To Titus Paul wrote about appointing elders in Crete. He included this in his list of qualifications:
... if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination (Titus 1:6).Okay, bit by bit. "Above reproach." Clear enough. Well, we need to be careful here, of course. "Above reproach" would be a relative term, since all of us have earned some reproach. Let's just say that this person must be a person of good repute. He doesn't have any noxious character traits, any unknown skeletons in the closet, that sort of thing. (The older versions use the term "blameless". Note that "blameless" doesn't mean "error-free", but simply that all things for which blame could be laid have been dealt with. Debts have been paid in full. (I'm not talking about financial debts here.) Sins atoned for. Errors acknowledged and dealt with. That sort of thing. I think that's a good way to look at this.) Okay, good, nailed that one down. Next!
"The husband of one wife." Oh, now, see? That's easy, too. Well, perhaps. Because while it seems abundantly clear that "husband" here demands that these elders (church leadership) must be male, that's in question today. However, since it's not a question from me, we can continue. And clearly the Roman Catholic requirement of unmarried and celibate fails miserably to meet this one in any sense. Still, what is "the husband of one wife"? I go to a Baptist church. They are quite sure that it means that no man who has been divorced and remarried qualifies. Indeed, reputable commentators like Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, Matthew Henry, and Vincent Word Studies all agree that this is a reference that says that neither polygamists nor divorced and remarried people can serve as elder. They even say that remarriage after a wife dies makes a man ineligible. Interesting. John Gill, on the other hand, says that a man need not be married, he may have married after becoming a widower, or he may have remarried after a biblical divorce. Modern commentators point out that the phrase is literally "one-woman man" and they suggest that the man in question should simply have a "one-woman" mindset.
Whatever course you take on this question, you run into problems. Taking the Matthew Henry et.al approach, for instance, would eliminate all sorts of people. Obviously remarried divorcees would be excluded, but so would remarried widowers. Indeed, all widowers (since they are now the husband of no wife) would be out. An elder whose wife dies would be required to resign. Indeed, neither Paul nor Jesus would qualify for that role. On the other hand, Gill's approach leads to difficult questions about "biblical divorce". Gill says "for adultery", but is that biblical? What about Paul's abandonment clause (1 Cor 7:15)? I don't know. Kind of sticky. What does "husband of one wife" mean?
But this third one really gets you bogged down. "His children are believers." So, just like the question of unmarried elders being ineligible, can elders without children serve? But, moving on, note, first, that this is the English Standard Version. The New American Standard agrees. Older versions like the King James and others refer to them as "faithful children". Adam Clarke says it refers to one "whose family is converted to God." Barnes disagrees. He says, "it is descriptive of those who had been well-trained, and were in due subordination." Gill rightly points out that "by faithful children cannot be meant converted ones, or true believers in Christ; for it is not in the power of men to make their children such." So, what does it mean? Well, in the parallel passage to Timothy, Paul told him, "He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?" (1 Tim 3:4-5). (Note that he did not refer to "faithful children" or "children who are believers" in his letter to Timothy.) This principle -- someone who is able to manage his own household well -- coupled with the simple fact that no father, regardless of how perfect he might be, can actually make his children believers, would suggest that the idea of "faithful children" would refer to children who have been trained in the truth and who are well behaved. But ... does it?
Here's the next question I'm wondering about. Just using these three principles -- 1) Blameless, 2) husband of one wife, and 3) faithful children -- regardless of how you understand them, what happens if it changes? If your pastor, for instance (because in the Baptist church and many others the "elders" are the pastors), should come under suspicion (blame), must he resign? If his wife dies, must he quit the pastorship? If she divorces him, is his ministry as elder finished? If he is raising a group of "faithful children" and one runs amok, must he step down? These are things that may not remain the case. If they change, is he done?
Well, as you can see, this isn't one of my "Thus saith the Lord" posts. This is one of my signature "I really don't know" entries. Please educate me.
20 comments:
I like to use a bit of logic and common sense. I think that "one-woman" man is a better way of looking at it. The important thing is that if an elder isn't married, how is he able to thoroughly understand the marriage relationship if he has no experience in it? His counseling in that field would be very limited.
If he's divorced, that would speak against being able to manage his own home, as well as speak against much of his judgement in selecting a spouse, etc. I would think that would definitely disqualify.
But being a widower actually MEETs the requirement - he was the husband of one wife, and if he remarries he is again the husband of one wife. He still as all the understanding of the marital relationships, still managed his own household, etc.
That's just my thoughts on the "one wife" issue.
Very common understanding. (Understand that this next comment is not from my personal perspective, but from the perspective of the entire content.) You would disagree with John Gill, then, that a husband whose wife leaves him for another man is allowed to remarry and, as such, still be classified as a "husband of one wife". Your position, from what you said, would be "No husband who is properly managing his home, would ever have a sexually unfaithful spouse."
I read some time ago a book by Gary Smalley (I think) about men and marriage. In his book he claimed that all divorces are the fault of husbands. (That is, he would agree with you.) Is that your perspective? No husband who is a proper husband can possibly lose his wife to adultery or desertion?
(From my personal perspective now, I disagreed with Smalley on that and I disagree with that position. Just as no father, no matter how perfect, can infallibly make his children believers, no husband, no matter how perfect, can infallibly insure that his wife won't leave.)
I agree that no husband can prevent a wife from straying if that is what she wants to do. But I still think that would demonstrate a lack of judgment in who he chose to marry.
Unlike children who need to be taught to make their won decisions, etc, and still may choose poorly when they reach adulthood, when a man is looking for a wife, he isn't looking for a child who still needs to be taught - he should be looking for a good Christian woman with good character.
While I'm sure there are exceptions, every man I've ever known who ended up in divorce has at at least one of two problems which would have prevented him from qualifying for leadership:
1. He himself was the problem, whether he was abusive, immature, self-centered, etc - all character traits which would exempt him from leadership in the church.
2. The woman he picked had know problems with character but he figured after marriage he would be able to fix it. This shows poor judgement, which again would exclude him from leadership.
Even in my own immediate family I have seen this; my parents were divorced when I was 12 and both remarried twice more. I am the only one of five children who is with the same woman I started with.
I have too many friends who have ended their marriages, and every one of them has one or both of the problems noted.
So in a way, the husband is usually to blame, even if he is the innocent party - that just means he chose poorly in the wife he picked.
I assume from your response that your answer to my question is, "Yes, if there is a divorce, it demonstrates a husband who failed to fulfill his duties as a husband or otherwise properly manage his household. He is disqualified."
I would assume that this would extend to those who were married and divorced and remarried before they came to Christ. It would logically require the conclusion that husbands who were divorced and remarried at any time are disqualified under all circumstances. No, there is no amount of work that God can do in that person's life to qualify him for the ministry of being an elder/pastor/bishop/whatever term.
Anecdotally, I know a guy who married a Christian girl who indicated no problems during their courtship and marriage. They went to church, had children together, were from all appearances happily married for 12 years. In the 12th year, she told him she was leaving him for another man. (Subsequently she left her next husband and declared herself a lesbian.) There was no warning. There were no known problems before the marriage. In fact, her explanation for what went wrong was, "He was the nicest guy you'd want to meet; he was just too boring for me." Now, I personally have a really hard time finding the fault in this husband for that failure.
I would agree that many, even most marital failures can be traced to the husband. Since I cannot agree that all marital failures can be traced to the husband, I have a hard time seeing that as a "hard and fast" qualification of that office. Beyond that, it fails to take into account the regenerated person, the new heart, the one whose life is changed by coming to Christ. I guess there are more "unforgivable sins" than blasphemy against the Holy Spirit when it comes to leadership or spiritual maturity.
Stan,
No, that was NOT my response. I noted the problems causing divorce from MY experience but I did say there may well be exceptions, as in the example you gave. And I said the husband, from my experience is usually to blame vs always to blame.
Also, my context was those who were Christian at the time of divorce, since that was what I understood the context of the article to be.
Actions people were guilty of before coming to Christ should not be held against them unless the actions are still affecting them negatively to the point they would have difficulty with their duties.
In general, with the issue of divorce, it would have to be taken on a case-by-case basis to ensure the fault was in no manner on the part of the husband. But my guess would be that it would be an extremely low percentage where the husband had no fault.
As I said, I agree that many or even most marital failures fall on the husband. We agree there.
The question I'm struggling with is the qualification for elder. Since husbands are not always to blame and since the question is about qualifications of an elder who might have gotten divorced and remarried long before he became a Christian, grew in maturity, and now, as an older and wiser man, could serve as an elder, I'm having a hard time nailing down "divorced/remarried" as a universal denial of "husband of one wife" as a qualification of an elder. I understand a "case by case" examination (which, far beyond "husband of one wife", had better be quite thorough), but if "husband of one wife" necessarily excludes all divorced-remarried men, I'm trying to understand the rationale. That's where my problem arises.
I disagree with both of you. I think that a man who has divorced and remarried IS Biblically disqualified, regardless of when and why the divorce took place. I also believe that in the circumstance of one of his children going amok and going into a life of sin, he SHOULD step down as elder, and here is why:
The role of elder is not for every man. It is not even for most men. It is not commanded for a man to be an elder, nor even commended; indeed one trait of a great leader is someone who doesn't want the job. Eldership is not about the individual elder, or even the elders as a group, but the entire church. Anything that can be a barrier to that is disqualifying, which is why being beyond reproach is one of the chief requirements; even a credible false accusation is enough to destroy credibility and create a distraction that can harm the ability to lead.
I am personally aware of a pastor whose leadership was ruined by his daughter being in an adulterous relationship. I don't hold him responsible and I do not believe he did anything wrong in that regard, but looking back on it, that was the moment that his leadership became more draconian and he led the church down a path of commands from the pulpit; he literally declared me to be in sin because I disagreed with some of the things the elders were doing.
The point is, a man does not necessarily have to have done anything wrong in order to be disqualified; there just needs to be something that would prevent his leadership from being effective, and God has decided that these things will be barriers that are significant enough to be disqualifying.
I think Glenn agreed with you on the divorced/remarried question.
It is your position, then, that no one who has ever been divorced regardless of circumstance, timing (pre-Christian), or anything at all should ever be allowed to serve as elder/overseer/pastor. You would agree that there are, at least as far as leadership goes, certain unpardonable sins.
As for kids run amok, I don't think there is any means of reading "faithful children" or "children who are believers" -- however you choose to read it -- that would allow for an elder/pastor with "amok kids" to serve. Whatever someone makes of that qualification, "amok kids" would exclude them. Indeed, your example of the pastor whose daughter was in adultery illustrates (and gives me your answer to) my question about "Should a pastor step down?" His child was not, by any definition, a "faithful child". End of service.
It's interesting that the qualifications of elder as commonly understood would necessarily exclude both Jesus and Paul, isn't it? Clearly the role of elder isn't for everyone. What I've been told -- and given how tightly these things are often read -- is that it isn't for anyone. I'm not sure there is a single person on the planet that cannot be classified as disqualified given such things as "above reproach". The notion that a man doesn't have to have done anything wrong in order to be disqualified simply serves to push me further in that direction.
By the way, biblically that pastor who turned on his church like that would be disqualified based on Peter's words: "Shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock" (1 Peter 5:2-3). Abuses of a position or role don't define a role. Defining a role from the abuses we've seen, be it pastor or father or husband or "men" or whatever, is a serious mistake.
A comment in general:
It is a funny thing, isn't it? (Perhaps "funny" isn't the right word.) A pastor caught in adultery is immediately considered disqualified (and should be). A pastor whose children "run amok" is considered normal. A pastor that has an affair ought to step down (we typically think). Why not a pastor whose children are out of control?
Another interesting side question. 072591 told of a pastor whose daughter was in adultery. Some might say, "Well, that won't reflect on him because she's an adult." At what point does the parent-child relationship cease? When do they stop being your kids? When do children no longer have to honor their parents? (I know, I know, I said "side question" singular. But, look, it's all the same question.)
For the "children honoring parents" question, I think that there is a time where the parents cease to be responsible for the behavior of their children, marriage for example. As children (age-wise), they are under the guardianship, guidance, and authority of their parents. As adults (which ever age that is) they are responsible for their own actions. The command to honor parents isn't to the parents, its to the children. Offspring should always honor father and mother. There is no command for father and mother to continue to be responsible for their children. The biggest clue for that is the command for a wife to leave her parents and join to her husband. That, to me, would seem to indicate that, at least in the case of marriage, children become their own responsibility eventually.
I think the blanket statement of, must meet each standard for all time, is a bit harsh. We are all sinners, but we are also all forgiven. Certainly, a leader of a church should be examined regularly and with great scrutiny, but to give the blanket statement of "for all time" seems to negate the work of Christ in our lives. We all must grow in maturity. We all must repent. If we are to apply the blanket ruling, then we would have NO leaders, because there is no human on this earth that fulfills the character of "above reproach" for all of their life. You are basically asking all leaders to be perfect. You do that, you have none. If even God is willing to absolve a spouse of their marital status for the act of an unbelieving spouse leaving a believing spouse, then it stands to reason that at the very least we should hold that standard. How can we ask more of our leaders than even God does?
Interesting. Using the "leave and cleave" point in this. You must have been reading earlier posts.
Without applying a blanket ruling or a "for all time" rule, would you say that a pastor who, say, has a child at home who is remarkably unruly -- a plainly and openly rebellious child -- should step down as pastor (at least until that is settled)? Should a pastor whose wife leaves resign? (Again, I'm not asking here about "for all time"; just for the current crisis.)
I think there should be reasonable evaluations. If a leader has a child who is obedient and then becomes unruly, then obviously something is failing at home, and the leader should be responsible enough to step down to take care of his home. If a wife decides Christianity is a myth and can't stand hearing about Christ all the time and leaves him, I don't think I'd ask him to stand down, but if there are "irreconcilable differences" or some such nonsense, anything outside of an unbeliever leaving a believer, then he should step down, and I'd probably say never come back, especially if he remarries. If he can't keep his christian wife to stay, how can he possibly be expected to be a reliable leader of God's flock?
I'm not sure if I agree with David on a couple points. I don't think if an obedient child becomes unruly "then obviously something is failing at home". No matter how well we've been taught at home, no matter what kind of great examples our parents have set for us, we can still choose to rebel and become "unruly". Then, like any good parents, our parents' hearts might ache and their faith be tested, as they hope and/or pray and wait for their prodigal to come back.
I was raised in a strong Christian home and I knew the truth, but, for a while, I made a conscious decision to step out from under God's protection and favor to check out a little of what the world had to offer. I was quite sure it probably did NOT have anything better to offer, but I still wanted to see, even if for just a little while. I had followed all the rules for so long and so well and I finally just got tired of doing that and wanted to maybe try a few new, not-recommended things. I hadn't planned on getting into anything that would necessarily be considered terrible, but I just wanted to do a few things like maybe date some of the many very interesting, friendly, smart, funny, and cute nonbeliever boys in my high school. Besides, there were a lot more of them than the Christian boys. (I'd always had it drilled into my head not to date unbelievers because you might end up falling in love then marrying one. So I was rebelling against that, because hey, marriage was just not very much on my mind at that young age anyway.)
I don't see how this decision of mine had anything to do with my father. He would have strongly advised against this. I chose instead to live dangerously for a while, feeling kind of like I was playing Russian roulette. Each day that I didn't die in my sin, I was thankful that God had spared me. But in no way do I think my parents should have taken any of the blame for MY rebellion. Let each person be responsible for his own poor choices. It's not like my parents hadn't taught me well.
A pastor shouldn't have to live in fear of losing his livelihood (a job that's feeding, clothing, and housing his whole family) just because of one of his kids might decide to see what life outside of the church is like for a while. Nor do I think an elder should have to worry about losing his position because one of his stupid kids rebels. Every kid rebels, even if nobody in the church ever hears about it. If the rebellious child somehow becomes a huge distraction for the congregation, then maybe what should be done about that ought to be discussed with the pastor(s)and the other elders.
But then, this is just using the "bit of logic and common sense" approach that Glen used. However, unfortunately, I don't think our logic and common sense are necessarily always accurate ways of determining what's right and true in God's eyes. A lot of things in the Bible don't make sense or seem logical to me. (Why put mud on someone's eyes if you can just heal them without it? Why kill a fig tree for not producing figs when you can just make figs appear on it instead?) Even as a teen I knew it didn't make sense for me to willfully turn my back on God and step out into the world, but I did it anyway. I knew I'd probably try some junk other people were into, end up unfulfilled, dine with the swine, and then have to come crawling back. And yep, that's what happened!
What if my dad had been a church leader and had lost his job during that time? I know our leaders are supposed to be beyond reproach but the fact that we're supposed to forgive others 70 times 7 should also be taken into account, should it not? I guess we should not need to forgive people in positions of authority anywhere near THAT much though, right?
Sorry about my "bad" attitude, but when I got done reading today's post, I couldn't help but think that this is just another one of many things in the scriptures that, if only a FEW more verses had been added to clarify things, we'd not HAVE TO be wondering about all of this.
I just don't get WHO benefits from us being left in a state of confusion instead of having had things written nice and concisely.
I very much enjoy discussing such things sometimes, and yet it also really frustrates me other times that we even must! Instead of things like important job qualifications just being easy for all to understand, we have to guess and speculate about what that might REALLY mean. How hard would it have been to have had this better spelled out for future generations like us? Like I said... bad attitude, but honest feelings expressed here.
Some thoughts, Sherry.
First, the pastor/whatever isn't a job, a "livelihood", but a ministry. It's something entirely different than feeding, clothing, and housing a family. When we begin to think of it as a job, we've missed the point. Not that this has anything to do with your thoughts on the matter. I just know we have a tendency to drop "pastor" into a large "employment" pot and think it's another job. It's not.
Next, I am one of those wayward Christian youth, too, so I relate to your story. However, at the time of my straying my father was serving in the church. He believed that he had failed to properly manage his household and stepped down because he believed that when the Scriptures required "faithful children" it meant that there was a requirement for "faithful children". He did believe that it was a fundamental failure on his part not necessarily to make his children Christians, but to teach them to be obedient, well-behaved. His idea was "Train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it" and saw my departure as evidence that he hadn't trained me as he should have.
Next is that the issue at hand is not about forgiveness, holding a grudge, or any such thing. In all biblical cases the aim for a wayward Christian is restoration. But this isn't about that. It's about leadership. Who is qualified to be the leader? Two thoughts on that. First, because the Bible gives explicit qualifications for the role of leader in the church, it must mean that 1) not all are qualified and 2) not all should be qualified. Consider this silly example. I am not qualified to fulfill the role of wife. I fail to meet the primary qualification -- female. Does that, however, make me "less" somehow? No! That's my first point. Because someone does not meet the qualifications of leader does not mean that they are bad, incompetent, less, or any such thing. Beyond that, there are qualifications listed (and, frankly, they are explained and fairly clear, so I'm not sure how these could be listed as "vague" or "illogical") for a purpose. As leaders, God had specific needs for the church in mind. Others do roles with other qualifications. Leaders serve specific purposes. If they are not qualified to serve, they ought not. Not a slap in the face, but an indication that there is another role to fill that is not that role.
Finally, here's what we end up with if we go down this path. All qualifications listed in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 are not qualifications but suggestions. "You don't meet them? No problem. They're just guidelines. It says 'Husband of one wife' and you're a philanderer? Hey, God is a forgiving God and we're forgiving people. We don't want to be narrow-minded. Sure you can do that job. You're a pastor who actually fails to manage his household? No problem! That whole 'If someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?' thing is overblown anyway." If we give up that list of qualifications as actual qualifications, on what do we base our selection of leaders? And if those aren't entirely reliable, what is? Indeed, isn't it kind of narrow-minded and judgmental to say that a wife who is unhappy with her husband can't have a fling with someone who gives her some joy? Well, you can see where that goes. Either Scripture knows whereof it speaks or it isn't reliable at all.
As for your "state of confusion" problem, I am completely baffled. While the specifics may be up for discussion, it seems to me that on this topic the Bible is quite precise. We may have trouble clearing up exactly what Paul meant when he wrote "aner mia gune", but he meant something and it wasn't unclear and there are doubtless things we can take from it. Perhaps God would have been much smarter if He had just had the Bible written into all possible languages from the outset? Well, that would have been some task, wouldn't it, since even English is evolving as we speak. But in this matter I think there is abundant text from which to determine what was intended and very little question about what to do. Thinking about it is work and I know a lot of people would tell me "That's too much work." But I don't think it's nearly as vague as some think. Nor can I imagine why I'd need to tell Jesus, "Look, Lord, You really messed up when You stuck mud in that guy's eyes. Why didn't you just heal him? Crazy Savior!" I don't feel any need to go there at all.
Sherry, you may not FEEL that your parents where accountable for your actions in high school, but, in our society at least, you were still their responsibility, and even Biblically parents are accountable for their children's actions, though that cut off at 12 I believe, but that was their cultural norm. Their 12-year-olds were probably much more mature than our 12-year-olds. The point being, even God allows for parental accountability. As long as you are their responsibility, they are accountable for you.
As for "logic and common sense", without them Scripture truly is baffling. Why did Jesus do things they way He did? We can't know for sure unless He explains, but for your two examples I think logic and common sense actually have an answer. He put mud in the eye to symbolize the uncleanness of him, and Jesus sent him to be cleaned. As for the fig tree, He was making a point, not demonstrating His power. If a fig tree (read Christian) fails to produce figs (read good works) then the tree is of no use and will be destroyed. Yes, He could have made it produce figs, but that wasn't the point He was making.
Even God holds our leaders to a higher standard. If a leader teaches wrong doctrine and leads his flock astray, he will be held accountable for that. So it would behoove the flock, and the leader, to be scrutinous about our leaders. It isn't a matter of forgiving, but providing the best leadership for the flock.
Stan and David, you both had good things to say, good points you made. I have things written in response to what you said, Stan, but brevity is definitely not my strong suit. So, once I find time to pare IT (the big old wordy THING) down to something of reasonable length, then you'll hear from me again. In the meantime, thank you for your responses.
I had a similar conversation about female pastors. The woman asked,"What if I feel like the Lord is leading me to be a pastor?" My response was that Scripture superceeds "feelings". That is the way we know something is from God or from the devil, or from ourselves, if we feel something that is counter to Scripture, we must trust Scripture over feelings.
Post a Comment