Just wondering out loud, so to speak. Most churches consider "elder," "overseer," and "pastor" to be synonymous. It is possible in some to be an elder/overseer without being a pastor, but in almost all cases pastors are elder/overseers. The original reason for this, of course, is that Peter links the two (1 Peter 5:1-4) where "shepherd" is the same word for "pastor." I'm fine with that. I have problems with churches with a single pastor (one pastor, not an unmarried pastor) and no other elders/overseers and consider themselves biblically sound in that department, but I'm fine with a pastor being one of the elders.
Settling that, then, I have this nagging question. Paul said that, among other things, an elder should be "keeping his children under control with all dignity" (1 Tim 3:4). He's supposed to manage his household well. Because "If a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?" (1 Tim 3:5). He told Titus that an elder must have children "not accused of dissipation or rebellion" (Titus 1:6). Seems pretty straightforward. So I have a question.
Why is it that we have a stereotype of the "PK" -- the "pastor's kid" -- who is typically the worst behaved kid in church? We give it a nod. "You know how it is. He is so busy taking care of the matters of his church that he can hardly make time to manage his kid(s)." All well and good ... except it's not biblical. Paul asked, "How will he take care of the church of God?" and we appear to answer, "Well, he will, Paul. Don't get your knickers in a twist." So we stand by as the pastor's tyke goes screaming down the hallways at the top of her lungs and exchange knowing, tolerant looks. "What are you going to do?"
My question is "Is this biblical?" My question is if a pastor is not managing his household well -- not controlling his children -- should he be pastor? I mean, sure, it may be necessary to start with a Galatians 6:1 approach, but should this be an issue? Or should we view the qualifications of elder as "helpful suggestions" rather than qualifications? Or is there another answer? I've asked a couple of people and they tell me, "Well, your idea of 'children under control' is not the same as the pastor's, so you should just forget about it." That sounds like relativity, where "children under control" simply means whatever you want it to mean. I don't know. I'm just wondering.
10 comments:
The ornery preacher's kid who was about my age made this thing called "clackers." Two resin spheres on a rope. He could manipulate the rope with his hand to bang the balls together, making a loud repetitive noise. He loved to sneak up behind my brother after a service and do that right behind my brother's head. Either that or give my brother a "knuckle sandwich" lump in the shoulder, again by sneaking up on him.
I remember those things. He made them? We used to be able to buy them. And they were as dangerous to the user as to anyone else.
As I recall it he told me about pouring stinky liquid resin into molds and letting it harden up around the ends of the string. I never observed him doing that. He made more than one and would ask people if they wanted to buy one from him. There were rumors of clackers (not his particularly) shattering into shrapnel.
He had a Honda 50cc that he would drive back and forth on a dirt road that served a small number of residences, which led to neighbor complaints about dust and noise.
I think that it depends on how you define child in this circumstance. If looking at it from the Jewish perspective of reaching an age where the young person becomes responsible for his/her own actions, then I’d say that it applies when children are below that age.
It doesn’t seem reasonable to hold a parent responsible for choices their adult (or responsible) children make.
I personally think it’s probably a “know it when you see it” kind of thing.
Interesting, Craig. I never thought about the "adult children" side. If the aim is "manage the household," I would assume that those outside of the household (grown up children) would not be included in that concern.
The questions becomes what age that is. In Jewish tradition the point at which a child becomes responsible for their own actions is around 12. So is that the point?
I'm sure the reason we tolerate it (aside from the obvious lack of concern for the Bible) is that we are so used to a single pastor system. One man can not be responsible alone for hundreds of people, and his own home. There simply isn't enough time in the day. And it simply isn't true that it takes 40 hours to make a sermon, and since that's the only service I've ever seen a pastor do these days, the role of a solo, professional pastor is over blown. My favorite church I ever attended was about 20 members, and it had 2 pastors and I think 3 or 4 elders. Only one of the pastors was full time. You almost never see that ratio of leaders to members anymore. If we went back to a biblical model of church leadership, I imagine the stereotype of the pastor's kid go back to how it should be. It's almost like God knows what He was talking about when He set out these commands in Scripture. It's almost as if we'd have better lives if we followed the user manual written by the Designer.
Craig, if we're going to go with a hard "12," we'll need to kick the kid out. No, I was saying that "manage the household" would include "the household" and not those outside the household. Beyond that, of course, I'm sure that other circumstances may be in play, like when did this guy become a Christian -- years after his kids were, say, 5?
Yes, David, a variety of issues. The Bible isn't the authority in these matters. Modern living has tainted our views. "Status quo" has become the norm rather than biblical instructions. ("What? That's the way we've always done it. Why are you asking such questions?") You're right; it's almost like God knew what He was talking about.
I’m not suggesting a hard 12, only that as I understand Jewish practice the child assumed responsibility for themselves (probably not daughters at that time), and it seems like the parent wouldn’t be held responsible past that point.
Why this seems relevant is that I don’t think you’d evaluate the parent of a 5 year old the same way as an 18 year old.
Post a Comment