Leaders in the Church

Our Sunday morning group recently went through 1 Timothy 3, the defining "qualification of overseers" passage. (Biblically overseers ("bishops" in the KJV) and elders and pastors are interchangeable terms. If elders/pastors/overseers all refer to basic church leadership, I'll just abbreviate it as "EPO" to save my typing fingers.) While it all seems straightforward and clear, I find that it brings up more questions than you might have originally thought. Skim the list and see if you can anticipate some of them.

Husband of One Wife (1 Tim 3:2)
This is perhaps one of the most puzzling discussions you will encounter in this text. What does "husband of one wife" mean. On the surface it's clear -- the guy can only be married to one woman. Done! But hold on. Does that mean that he must be married? If that's the case, then neither Jesus nor Paul could have served in that capacity. "But they weren't," some tell me. Then you would also have to hold that when a pastor's wife dies, he has to step down, right? That doesn't seem right. Okay, so perhaps actually being married is optional. But "of one wife"? Some argue it's a reference to polygamy, but almost no one in the 1st century either in the church or even in the society in which they found themselves practiced polygamy. So was it like telling them, "No one can park camels in the parking lot"? You know ... it could have happened, but it just didn't. That seems silly. So they tell me, "That means that he is only married once." That seems fine until you carry it out to the next logical conclusion. What about the pastor whose wife dies and he remarries? Now he has been married twice! "Out you go!" No, of course not. So now they tell me that this is a reference to divorced and remarried men. They cannot serve as EPOs. Is that the case? What about the guy who is married at 18, his wife leaves him at 19, he meets Christ at 22, and is now a new creature, seriously. He is a living reflection of Christ in practice and the faith. "Sorry," you'd have to tell me, "his past excludes him from that role in the church." So what Christ forgives and remakes we cannot accept?

There is another version of this phrase. The literal translation is actually "one woman man." Could it simply be that the requirement for EPOs is that they be of a faithful character in their relationships with women? If he is married, he is wholly devoted to his wife. If he is not married, he doesn't have a roving eye. He isn't a "wolf." God knows (I mean that quite literally) we have enough of those in positions of authority in our churches. Could it be that this is a defining requirement for elders and pastors and it's not about being married or divorced or widowed? (By the way, I know of no one who argues that if a pastor's wife dies, he has to step down. I'm just pointing out that it's a logical conclusion if you hold that phrase a particular way.)

Now, does this "husband of one wife" therefore require that it be a male? It would seem that no matter how you end up interpreting the phrase in terms of "one wife," it is still mandatory that one qualification is that an EPO be a male (cp 1 Tim 2:11-15).

He must Manage his Household Well (1 Tim 3:4-5)
This one is pretty clear. We don't have a lot of dispute about its meaning. What we do have is a general disregard for this one. It says he should be "keeping his children submissive" and is predicated on "If someone does not know now to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?" The reason I say it's largely ignored is that most people who have spent much time in churches know that stereotypically the worst kids in any given church are the pastor's kids. Yes, that's a generalization, but it is so often true. These are the kids that feel privileged to do what they please because "My dad's the pastor" and no one is telling them otherwise. But if Scripture teaches that a requirement for these EPOs is that they manage their house well with submissive children and the general truth is that pastors often dedicate so much time to their congregation that they neglect their families to some degree, wouldn't that disqualify them? If someone does not know now to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?

Not be a Recent Convert (1 Tim 3:6)
Now "recent convert" is decidedly vague. I've heard, for instance, of child preachers. To me, any child is, by definition, a recent convert. But exactly how long is "recent"? Some try to work in something like "Enough time to have gone to seminary or Bible school," but Bible schools and seminaries didn't exist in Paul's day and no such requirement for EPOs is found in Scripture. We often require "has the proper education" in our list of prerequisites, but "the proper education" is an extrabiblical concept that cannot be confirmed by Scripture. So what is a "recent convert"?

There are a lot of very clear qualifications listed in this text (and largely repeated over in Titus 1:5-11). I'm not at all sure that we as a body of believers at any give church spend much time paying attention to them. How else do you find super rich pastors of megachurches ("not a lover of money"(1 Tim 3:3)), or pastors and elders who are sexual predators ("husband of one wife" (1 Tim 3:2)) or EPOs who are drunkards or violent or quarrelsome (1 Tim 3:3)? Why do so many churches suffer from leaders who are not "above reproach" (1 Tim 3:2) or "well though of by outsiders" (1 Tim 3:7)? Could it be that we're not paying attention to the Scriptures we claim? I think these qualifying characteristics are not "cookie cutter" traits; they require careful consideration on an individual basis. Still, if we're not willing to rock the boat on this clear biblical text, why would we be surprised when we find so many other problems in our churches that God's Word addresses so clearly? "It is time for judgment to begin at the household of God" (1 Peter 4:17).