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.
