More on qualifications for Church Elder

I preached on Titus 1:1-9 last Sunday, the qualifications for elder.

Since I didn't get to some issues, I wrote this to supplement it.

1 Tim 3:4-5:

“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?”

Titus 1:5-6:

“appoint elders in every town as I directed you— 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.”

 

 

What do these verses mean?  Vigorous disagreement has been around for a while on applying this qualification for eldership to specific situations.  Here are some thoughts, in addition to my recent sermon on Titus 1:1-9.

 

A key point I’m asserting here is that men do not have to have raised and launched all of their children and ensured they are all Christians into adulthood, to be qualified to be elders.

I’ll start with a grammatical point to prove this.  Paul says, “managing” (present tense) not “having managed his own household well” (past, aorist, or perfect tense).  So it isn’t “he has raised his kids and they all turned out believers.”  It may be that, but it may also be, “he IS raising his kids, and it looks like he is doing it well.”

 

The prohibition, “not accused of dissipation or insubordination” (Titus 1:6) means that a child of an elder can’t be living a deeply entrenched life of rebellion and self-indulgence.  This is a sin that tends to show up in the teen years, at the earliest.  But we can’t infer from this that a man’s children must be old enough to see if this is happening.  This would be the same logic that we reject in our covenantal understanding of the sacraments.  We don’t wait to baptize our children until we’re sure they have “turned out.”  We don’t wait to commune our children until we see they can examine themselves with a mature mental understanding.  Neither need we wait to bring a man on as elder until we’re sure his children have “turned out.”  It is fine to go by what you see in how a man carries himself with his family when they are younger.  Is he overly deferring to their desires and letting them rule the roost?  Or is he giving direction, discipline, and correction, to train them in self-denial and godliness over time (“Keeping his children submissive” - 1 Tim 3:4), without provoking them to anger with his harshness?

 

The Titus 1:6 phrase above also means a Session should not be “trigger-happy” when an elder or elder candidate’s child has an isolated incident of foolishness or even rebellion.  Even the most faithful parent will have children that are indulgent or rebellious on occasion.  The key is if they stay that way, and how the parent deals with it.  If dad lets himself and/or his wife be too coddling or negligent (1 Sam 3:13) he is probably not qualified.  Also, if they are too harsh or tyrannical (Col 3:21; Eph 6:4), he is probably not qualified.  Every parent struggles between these two ditches.  Those who handle it best, are likely best qualified for eldership.

(In my mind this confirms that there is a parallel between parenting and pastoring.  Not that adult church members should be seen as children.  But the pastoral role is much like a parent’s.)

This fits with a point I made Sunday: elders are meant to be examples to the flock (Heb 13:7; 1 Peter 5:3), not picture-perfect.  There is a huge difference.  Positively, he has a track record such that the group expects he will usually be a good example for them to emulate.  Negatively, an example gets it wrong sometimes, and there is grace extended, but we also learn from mistakes.  If it gets bad enough, the example needs to be rebuked before all, to make it clear to everyone that he is NOT exemplary in this area where he is struggling (1 Tim 5:20).  But even in this case, Paul does not require removal from office, though the man is probably wise to offer it to the Session.

 

Now, when a man has adult children out of the home, we need to remember and balance two principles even more: covenantal connection, and individual moral agency.  Numbers 30:3 gives the principle here: a father has authority to direct his children’s lives when they are “in his house in their youth.”  But when they leave, he is less accountable for their spiritual course.  So if a man’s adult children have all, or mostly, left the faith (their own decision), and his demeanor or tone or articulation of the faith continues to show some fault that could have led to that (covenantal connection, seen in Col 3:21; Eph 6:4 again), then he is probably not qualified as an elder.  But in the absence of such a fault, or if he sees and has repented of it, we ought to consider such a man for office.  There is a parallel here with the marriage qualification (“one-woman man” Titus 1:6).  A man may have been unconverted, unfaithful to his spouse, and unbiblically divorced 10-20 years ago.  But now he is converted, repentant of that, remarried, and has a great marriage in the Lord.  Such a man should not be ruled unqualified from eldership, on this factor alone.  In the same way, a man may have come to see the error of his bad parenting ways, such that he is qualified now to be an elder, though his children have not come around.

 

The criteria is not “perfect history,” but “faithful example now, and for long enough to be trustworthy.”

 

I’ll close with something even more controversial:

Elder selection is frankly, partially relative to the best options in the group.  Each church needs incarnate, officially recognized, examples and leaders on the ground.  If you have a small, young church of all 20-somethings, single or newly married, and two guys in their 30s with 2 younger children, then the latter are the best choice, going by this factor alone.  

Of course, there are limits to this.  Sometimes the most mature in the group still aren’t “elder material.”  Then you just wouldn’t have a fully functioning church.  But there are times to “lower the bar,” and remove extra qualifications for office that we are adding to the Scriptural ones, in order to provide adequately for God’s people.  (Again, to get specific, in my circles extra qualifications would mean things like, you’ve read Rushdoony, you’re post-mil, you’re paedo-communion, you’re a VanTil fan, zero public incidents of problems with the kids, etc.)

 

“The need is not the call” is an important counterpoint to this.  To take an extreme example, a group of 20-year-old stoners suddenly convert to Christ.  It's probably a bad idea to make the guy who has been off weed the longest (for 2 weeks!) an elder.  They need a different example.

 

But a far more common situation in my circles is the opposite extreme:

There are several decently adequate men, deliberately faithful, learning and growing, who are NOT being trained for eldership, because they don’t have all the right theological opinions.

 

Character and wisdom matter much more than such opinions.