludes female elders) who are completely blameless and remain so, married and only once, without possibility of fallen children, and meeting all the rest?
I would hope that you could see that IF you're going to say that these passages do not preclude divorced men or single men or married men who have unbelieving children, then you really have no solid basis for precluding women, either.
Again, I'd suggest the Big Truths are what we need to diligently seek in the Bible moreso than the Little Specifics. Specifics change. Truth does not.
I wonder about this line...
"holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching..."
What would "faithful word" have meant to Paul's readers? What would "the teaching," have meant to Paul's readers?
I mean, when WE hear those sorts of phrases, we just automatically picture one source: the Bible. But of course, Paul's readers didn't have "the Bible."
Would it have meant ONE thing or ONE SINGLE collection of teachings to them or would it have meant, in general, the "teachings we hold valid and true..."?
I don't know the answer to that.
If I may offer another thought, I'll show you how I go through the process of reading the Bible, using this verse at hand.
I use some fairly traditional criteria for understanding the Bible...
1. Interpret the individual passage through the whole of the Bible
2. Interpret the whole of the Bible through Jesus' specific teachings
3. Interpret the less clear through the more clear
[As an illustration of these three: Jesus clearly and unambiguously tells us to love our enemies - which is backed up by OT and other areas of the Bible. It is a clear teaching not too hard to understand and oft-repeated throughout the Bible. Now, if we come across a Psalm, for instance, that says, "God destroy mine enemies...," we can set aside the claim that this means we ought to hate our enemies because we have such evidence to the contrary throughout and specifically from Jesus and that is quite clear.]
4. Take into serious consideration the context, as much as we're able to understand it
5. Take into consideration the languages being translated
6. Take into consideration the teachings/traditions of the past
7. Don't make assumptions that aren't called for
[ie, if the Bible doesn't say we have to take a passage literally and Jesus doesn't say we ought to take a particular passage literally, we ought not automatically make the assumption that we ought to take a passage literally, just because it is in the Bible.]
Are those fair, reasonable criteria to you?
Now, given those criteria, I come across the passage you're looking at here. This passage literally says...
1. The early church apparently appointed "elders" - leaders of some sort [or at least, Paul left such instructions to the church in Crete
2. elders ought to be...
a. married only one time
b. Have children
c. currently be married
d. children must "believe"
e. above reproach
f. Not addicted to wine
g. hospitable, loving, just, etc
h. hold fast to "the teaching" and be able to teach "sound doctrine"
Now, considering this passage, we have to consider what other passages have to say? What do we know about the early church and its positions? What do we know about the times and traditions? What did Jesus have to say about it? Perhaps other translations of some of the words would help? We have to consider what is reasonable (I believe I left that off my criteria, but reason certainly ought to be included)?
Well, first of all, I can't say that I'm an expert on the times or the language, but we do know that this was a patriarchal society, women had minimal significant rights, that's something to consider.
We can reasonably say that the church needed and had SOME leaders (I reckon, I suppose that's debatable?) and therefore, they weren't looking for entirely perfect people or there would be NO elders, so we have to consider the purpose of these requirements - I would suggest the purpose is fairly clear that their elders ought to be decent, reasonable folk. That seems to be the larger Truth here.
Jesus did not speak specifically to the role of elders, so we have no direct teaching, but clearly, Jesus held to all manner of ethical views - we ought to love our enemies, we ought to live simply and with a spirit of sharing and hospitality, we ought to be humble, we ought to be wary of the trappings of wealth, we ought to be forgiving, etc, etc.
I think we can reasonably conclude that Jesus, too, would expect leaders within his movement to exhibit these fruit of the Spirit, these traits. Certainly, from the rest of the Bible and NT, ALL believers ought to demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit, but I think the larger Truth here is that leaders/elders especially ought to.
Now, given that larger Truth, we might reasonably wonder why some of the specifics? Why specifically and exclusively currently married men with children who are believers? Well, we might have some hunches (they have demonstrated the ability to live within a small community - their family - well and might be better prepared to live and lead within a larger community - the local church, for instance).
But reasonably speaking, I can think of no reason why a widower could not also fill the role, considering the larger truths. I can think of no reasons other than cultural ones why a woman couldn't fill that role.
So, it would be my conclusion that parts of this teaching (just like parts of the law condemning disrespectful children to death) are more specific to a particular age or group. I think the Larger Truth is that the elders ought to be good followers and filled with the Spirit.
And we have no biblical reason for assuming otherwise, no teaching from Christ telling us otherwise so why would we not presume to go with the Larger Truth and set aside the Smaller Specifics (as you do with the OT death penalty)?
I'm sorry to see that this hasn't erupted into a full-blown conversation. These are good and interesting questions.
I was reading Martin Luther's Babylonian Captivity this morning. He was discussing the issue of Communion in one kind or two. A proponent of one kind had argued that Paul in 1 Corinthians 11 was writing to a particular church at a particular time and place, and so, even if they were to concede that he was delivering (or commanding) Communion in two kinds, this command should not and could not be properly applied to the church universal. I think we hear similar arguments made about these passages on elder qualifications. They were for Timothy or Titus in a specific time and place -- not for all the rest of us. Luther rejected that argument. He said that if you applied that argument to Paul's epistles at any one passage, then you could apply them to the entire corpus of Paul's writing -- giving Paul, in effect, a wax nose.
I don't offer that thought to reject out of hand the notion that Paul is sometimes engaged in addressing specific problems at a specific place and time. But, in general, we need to ask, "How does this apply to the entire church?" instead of asking, "Does it apply?"
Stan,
You asked, "On what basis do we reinterpret these qualifications?"I think typically they are modified on the basis of the assumption that apart from these qualifications we don't really know exactly what sort of ministry or office these persons called "elders" were being called to fill. That is not a reason to ignore these qualifications. I'm just saying that seems to be the argument I hear more often than not.
Eric,
The argument I hear most goes something like this: "If that is what an elder is supposed to be ... then no one is qualified. And Paul wouldn't make qualifications too high to meet." I'm not sure ... on multiple levels.
Dan: "I would hope that you could see that IF you're going to say that these passages do not preclude divorced men or single men or married men who have unbelieving children, then you really have no solid basis for precluding women, either."
I would hope that you could see that if you're saying that one of the qualifications is not real, then we can't know what any qualifications really are. But I'm pretty sure you're not saying that. On the other hand, if we say that "father of unbelieving children" actually references children who are not out of control ("faithful children" -- based on the use of the language) and "husband of one wife" means essentially "a one woman man" (as is popularly held -- again based on the Greek), then women would still not qualify (since a woman cannot be a "one woman man").
Dan: "I wonder about this line..."
I wondered something similar, I suppose. I wonder what "holding fast" would mean and to what "the teaching" referred. Based on 2 Tim 2:2 I would guess that "the teaching" would refer to "the things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses" or, as in Acts 2:42, "the apostles' teaching". I'm not quite sure that, in the final analysis, it would differ much from the doctrines of the New Testament, but, as you said, they didn't have that singular collection.
Post a Comment