Qualified Leader?

[rural_preacher]

The leadership qualifications of I Timothy 3 include these statements:

Verse 2 - "the husband of one wife"

Verses 4,5 - "one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?)"

Verse 12 - "Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well."

Here are my questions concerning these statements:

1. Does this require that a man be married to serve as a pastor/elder/deacon? Or can single men serve in these roles?

2. Does this disqualify a man who has been divorced and remarried in the past...even if the divorce was before he was born again? Or does this statement refer only to polygamy?

3. Does this require that a man have children (to prove his ability to rule his own house well)?

4. Do these qualifications only apply to the pastor/elder/deacon leaders of the church or to all leaders (Sunday School teachers, committee members, youth workers, ushers, etc.)?

What do you all think?

--

 

[Andyman_1970]

The leadership qualifications of I Timothy 3 include these statements:

Verse 2 - "the husband of one wife"

Verses 4,5 - "one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?)"

Verse 12 - "Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well."

Here are my questions concerning these statements:

1. Does this require that a man be married to serve as a pastor/elder/deacon? Or can single men serve in these roles?

2. Does this disqualify a man who has been divorced and remarried in the past...even if the divorce was before he was born again? Or does this statement refer only to polygamy?

3. Does this require that a man have children (to prove his ability to rule his own house well)?

4. Do these qualifications only apply to the pastor/elder/deacon leaders of the church or to all leaders (Sunday School teachers, committee members, youth workers, ushers, etc.)?

What do you all think?

--

From what I have studied the Greek construction of this passage is in the present tense.

 

[rural_preacher]

From what I have studied the Greek construction of this passage is in the present tense.

But how do you think it should be applied to the local church today?

Is it a statement requiring marriage or prohibiting polygamy...or divorce?

 

[TwinCrier]

Not being married and not having children are not sins, however, divorce, polygamy and adultry are. I think the general context is not to allow someone who uses bad judgement to be in a position of divine leadership. Applying simular criteria for Sunday School teachers would probably be a good idea. While sins can be forgiven, the consequences of those sins continue and can set a poor example.

 

[Matthan]

The leadership qualifications of I Timothy 3 include these statements:

Verse 2 - "the husband of one wife"

Verses 4,5 - "one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?)"

Verse 12 - "Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well."

Here are my questions concerning these statements:

1. Does this require that a man be married to serve as a pastor/elder/deacon? Or can single men serve in these roles?

2. Does this disqualify a man who has been divorced and remarried in the past...even if the divorce was before he was born again? Or does this statement refer only to polygamy?

3. Does this require that a man have children (to prove his ability to rule his own house well)?

4. Do these qualifications only apply to the pastor/elder/deacon leaders of the church or to all leaders (Sunday School teachers, committee members, youth workers, ushers, etc.)?

What do you all think?

--

Wow!! When you ask a question, it is a hummmmmm-dingerrrr!! So, lets get busy.

1. First, should a "bishop" (Pastor, Reverend) or deacon be married? I believe what Paul is actually saying is, 'If a man is married, he should have only one wife.' That is in harmony with a man and woman becoming one flesh. therefore, Paul is "warning" against multiple wives, and not for a leader of any particular congregation to be first married. Remember that Paul himself was single and happily so. That he was wonderfully blessed by God is as obvious as the wisdom he imparts in every one of his epistles.

2. A divorced male as Church officer? I believe that depends on the nature of the divorce, and not on when someone became saved. What I mean is, Jesus gave us certain instructions concerning divorce. If a spouce is caught in adultery, (he or she) can be divorced for the harmony of a Christian life. Some people, myself included, simply cannot live with an adulterous mate. We would spend all of our time looking for another relapse or wondering when (or if) it had (already) occurred. Always look into your own heart from a position on bended knees for this one! Just keep in mind that no sins save one are unforgivable, and adultery is not the one unforgivable sin mentioned in Scripture. Oh, and if you are the one caught in adultery, confess your sin to the congregation and trust in God for their joint wisdom to prevail.

3. Children are a blessing from God. Their presence (or absence) cannot be made a requirement for holding any position of congregation leadership. That is a judgement for God alone, and true Christians will always defer to Him.

4. This is my personal view. Paul gave us instructions for guiding a Christian congregation. The leadership of that congregation is what is most important. All other positions are congregation-guided. That is what business meetings are for. Let the reputation of the individual guide the decisions of the members of the flock. Do not look for a dark side of any individual, but always be prepared to deal with it should it emerge at some point. And, always make sure that teachers are teaching Jesus and true Scripture, and not their personal opinions.

I sure hope this helps you, rural preacher. I do not have any of the training you have received, and I am the lowest of sinners to boot. I asked God to guide my answers, but you must ultimately accept or reject this and all other entries, as God and His Holy Spirit moves your heart.

Matthan <J><

 

[Andyman_1970]

First, I'm a member of an SBC church (a rather fundamentalist/traditional one), and my understanding and studying on this is contrary to the traditional understanding of this passage - so I'm sure more than one of you on here will disagree, which is fine.

Second, for me it is important to put the Scriptures in their correct historical and cultural context before trying to apply a doctrine from them. In the mid to late 1st century in which Paul is writing this to Timothy (who was in Ephesus), polygamy for the "normal" person was rare - multiple wives were expensive, and I think it was outlawed by the Romans. Only the elite Herodian's in Palestine had (or could have) multiple wives.

In Ephesus, where Timothy was when Paul wrote this letter, having multiple "partners" even though you were married was not uncommon, monogomamy was the exception not the rule. The main god of Ephesus was Artimus (her temple is one of the 7 wonders of the ancient world) and to be a follower of Artimus you had go to her temple and have sex (she was the god of fertility) with either a male or female temple prostitute. So you can see where the present tense of Paul's instructions were important here.

As for divorce, for Gentiles, this was a rather rare and somewhat expensive proposition, and even though the Romans were quite "immoral" to say the least, divorce was rather rare - it was easier, and less of a social "stigma" to stay married (social status was everything for the Roman) and just fool around.

Did that answer your question?

 

[Gold Dragon]

1. Does this require that a man be married to serve as a pastor/elder/deacon? Or can single men serve in these roles?

3. Does this require that a man have children (to prove his ability to rule his own house well)?

Agreed with Matthan. Paul was never married or have children and he wrote this passage.

4. Do these qualifications only apply to the pastor/elder/deacon leaders of the church or to all leaders (Sunday School teachers, committee members, youth workers, ushers, etc.)?

I think part of the problem is looking at this passage as a list of qualifications that would still apply today "word-for-word" without looking at it through the literary, cultural and historical lens of when it was originally written.

The qualities Paul is looking for in a deacon seems to be one who is committed to his word/vows and one who has shown the ability to care and lead in smaller settings. Marriage and family are where these qualities are best observed.

 

[fluffy_rainbow]

1. Does this require that a man be married to serve as a pastor/elder/deacon? Or can single men serve in these roles?

In my former church, a man applying for a deacon or ministry position (with the exception of singles and youth ministers) had to be married.

2. Does this disqualify a man who has been divorced and remarried in the past...even if the divorce was before he was born again? Or does this statement refer only to polygamy?

My former church got more lenient about this. At first, men who had been divorced and remarried or if his wife was, they were disqualified for deacon positions. Then a man came in who had alot of pull in the church and was made deacon even though he was remarried and his wife was on her second marriage because her first husband left her because she constantly cheated on him. I think that was a real detriment to the church.

3. Does this require that a man have children (to prove his ability to rule his own house well)?

I don't think so. It just means a man should not be in a leadership position if he does not have control over his own household. If he has a backslidden wife or unruly children and cannot even maintain an element of leadership over his household how can he be in a leadership position in his church?

4. Do these qualifications only apply to the pastor/elder/deacon leaders of the church or to all leaders (Sunday School teachers, committee members, youth workers, ushers, etc.)?

I believe they only apply to deacons, pastors, and elders. Don't forget, they didn't have Sunday school and youth groups in the times of Paul. Although, I would like to add that even Sunday school teachers and other leaders in the church should be approached with discernment and a certain level of scrutiny as they are also imparting the Gospel to others and you wouldn't want to lead anyone astray. This happened in my last church. We had a lady teaching children's Sunday school once who told the children the story of Noah was a lie. :-/

 

[eldermike]

I believe that these attributes describe a man that has been changed by God. As an example; a man that has a history of divorce before salvation is not an issue. A pastor/deacon/elder/ youth worker/ect., that gets divorced is an issue. We should not look back into the world for evidence of good men, there are no good men apart from God.

 

[BBAS 64]

I believe that these attributes describe a man that has been changed by God. As an example; a man that has a history of divorce before salvation is not an issue. A pastor/deacon/elder/ youth worker/ect., that gets divorced is an issue. We should not look back into the world for evidence of good men, there are no good men apart from God.

Hi, Eldermike

I hope all is well, I have missed your insight here lately.

Glad to see you are still here at CF!

Peace to you Brother,

Bill

 

[eldermike]

Hi, Eldermike

I hope all is well, I have missed your insight here lately.

Glad to see you are still here at CF!

Peace to you Brother,

Bill

Thanks Brother! I am here some, I will try and post more in this forum. I consider this my home forum.

 

[rural_preacher]

Some excellent responses thus far. You all are approaching this issue in an openminded way. I, personally, think that is a positive thing.



I do have to disagree with the statement that Paul was never married. I will agree that he was single during his apostolic ministry. However, before his conversion, he was a Pharisee and a member of the Sanhedrin. To be a member of the Sanhedrin, a man had to be married. But Paul was clearly single during his Christian ministry. Therefore, many scholars are convinced that Paul was likely divorced...probably the result of his wife not agreeing with his conversion and seeking the divorce which was granted because the Jewish leaders perceived Paul as an apostate.

Paul was a great example of "old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new".

With that in mind, some of the traditional views of the pastor/elder/deacon qualifications come into question. By 'traditional' I am referring to the common fundamentalist baptist view.

------

Here is another question. Do you think there should be a minimum age requirement for pastor/elder/deacon in light of verse 6? "Not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil."


--

 

[Andyman_1970]

Some excellent responses thus far. You all are approaching this issue in an openminded way. I, personally, think that is a positive thing.

I do have to disagree with the statement that Paul was never married. I will agree that he was single during his apostolic ministry. However, before his conversion, he was a Pharisee and a member of the Sanhedrin. To be a member of the Sanhedrin, a man had to be married. But Paul was clearly single during his Christian ministry. Therefore, many scholars are convinced that Paul was likely divorced...probably the result of his wife not agreeing with his conversion and seeking the divorce which was granted because the Jewish leaders perceived Paul as an apostate.

Paul was a great example of "old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new".

I did not know this about Paul. I'm not asking this to challenge your information, but before I get into a discussion I like to have my ducks in a row - may I ask what your reference for this was?

With that in mind, some of the traditional views of the pastor/elder/deacon qualifications come into question. By 'traditional' I am referring to the common fundamentalist baptist view.

Unfortunatly sometimes I think the fundamentalist view of things tends to ignore the context in which the Scriptures are given - not always but sometimes.

 

[rural_preacher]

I did not know this about Paul. I'm not asking this to challenge your information, but before I get into a discussion I like to have my ducks in a row - may I ask what your reference for this was?

My bad...that should have said "he was a Pharisee and likely a member of the Sanhedrin".

Galatians 1:14
And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.

Most Bible college & seminary professors that I have questioned believe that he was very likely a member of the Sanhedrin. Many believe that whether he was or not, that he probably had a wife prior to being called by Jesus. Some take the divorce position (concerning Paul), others believe that perhaps Paul's wife died and that is why he does not speak of her at all.

I also believe that if you take into consideration the cultural context of Paul's letter to Ephesus, you would have a church full of people who had a great deal of paganism and immorality in their backgrounds but had been made new by the power of the HS through faith in Christ. So, Paul's words were understood to mean a man's qualifications as a believer now...not what ever he was before he got saved.

Unfortunately, many churches today take into consideration what a person's past was when deciding whether they're qualified for service. That is a shame because God cleanses us of all unrighteousness, who are we to bring it up again...

--

 

[Crazy Liz]

I do have to disagree with the statement that Paul was never married. I will agree that he was single during his apostolic ministry. However, before his conversion, he was a Pharisee and a member of the Sanhedrin. To be a member of the Sanhedrin, a man had to be married. But Paul was clearly single during his Christian ministry. Therefore, many scholars are convinced that Paul was likely divorced...probably the result of his wife not agreeing with his conversion and seeking the divorce which was granted because the Jewish leaders perceived Paul as an apostate.

I was going to point this out, too. I believe I had read that to be considered a full Pharisee, a man needed to be married.

Yes, he probably divorced her because she objected to his Christian faith. Under Jewish Law, a man divorces his wife. a divorce is not granted by a court or Jewish leaders. But a Jewish man is obligated to divorce his wife if she wants to leave him. It is considered a mitzvah - an obligation. To refuse her a divorce when she asks for one is tantamount to enslaving her.

This is some background that helps explain what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 7.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Not being married and not having children are not sins, however, divorce, polygamy and adultry are.

Is polygamy really a sin?

1. First, should a "bishop" (Pastor, Reverend) or deacon be married? I believe what Paul is actually saying is, 'If a man is married, he should have only one wife.'

I believe that these attributes describe a man that has been changed by God. As an example; a man that has a history of divorce before salvation is not an issue. A pastor/deacon/elder/ youth worker/ect., that gets divorced is an issue. We should not look back into the world for evidence of good men, there are no good men apart from God.

I'm not exactly sure how all these could consistently be applied in a polygamous culture.

I have friends who are missionaries in a culture where polygamy is common. If I correctly understand what Jesus says about divorce, a man with multiple wives should not divorce some of them in order to qualify to become a church leader. He should be faithful to his existing wives and not marry additional ones.

If we apply these qualifications "word-for-word," a man who was already a polygamist before becoming a Christian would indeed be disqualified, but not because of sin.

I think part of the problem is looking at this passage as a list of qualifications that would still apply today "word-for-word" without looking at it through the literary, cultural and historical lens of when it was originally written.

The qualities Paul is looking for in a deacon seems to be one who is committed to his word/vows and one who has shown the ability to care and lead in smaller settings. Marriage and family are where these qualities are best observed.

I agree.

 

[ZiSunka]

The leadership qualifications of I Timothy 3 include these statements:

Verse 2 - "the husband of one wife"

Verses 4,5 - "one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?)"

Verse 12 - "Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well."

Here are my questions concerning these statements:

1. Does this require that a man be married to serve as a pastor/elder/deacon? Or can single men serve in these roles?

2. Does this disqualify a man who has been divorced and remarried in the past...even if the divorce was before he was born again? Or does this statement refer only to polygamy?

3. Does this require that a man have children (to prove his ability to rule his own house well)?

4. Do these qualifications only apply to the pastor/elder/deacon leaders of the church or to all leaders (Sunday School teachers, committee members, youth workers, ushers, etc.)?

What do you all think?

--

This passage means that a deacon or overseers must be a man who is self-controlled and not one who runs around marrying multiple woman (with or without divorcing the prior ones) and who is able to keep his household under control, too. This doesn't mean that an elder/deacon/overseer must be married and have children in order to serve, it just means that he has to be a person who applies godliness to his life. A man who seeks the heart of God in his daily life won't have any problems meeting these caveats. A man who seeks to serve his lusts will have multiple marriages and children who have never been disciplined properly.

 

[aReformedPatriot]

Is polygamy really a sin?

Now were talkin! WOOOOOO!

I'm on the fence of this issue, strongly leaning torwards, "yea it's a sin" though. I cannot really back up my statement. Besides, two women PMSing at two different times of the month, or shoot, perhaps even at the same time....why I just dont think the Lord has gifted ANY man with that kind of patients.

 

[fluffy_rainbow]

Besides, two women PMSing at two different times of the month, or shoot, perhaps even at the same time.

HAHAHAHA Just thinking of that makes me feel sorry for any man whose ever had to deal with that. It reminds me of a former friend of mine who decided to cohabitate with two women at the same time. They shared a bed, shared a home, shared in household chores. Odd thing was, they were not allowed to date other men he would not permit it. Well, one girl got pregnant and the other girl secretly went off her birth control and got pregnant a month later. Poor Marcus. I think he found out the hard way why it's better to just have one woman at a time.

 

[eldermike]

If we apply these qualifications "word-for-word," a man who was already a polygamist before becoming a Christian would indeed be disqualified, but not because of sin.

Sin as we define it? God created marriage between one man and one woman long before Paul wrote Timothy. Our witness as leaders is not simply restricted to our current circumstances, that's relativism in practice. Nor can our model for marriage be drawn from scriptures based on a defiant disobedient Hebrew culture.

Would God expect a man to divorce one of His wives to become a pastor? Yes!, how else can this cycle of sin be broken? Would it be painful? Yes again, but sin has a cost. Jesus paid the cost of my separation from God, He covered me, but this doesn't keep me from paying the price of denying myself.