I get emails —
Our church is at the beginning stages of an elder selection process. One of the men I would like to nominate is willing to be an elder but he has a concern. He has no children and is not sure if that means he is scripturally unqualified to be an elder. I’ve given him my thoughts and interpretations on the matter, but I was curious if you knew of other resources I could also provide him with. Thanks, sir!
I always like it when people call me “sir,” so I’m publishing this email for the readers’ responses. But I’m going to throw some ideas out for consideration first.
Here are the usual verses to consider —
(1Ti 3:4-5 ESV) 4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?
(Tit 1:5-6 ESV) 5 This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you — 6 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.
Traditional teaching in the Churches of Christ insists that a man must have children to qualify. After all, his children can’t be believers if he has no children. He can’t keep his children submissive if he has no children.
Therefore, even in churches where the leaders would allow a childless man to serve as elder, many men without children have, over the years, declined to be considered as potential elders, considering the appointment not worth the division that might result.
The Spirit’s gifts
Another approach is to consider the test to ultimately be about giftedness. The argument is that Paul isn’t giving a checklist, but rather is giving a list of indicators of the sort of man who has the gifts to be an elder. After all, the standards, other than being married and having children, are standards that just about any male Christian would satisfy. “Not open to the charge of debauchery” and not a “drunkard or violent” aren’t particularly high standards!
That leads us to look at deeper questions, such as the biblical concept of being a “shepherd,” “overseer,” and “elder.” These words have considerable history and highly textured meanings in the Scriptures, and surely Paul meant that an elder, shepherd, and overseer would be gifted to be an elder, shepherd, and overseer. Indeed, he says so.
Paul told the Ephesian elders that they were made overseers by the Holy Spirit, likely meaning that the Spirit had evidenced his selection by gifting them for the task.
(Act 20:28 ESV) “Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.”
He is even more explicit in Ephesians —
(Eph 4:11-12 ESV) 11 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,
Being a shepherd is a gift of the Holy Spirit. The same conclusion is also suggested in —
(Rom 12:6-8 ESV) 6 Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; 7 if service, in our serving; the one who teaches, in his teaching; 8 the one who exhorts, in his exhortation; the one who contributes, in generosity; the one who leads, with zeal; the one who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness.
(1Co 12:28 ESV) 28 And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues.
“Administrating” is also translated “governing” and literally refers to the skill of a ship’s pilot — the man who directs the course of the ship.
Thus, if one were to search out the qualifications of an elder outside the Pastoral Epistles, the natural and obvious conclusion would be to select men who are gifted to the task by God’s Holy Spirit.
Deacons
1 Timothy contain a similar qualification list for deacons, and yet we read in Acts —
(Act 6:3-4 ESV) 3 “Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. 4 But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”
I’m convinced that these were likely the first deacons, and their qualifications were simply “of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom.” No one asked whether they were married or had children.
1 Corinthians 7
Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 7 that to be a servant of God, it’s better to be single than married —
(1Co 7:6-7 ESV) 6 Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. 7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.
(1Co 7:32-35 ESV) 32 I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. 33 But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, 34 and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband. 35 I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.
Did Paul wish there were no elders? (No, but there have been plenty of ministers who’ve felt that way!)
Why require children?
Consider Paul’s own rationale for considering a candidate’s children. It’s to test the man’s ability to manage the church. “If someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?”
The traditional explanation is that men learn a lot from having had children — a lot that prepares them to manage a church. And they do — things like how to deal with people with the maturity of a three-year old! Children teach patience and how to deal with people whom you can’t easily ignore. And children reveal your essential character — because they test your character more than anything else in this world. You can’t hide you are from your children.
And so, anyone who’s been an elder for long sees the wisdom of Paul’s test. There’s a very real, very palpable connection between the rigors of child rearing and shepherding a church.
A more subtle but, to me, more potent point is to wonder why he had no children. Some people have no children because they are too selfish or too materialistic. Some have no children because they have no hope for this world. Those sorts of motivations would be huge warning signs to me.
We live in an age where the decision to have or not have children is considered “private,” and it’s considered to be in very bad taste to inquire into motivations. But a man who was too busy to have children, who doesn’t love children, who prefers quiet mornings to the noise of children — while these aren’t sin, they hardly indicate the sort of man who would make a good elder. I don’t think a man who prefers his comfort to children is elder material.
Also ask whether he considered adoption. People who are my age didn’t have the options to adopt foreign children that so many have today. Travel was much more expensive and international adoption was much harder — essentially impossible. Don’t be unfair. Consider the times. But wouldn’t you have to ask? If you couldn’t have children of your own biologically, why didn’t you adopt?
Reconciling the passages
You see that I’m very pro children (I have four). No, it’s not a command, and you won’t go to hell for not having children. Not everyone can have children. Not everyone can adopt. But the qualifications for being an elder are about much more than being a good man, even a good Sunday school teacher. It’s ultimately about the heart. And children reveal a lot about the heart and they shape the heart. And a decision to have no children reveals the heart as well. There is a reason someone chooses not to have children, and that reason reveals something of the character of the man.
But is it an absolute barrier? If a man gives every evidence of being powerfully gifted by God to shepherd a congregation, and if he is infertile and the adoption agencies failed him, is he unqualified to be one of the elders?
(Oh, you thought I was going to answer the question. Nope. This is for discussion. I believe in group hermeneutics. What sayeth the group?)
I think there are two practical reasons a man must have believing children in order to be appointed as an elder.
First, the church needs to see the evidence of his spiritual leadership over a long period of time. Having raised children who became believers is strong evidence that he understands a few things about shepherding. It’s the single best indicator that mortal man can see of his gift for shepherding. The same traits he used to lead his children to the Lord also are needed to lead God’s children in the church.
Second, one of the most prominent areas where members of the church need shepherding is in their parenting. A man who has never done it before can’t have the insight and the credibility needed in order to show parents how to lead their children.
The passage says “believing children” which some people understand to mean more than one. If we take the plural “elders” to mean you cannot have a church with only one elder, the same reasoning would lead to the conclusion that you can’t have an elder with only one believing child. Open for discussion IMO but it makes sense to me.
Another area for discussion is whether all of the man’s children must be Christians, or instead just all of those who are “of age”. Or could he be an elder if some of his adult children have not become Christians.
It’s a lot easier to appoint a man as an elder than to un-appoint him. So I would advise a cautious approach.
It is difficult to see how an Elder who had not had the experience of raising teenagers could navigate a Elder-Deacon meeting…:)
…And having set through some “interesting” business meetings,I can see how an elder would need to be able to deal with children….”self” included sometimes.
It would be hard to see how we could take the absolute need for ‘children’ out since Paul stated it that way. While I agree that there may be more to the idea of this list being an incomplete list, this one particular about the household encompasses so much of the character of the man. “if you are not faithful in little, you will not be faithful in much’
I think that we can see the need for shepherds admistrating the flock, but we don’t need CEO’s we have one of those in Heaven already. We need shepherds whose hearts are like the Lord’s and what better way to be tested than the crucible of raising children…?
No man should feel that he cannot be of service however, nor is it absolutely necessary to be married or have children to be able to adequately expound God’s wishes in this. So serving as deacons and ministers or such still gives ample opportunity to serve the Lord they love.
If they don’t HAVE TO HAVE children, then why would they HAVE to be the husbands of one wife? In fact, why would they even have to be men?
From there, we could consider the recently converted man who seems as though he would be a wonderful leader, in spite of his being a novice.
From there, we might also….
While I do not share the view that the “children” criteria, or any of the other criteria listed are “absolute, black & white” check boxes, which must be checked, I do think the lack of the experience of raising children makes it more difficult for a person to appreciate all of the nuances which may arise when acting as an elder of a congregation.
For similar reasons, I think it’s preferable for children to be “out of the house”, because the role often demands too much from someone with children at home.
Price makes an excellent point.
Wow. The modern S/CRM force rises up strong on this list. Where is the man who discerns by the spirit and not by the traditions of our…er…umm…ok, elders?
When a youth minister, single or married, smooths the way for parents to mend rifts that were rapidly becoming chasms with their teens and pre-teens, does that not give us fruit to examine? And does a ‘youth minister’ have to be someone hired for the job full-time in order to exhibit such gifts?
We sure can weave some tangled webs when we let sight lines guided by tradition overrule spiritual discernment of fruits born in the crucible of life.
I have been a traditionalist and see much value in traditions that serve well, but I have begun to ask, “what do we do with traditions that no longer serve well?”
If the characteristics Paul describes are so qualifying, (and perhaps they are), why do those qualifiers change from place to place or region to region? Is he describing worldly traits that can be as easily found among non-believers to qualify men for spiritual service? What IS the role for which these traits uniquely qualify a person?
If a man has faithful children whom he barely knows, is he qualified because of his wife’s work and the ministers’ work who have helped his wife over the years in his stead? Do only biological children count? Would Paul be disqualified from being an elder because he never married (if he never did)? Would Timothy not qualify as Paul’s child because there was no biological link? Would the church, the bride of Christ, not qualify as his marriage partner by his devotion to her? (Do some think this is adulterous thinking because of the term ‘bride of Christ’?) How carnal are we going to be about these ‘traditions’?
Some questions ….
ALAN – who actually counsels more church members about their parenting – preachers or elders?
PRICE – are you saying that teenagers can or should be ‘deacons’? or are you saying that deacons are immature and rebellious? Your remark was clever … maybe … but does it show respect for those whom God has called to serve?
ENTERPRISE – are you saying that being a husband and father are “little” things? And when we rank callings as you do by saying that one not qualified to be an elder could still serve as a deacon or minister, are we not giving elders the de facto job title of junior executive leadership under Jesus and the first-century apostles He chose? How is that not worldly/carnal thinking?
and HANK – did you think it clever to go all liberal-basher by throwing Paul’s admonition against asking a novice to serve (1 Timothy 3:6 and Titus 1:9)? How do you handle the differences between the qualifications in Acts and the letters to Timothy and Titus? Here is a question for you … where is it written that being called to be an elder is ’til death do you serve? Can an elder act as an elder without there being at least two of them present? Why does Paul say that Titus should appoint elders in every town and not in every congregation?
There are way more questions, very practical questions, that the attitudes of strict adherence to what most refer to as “qualifications to be an elder” simply do not address. Will we face them? Or will we ignore them until there is abuse and folks get hurt?
Jay, if a man has to be a husband and father, then Jesus could not qualify to be an elder. Are elders more qualified to shepherd God’s flock than Jesus is???
These questions were framed to make us consider the other side of the discussion in depth. Blindly following traditions we can hardly trace back more than a generation or two in continuous succession is no excuse for failing to understand the implications.
Oh … do you think you know my views? What are they? All I have offered here are some questions and counterpoints. The conclusions are still hidden from those who have not looked past the thin veil of tradition.
Grizz
I don’t know who does that in your church, but in our church it is the elders, no question about it. And IMO that’s how it should be.
Here’s what I’ve learned in my 4 decades of church management and leadership: People blessed with God-given leadership skills will lead. They lead with or without wives, husbands, children, believing children, “pickles” , titles, degrees, certifications, or by-laws. Those who lead “in the Spirit” will lead the best. They really don’t care if you hang a role or title on them and they aren’t overly concerned if you think they are “legally” qualified to lead or not.
Now, you can frustrate them or enable them. If you frustrate them enough, they’ll eventually go somewhere else and you will lose out. The question to me shouldn’t be one of strict checkboxes, but “Has God ordained and gifted this person to be a leader?” If yes, then you should employ them thusly. If not, you shouldn’t hang a title on them or give them any authority no matter how many “qualifications” they meet.
If your congregation follows people merely because they have a role or title bestowed upon them, then you have bigger problems than a childless man being an elder. If they follow because this person has the fruits of the Spirit and God-given leadership skills, then you are on the right track.
So then, why did Paul instruct Titus and Timothy to appoint elders?
“and HANK – did you think it clever to go all liberal-basher by throwing Paul’s admonition against asking a novice to serve (1 Timothy 3:6 and Titus 1:9)?”
Not really. Why, did you feel “bashed” by my throwing that in?
“How do you handle the differences between the qualifications in Acts and the letters to Timothy and Titus?”
Which differences? Didn’t know that Acts addressedthe specific “qualifications” for elders.
“Here is a question for you … where is it written that being called to be an elder is ’til death do you serve?”
I don’t think that that is written. Why do you ask that?
“Can an elder act as an elder without there being at least two of them present?”
An elder ought to “act as an elder” whether there is another one around or not.
“Why does Paul say that Titus should appoint elders in every town and not in every congregation?”
Not sure. Perhaps because there were not multiple congregations in those particular towns back then?
There…. (and it really gets frusterating to be accused of liberal bashing for merely trying to stick with the Bible)
@Grizz. No, I don’t and I think you misunderstood my post. Sorry for not writing it clearer.
This might surprise some of you but when I was a deacon in that liberal Independent Christian Church, we brought in a “expert” from the Independent Christian Church publishing company, Standard Publishing, to teach a week long class on Eldering and Deaconing. He taught that Elders must have Children… period. There was some heated debate as one man, an executive with a major engineering firm, had no children but still had supervisory control of over 4000 employees locally. I left the class feeling that having children was at least a good thing for an Elder to have experience in and that it was okay to make that a requirement.
Now, if your Elders are just doing a CEO type job and are not really sheparding their flock, then it probably doesn’t require children to do that job. I’ve been a member at my CofC for over 6 years and never had a Elder ask if he could visit me in my home. I, in fact, have had very little contact with the Elders period other than to shake their hand at church. This is despite the fact that my family has had some difficult sledding in the same time period. I’ll leave it up to the reader as to whether my Elders are sheparding.
I take the scripture pretty much for what they say about Elders and Deacons. When I was a Elder, my children became disobedient as teenagers and I resigned my Eldership. I still feel that it was the right thing to do. I no longer desire either office and in fact, believe that I was probably not a good fit for either job but there was little choice at the time as the church was small and few were willing to step up to do the job. At the time, I thought I was doing an okay job but in reflection, I now think I reallly didn’t do the job justice.
Without passing judgment on those particular elders (I don’ t know the circumstances) I’ll say this. Once someone has seen elders who are effectively shepherding, their mental picture of what an elder should be will change, and so will their expectations for what kind of person it takes to fill the role. My guess is that lots of Christians haven’t seen it.
Doug,
I think you provide an excellent example of how the criteria are descriptive, not limiting. Even if someone matches the criteria listed in Timothy & Titus, it doesn’t mean that person will be an effective elder.
It is the proper spirit and heart that make someone an effective elder.
Additionally, those who choose not to fill that role, in a formal way, may fill it informally, or not at all. And that is not a poor reflection on them, but rather may be indicative of their own good judgement.
BTW, Jay, where can I buy one of those T-shirts? 😉
Another thought about why it is important to choose the ‘must have children’ thought is this.
How do you first decide that such a plan spoken verse allows an elder to be one w/o children and then try to explain to people you are converting the need to respect the scriptures and speak where they speak.
If we figure out ways that Paul didn’t really mean what he said here, it will be easier on other things.
“If we figure out ways that Paul didn’t really mean what he said here, it will be easier on other things.”
No doubt! Its like we’re forgetting that it is the WORD OF GOD under discussion.
I mean, some people are like, “I see God’s point. It does makes sense that having faithful children might help a man be a better elder in the church. It’s a nice suggestion and all, but let’s not totally limit ourselves to such requirements – as we might miss out on some people that we believe would be good leaders. But, we’ll keep your ideas in mind God, thanks.”
I agreed with most of what Grizz said until he called out the other brothers in a sarcastic and condecending manner. I think there can be disagreement without ” in your face ” remarks. But again Grizz, I agree with you.
I also agree with Glenn S.
It could be benificial for a childless man to have a more objective view of raising kids. I don’t have to have kids to observe when other parents are “in love” spoiling their kids into a life-long mess.
Another point: Divorce permeates our churches, every family is dealing with it at some level. Which elder, deacon, or minister has the experience to give counsel? Which may go back to Glenn’s point, those gifted in the Spirit will rise up and lead even though they are not allowed to “hold office”.
Ted,
If God wanted us only to appoint elders who have believing children, how would we expect him to say it, other than what is said in Titus?
If God had appeared personally to you and said the following, would it change your view?
Hank,
If you were not liberal-bashing, what was the point of your sarcasm? Looked like you were using the old slippery slope argument… which is a liberal-bashing argument (only liberals would discard Paul’s teaching, etc…)
Look through Acts again. There is much about the kind of person and the role to which an elder is called. If you do not know the role, you cannot determine the necessary traits to fulfill it.
I asked about lifelong elderships because many congregations struggle under the leadership burden of shepherds who cannot shepherd effectively any longer and who have lost touch with the needs and concerns of their sheep. Many conservative leaders whom I know or have known have asked, “if the scriptures do not mention a term of service, how can we impose one?” Thus the lifelong appointments question.
Why insist on two shepherds when one often does the work alone? Should elders be held to the ‘never go alone’ standard often reserved for other counselors?
Elders in every town … seems there is more to it than just the surface circumstances. And if elders in every town, do we assume they never met in separate homes for small groups? And if elders do not know their flock by name (as Jesus said good shepherds do) and they do not the elders’ voice(s), how are the sheep to know whom to follow? And how will the elders know what dangers threaten? Do YOUR elders know when someone in the flock is allergic and needs specially prepared foods at the potluck? Or does that not really matter? Jesus cares. Shouldn’t we?
Grizz
Ted,
I accept your criticism. Calling some out by name was to draw attention to their specific comments/arguments and then examine those arguments. Perhaps it was too personalizing. On the other hand, leaving what each one said without comment or challenge might well do more harm, which is at least part of what motivates any of us to respond.
So I get it. And I ask how you might suggest such comments might be addressed as effectively without the ‘face’ element?
Ready to take any valid critique, and some not so valid if they get me closer to Jesus,
Grizz
Grizz,
As I’ve already answered a short list of your questions, allow me to ask a couple of you. The question is the same one directed to Ted from Alan. He asked:
“If God wanted us only to appoint elders who have believing children, how would we expect him to say it, other than what is said in Titus?
If God had appeared personally to you and said the following, would it change your view?
An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.”
What do you say?
Grizz asked, “Why insist on two shepherds when one often does the work alone? Should elders be held to the ‘never go alone’ standard often reserved for other counselors?”
Why do you think that might be a very good idea ? As sad as it is Grizz, it is for the protection of the elder’s reputation. I remember more than one who got in trouble by counseling marital problems alone. It is wise to have a witness and extra strength. I will venture to say most here have seen where men counseling distraught women alone, was not a good idea. At least one witness, preferable two.
There have been some interesting comments from all “sides.”
Jerry
Note: I posted so I will get email notification of new comments. Is there a way to get comments without making one yourself?
Children being plural means more than one.
An Elder has two children, one believes and one doesn’t he must step down. At what age is the child a believer or not?
One of the two children dies and he must step down.
Elders wife dies and he marries another, is he still the husband of one wife? Doesn’t it mean one at a time?
Elders appointed in every city? Sure would stop much bickering if each church had a say at a community Elders meeting with representation from all the churches in that community and decisions made to create UNITY. I’m for it!
Children adopted and not the Elder candidate physically?
I’ve seen every one of these argued and questions cause splits or members to leave.
How did Paul not anticipate these problems?
Alabama,
The questions you raised are serious questions and have had serious consequences in many places.
Some people deal with the ambiguity by taking the most conservative reading, excluding men who don’t meet the most conservative reading. That might be to avoid the possibility of disobeying God, or to avoid controversy in the congregation. Others take the most liberal interpretation, to make men eligible who would not otherwise be eligible.
I think a third approach is better. Try and understand the purpose of the instructions, and abide strictly by the purpose. So, if believing children are required in order to demonstrate spiritual leadership skills of the parent, then a child dying doesn’t make him less qualified in any way. Perhaps the same could be said for a man whose wife dies.
I might add that the same rationale used to decide that Elders should have children leads me to the conclusion that only men should be Elders and Deacons.
I have “assisted” in an all female ministry toward women who have male loved ones incarcerated. This ministry is for women and it is led by women. They do need some men to tote heavy stuff around from time to time and that was my total contribution to the ministry. When it came to the ministry administration and leadership, I was reallly amazed about how much time was, IMO, wasted. My observation was that the women really loved to talk and talk they did… it was nigh impossible to get a decision made. The problems that they had were really eye opening when compared to the counterpart all male ministry to men who were incarcerated. The women had problems dealing with all kind of issues that were just never encountered in the male ministry. It should be pointed out that the 2 ministries followed somewhat the same pattern and were actually quite similar. I decided God knew what He was doing when it came to leaders being men.
I really hope none of the women take offense at this because I know that there are very capable women leaders… but they weren’t in charge of any fo these ministry events. And, I’m just unsure of what happens when you put a bunch of women together to try to make decisions. What I saw was an enormous amount of talking and not much deciding along with a lot of feelings bent out of shape.
Okay, I know that I’ve stepped into it with this post so I’ll quit and let the women have their fun taking potshots at me.
Grizz,
As I’ve already answered a short list of your questions, allow me to ask a couple of you. The question is the same one directed to Ted from Alan. He asked:
“If God wanted us only to appoint elders who have believing children, how would we expect him to say it, other than what is said in Titus?
If God had appeared personally to you and said the following, would it change your view?
An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.”
What do you say?
Hank, I would ask God if He meant that only married men with children at home could be elders. That is to say I would ask enough questions to be sure exactly what God meant and would follow up on some to find out how He wanted me to handle objections to the way some folks had always understood – from whichever group such objections might come. And I might go so far as to ask how I could establish that God had spoken with me personally. Moses and Gideon were not turned away, so maybe I would not be either.
What would you require as proof God spoke to me, Hank?
Grizz
Doug,
How long have you had this desire to enter a monastery?
Grizz
Grizz,
I wish God would talk to you…cause then we wouldn’t be having this argument. Lol
The expression “the husband of one wife” is literally “a one woman man” or even more literally, “of one woman a man.” It is a moral and experience issue more than a marriage status issue. That should settle the questions about whether a man whose wife has died can be an elder. It should also settle the question of whether a man who remarried after his wife died can be an elder.
Yet, an elder recently told me that his congregation interviewed a potential preacher who refused to come unless one of the elders resigned – because his wife had died. That meant he was no longer the husband of one wife. When they informed him the elder was about to remarry, he still refused because then he would have been the husband of two wives. Go figure. I can’t follow that kind of “reasoning” (or lack thereof).
What about one child? Sarah, after Isaac was born asked, “Who would have thought I would have children” (or words to that effect). If you were in a room full of people, and the person in charge asked for all who had children to move to the front and all others to the rear, which direction should those with one child go?
These questions are tangential to Jay’s question however. That question concerns the man who has no children. There are issues of experience involved in the familial qualities desired in an elder, both of being married and of rearing children.
Is being a husband and a parent the only way to get the necessary experience? In most cases, my opinion is that it probably is. You might could imagine a situation where a man had the requisite experience without having children in his home (that is, the home of which he is the head), but those situations would be rare indeed.
I do not consider that the qualification is a physical test of a man’s ability to beget offspring – but of his ability to bring them up in the nurture and the admonition of the Lord. A household with children who are adopted or are long term foster care children should qualify. In fact, that might be more of a test than the rearing of one’s own natural born children.
Those who are looking at the qualities as those that are necessary to do the job of shepherding and overseeing are, I believe, on the right track. It is sad, though, that many congregations look only at the physical experience qualities – and so few pay much attention to the spiritual maturity issues.
Jerry
PS. I have served as a minister directly under 3 elderships, as a deacon under 1, in 7 congregations without elders (3 of which were on a foreign mission field), and as an elder in 3 different congregations. I much prefer having spiritually qualified elders.
Good thoughts, Jerry.
I was just wondering about the Sarah’s “children” thing….could the same argument be made about “elders”? I believe that there are to be a plurality or none, but was wondering how I would answer such a similar argument. Although I may be forgetting another verse or two?
Here’s a very real life situation that’s happened more than a few times. The existing elder has children that are believers and are faithfully engaged in the work of the congregation they attend….BUT…that congregation is either labeled as a “liberal” CoC (meaning of course that they are rebellious and follow their own preferences versus God’s commands) or not a Church of Christ congregation at all.
Smokin’ controversy on that one….been there first hand.
I am truly humbled by the amount of thought that has gone into these comments. You men are amazingly learned individuals and I am not sure if anything I will say will add to what has already been discussed in great detail. Jay brought up an interesting point and that is to ask, why this person doesn’t have children? Is it possible that this man can’t have children for some physical reason, the result of an ailment. Perhaps he and his wife tried and never could conceive. From a practical level (which seems to be what most of the discussion revolves around) this man would be better equipped to council a family who is trying and is unable to have children. He simply brings a perspective to life someone who has kids won’t necessarily bring. Then form that stand point, the man would be better equipped as an Elder by not having children.
It is interesting to note that Paul tells different things to Titus and Timothy (he only tells one that the children must be believers, the other they just need to be respectful). Perhaps context of an area should be considered in this discussion.
Also consider, if we take these “qualifications” (a title given to the passage by the printers and not Paul himself) as verbatum, then Paul can’t be an Elder. And we certainly wouldn’t say Paul wouldn’t be a good Elder. Heck, the letter in and of itself is written from the standpoint of an overseer.
Finally, it seems that Paul, if he wants this strictly interpretted in all scenarios is being inconsistent (or if you would prefer, the Hoyl Spirit is being inconsistent). Doesn’t Paul encourage people to remained unmarried in 1 Corinthians (the end of 7) because marriage pulls a man’s focus away. He has to worry about his wife and her needs. If we are going to apply all of his words, generally, across the board in all situations then shouldn’t we encourage men not to marry and if that is the case, then we would eventually 1) run out of men with wives so they couldn’t be elders and as such 2) run out of men with children and we would be elderless.
I agree we should be cautious but let us remember the slippery slope doesn’t always slide to the left.
He’s giving different instructions because the situations were different. Timothy was in Ephesus, where they already had elders. Here Paul was addressing the question of how to work with people who aspire to become elders. There was no urgency because they already had elders. And note that Paul did not instruct Timothy to appoint them. Note too that Paul intended to come to Ephesus soon, so why not wait for selection & appointment until he arrived? Further note that the answer regarding children was not “baptize your children ASAP and you’re in!”. It was to raise them properly.
With Titus, OTOH, he was being instructed to go to these congregations and appoint elders. Paul told him what to look for — which men to appoint. Different situation, and so there is a difference in the instructions.
Everybody is looking at this from a “manage the household” mindset. That seems silly to me — obviously people can get management experience without being a parent. Maybe “teaching” plays a part, but God’s relationship with us is revealed in our relationship with our children in a way that many people never fully realize.
God dealt with us in the OT like a parent deals with their young kids — Do what I say because I said so. He sent Jesus to explain things to us when we got a little “older” and could understand the rules a little better (“10 commandments? Try two. Get those right, the others just fall into place…”). Jesus took off and told us to go out and, in effect, round up some more kids for God.
Furthermore, fathers that adopt should certainly be open for consideration, since we are ALL adopted children of God. Even his so-called “chosen people” are, by definition, “chosen”. Being a father opens your eyes to a large thread woven into the Bible story. THAT is the knowledge that is crucial to being an elder. If I had to hire someone to do my job at another office, I’m going to look for someone like me. If we’re going to be appointing people to look after God’s people, we need to be looking for people like God.
[Yes, I am fully aware that the metaphor breaks down in the “husband to one wife” area. I’ll leave that as an exercise to the reader to make it fit somehow…]
A Eunuch or castrated man could not be an Elder. No more than a gelding can be a stallion.
All these physical reasons and so many more miss the point. Physical requirements and we could twist this into so many, and do, but, that is not what is meant.
What is meant is a man that cannot manage his own household (which must include more than him and a wife) could not manage the affairs of the church.
Its the experience lacking not sperm or no sperm, etc..
Overseeing a church family is more like being in charge of a kindergarten that most think so the reference to the children experience being so important.
Still to be scriptural, those simple physical requirements must be met among others to be an Elder.
That is why so many churches of Christ do not have any.
Not having any brings up another question: Are all those men making the decisions acting Elders?
Could there be such a thing as a drunken Elder if one came and participated drunk? How about one in adultery? A child molester? What is the parameters?
Where is the scriptures approving a church business meeting instead of either hiring Elders from another congregation or closing down until you get Elders qualified??
Alan
Thank you for clarifying the situations, I’m not sure I totally agree with some of the assumption I perceive that youa re making, but it did help me think contextually between Titus and Timothy’s different situations. I’m still not sure why in one city it’s respectful and obediant but in another it’s believer. And perhaps maybe this kind of a conversation is just needlessly nit picky.
But these discussion do seem to be on a very shallow level. The point to be made is that evidence for a man’s character comes from how he runs his household. Whether he does or does not have children is not the issue (Paul is just assuming people have children in the sentence). The issue is how he runs his household. Childless men can still run Godly households
Grizz,
Been married 45+ years. It’s too late for me, save yourself!
Seriously, my wife ( a womens libber) works in the womens ministry I mentioned and she agrees with what I’ve observed.
Going back to my foxhole now…
Doug
Hmm, I’ve run across some elders that evidently met the strict criteria regarding children and marriage but were dishonest, and liars.
Now let me think about this. Would I rather have a godly man who is married, but could not have children, or a dishonest jerk who did as an elder?
It is usually not a good idea to try to make every issue black and white, true or false.
I known some men without children and even without wife as well as some women who shepherd a church much better than the ones wearing the title “elder”. Just saying…
Doug, I agree and you didn’t even mention the emotions! This is precisely why I think God gave men and women different roles.
Would you consider a man qualified to be an elder if he had 2 children and both were believers while at home but after leaving, starting their own family one abandoned their commitment to God? That would leave one obedient and one not. If you answer that in the above situation the man should be disqualified to serve as an elder, I believe that you would be placing more responsibility on that man than even Jesus was able to control, in his hand picked (being able to read the minds of his followers) Apostles, Judas betrayed him even before he so to speak left the nest.. How could any man ever qualify if he was held totally accountable for all his offspring after they were not in his household? God established the commitment changing as children marry. Therefore if the candidate for elder had children that were obedient while in his household, then did not remain that way afterwards should not be disqualified by their actions. What about a man who never became a Christian until after all of their children left home, yet their children were obedient to their parents in such a way that their actions should shame most Christian families, should he be disqualified?
Royce,
Do you believe that the messages to the churches from Jesus were to “the church on earth” (not actual Christians) or to his REAL churches (actual Christians). This distinction you are attempting to make is unbiblical for when the Bible speaks of the church, it is ALWAYS and ONLY referring to actual Christians.
And PROOF that you are wrong lies in the fact that Jesus said that some of the church were ABOUT TO DIE. Think about that for a few minutes before responding this time….
Some in the church were “about to die” according to Jesus. Of course, we know he meant about to die spiritually because right before he said that others were dead already and that they needed to repent. Then he said that others still were ABOUT TO DIE and that they too needed to repent.
Now here is the question which you have not yet addressed:
“What do you think Jesus had in mind when he said that some in the church there were ABOUT TO DIE”?
Your argument that they weren’t really Christians won’t work because ABOUT TO DIE obviously implies NOT DEAD YET. Rather, it has to and can only mean that they were alive and if they did not repent…THEN….they WOULD be dead.
Royce how could a non Christian be told that he was ABOUT TO DIE if he does not repent?
No, the ONLY way that this makes sense is by understanding the fact that when Jesus wrote to the churches, he was writing only to Christians (that’s who’s in the church after all). And some of those Chrisitans in the real church there were ABOUT TO DIE.
Think about it Royce, how in the world could a non Christian ever be told he was ABOUT TO DIE? Which means currently alive.
Think about that…
Larry, I think you nailed it… shallow conversation…
Royce…exactly… If Paul’s criteria were concrete rules then you couldn’t exclude someone for character flaws not mentioned.. silly…
As an aside….one has to wonder why Paul thought it necessary to give “examples” of what strong leadership character looked like to Timothy. Timothy was apparently VERY young and inexperienced…. or a little slow…..
Good discussion. If we understand the Bible to be a rule book of exactly how to do things then it seems the Spirit did not adequately take into account the need for preciseness which men have when following directions. I, personally, do not believe the Spirit made such a mistake. Neither do I believe the scripture from God characterized by grace is meant to be a set of rules. If it were, then should not we follow Paul’s instruction to Titus and have our evangelists appoint our elders?
I am beginning to see the scriptures more as a sacred record of history revealing to us God’s grace and how His will and covenants are fulfilled in Christ. We search the scriptures for a better understanding of the nature of God, the history of God’s people, and how to more perfectly approach God, but not for a list of how to do things like regulate corporate worship, church organization, or management and structure of personnel department issues within the church.
I understand this is a position which many would rebuke, as I myself have in the past, as a graduate of a conservative brotherhood school of preaching. I suppose it is OK to ask how could God have made some rule any plainer as long as one is willing to accept the answer that God could have made things “a whole lot plainer” (my belief) were that His intent. Since He didn’t make it plainer, I conclude it was not His intent to spell out everything on church organization and structure. Even a brief legal document establishing a small congregation as a legal entity is more complex and more straight forward than what the Bible says about church organization. Why? I believe the law of grace does not require it.
So, perhaps we search the scriptures about the nature of God, our relationship to Him and to one another and then decide to the best of our abilities to make organizational and leadership decisions that reflect that knowledge within the social system in which we find ourselves. ( oh man! how I used to hate people who said stuff like that! and now I are one……….. go figure)
Dan….totally agree with your assessment in this matter.
Roye…………. no one has ever said that to me before!
Would it be too much for me to believe that Royce is only a screen name and that your real name is Charlotte and that you are very lonely?
Dan, I too agree.
How comforting and loving it has become in our relationship with God when we don’t think we must love a God like the one that was presented to us all our conservative lives.
Actually, there are far more of us out there in the conservative churches than is thought..
The key is to get them alone and say what you just said and be amazed at how many agree with you.
The problem is their next question “but, where can I attend that teaches like this?”
I want to offer a rather lengthy comment.
I hope it doesn’t seem off based and completely off subject, or minimize the important questions that do arise from the qualifications of elders.
Again, I do think it might speak to the issue and more importantly, the difference of interpretations, particularly in regard to the issue of “Is there a pattern for the church to follow.”
Because, once again, what I really sense are some of the underlying issues and differences that continue to arise whether we’re talking about the IM, baptism, role of women in worship, Lord’s Super and now elders without children.
One, does deal with the issue of law or love? Let me illustrate it by telling a story/illustration (hey I’m a preacher?).
The story is told of a woman who lived with a perfectionist husband who always criticized her. She never kept the house clean enough nor did she dress up to his unrealistic expectations. He even gave her a list of rules to be obeyed if she was to keep him happy. When she failed in any area, he quickly responded with verbal abuse. Eventually, he died and as time went by she fell in love with another man who was kind and loving. Her heart’s desire was to please him in any way she could. His patience and encouragement restored her self esteem and enriched her life. One day while going through some old papers, she came across the list of duties from her first husband. She couldn’t believe her eyes. Everything on the list he had demanded, she was now choosing to do out of love for her husband. The ruled had produced resentment, love brought joyful submission. In both cases the same duties were performed; but the motivation in each case was quite different.
I think for many people, including many in the church, this story illustrates their sentiment about submission to God. They believe they ought to be their own decision to respond to His will our of love rather than command.
You see, I think in our choice-obsessed society, people would rather select (based upon their perceived needs) which parts of God’s will they wish to apply. If application of His Word is not of their initiative, then the Bible becomes “a rule book.” To insist that one be accountable to a spiritual law is, in their mind, similar to living with an arbitrary and abusive husband who demands certain behavior.
I think to reject or deny that this viewpoint is contributing a great deal of this is taking place in our culture when it comes to its approach to God, the Bible and His commandments would demonstrate great blindness and nativetivity.
Those who travel down this dangerous path view the NT as a collection of “love letters” rather than a “constitution.” These letters or “collection of stories” come from heavenly Father who don’t expect much out of a fallen mankind other than the desire to have a relationship with Him. He’s like the dad every teenager wants. He doesn’t care how late you stay out or what you do when you’re away from home as long as you feel love toward Him. Such people usually find a new and improved presentation of a God who is more personal and less institutional. The God who was oppressive and demanding is traded in for a close friend who accepts more than we “five steppers” ever imagined.
Now, I do agree that we need to be like the Bereans and we need to “examine the Scriptures” (Acts 17:11) carefully. If the main attraction has become, “What shall we do?” (Acts 2:37) rather than looking at what He did, then let’s change our approach. Maybe this is a reason for the low number of conversions we see today is that we haven’t presented a very compelling portrait of the One to whom people need to respond. Our approach to scripture must strike a balance between “law” and love.
The Bible does not present law and love as antithetical when the obligations are given by the authority of God. By keeping God’s commandments man abides in His love and proves His loyalty to Him. (John 15:10-17) According to Jesus, “He who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me; and he who loves Me shall be loved by My Father.” (John 14:21)
In whatever sense His message may have been a “love letter,” His point was clear—God expects obedience. “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.” (John 14:15)
You see we live in a current social trend of relativism that rejects definite statements of truth. Anyone, including God, who claims to know right and wrong, pure and impure, truth or error, is dismissed as a radical “fundamentalist.”
Now, of course, we need to always keep Christ and the Gospels at the center. We can’t be feed with an epistle-only diet.”
But, here’s my real point. Remember, Jesus planned for the apostles to be the extension of His teaching. Michael Weed points out that some people might be looking “to find in Jesus a freedom from structure—order and tradition-a freedom which is necessary to evolve into larger generic Protestant evangelical communities.” (Michael Weed, “Gospel vs. Epistle, Jesus vs. the Church)
The promise of the Holy Spirit was to instruct the early church in God’s will for daily life and worship under the New Covenant. Disciples devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching because they recognized their teaching and example as authoritative. (Acts 2:42; 1 Cor. 11:1; 1 Thess. 2:13) To know their ‘pattern of sound words” (2 Timothy 1:13), is to know the Father’s will
It seems when it comes to the issue of what is God’s plan (dare I say pattern) and purpose for leadership in the local Christ, some are running headfast into this view that there is no New Testament pattern for the organization of the church. Donald G. Miller states: “No particular structure of church life is divinely ordained…..any form … which the Holy Spirit can inhabit and to which He may impart the life of Christ, must be accepted as valid for the church. As all forms of life adapt themselves to their environment, so does the life of Christ by His Spirit in the church.” (Donald G. Miller, The Nature and Mission of the Church, p. 82)
Since there’s no one, universal “standard” for the Lord’s church we’re told by some, it seems to be a growing belief that we simply only have to follow the principles, ideas and practices as best as we see fit in today’s 21 century culture.
And all of this is appealing, except for the distressing fact that Paul equated his practices with the principles that he taught. “I exhort you therefore, be imitators of me. For this reason I have sent to you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, and he will remind you of my ways which are in Christ, just as I teach everywhere in every church.” (1 Corinthians 4:16,17)
Unlike so many of us, Paul practiced what he preached and he preached what he practiced. Paul could instruct his readers to imitate his ways because they conformed with what he taught. His ways were not culturally oriented, but rather universally practiced ‘everywhere and in every church.’
Again, the very idea that the apostle Paul would send a preacher t the island of Crete for the purpose of straightening out this church is completely foreign to many people’s concept of church today isn’t it? (Titus 1:5). Or, Paul writing, “ if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.” (1 Timothy 3:15)
My progressive friends, if we throw out God-authorized standsds for worship and the instructions for congregational leadership we do so in disrespect for God’s authority. (cf. Acts 2:42; Romans 16:17; 2 Thess. 2:15)
May we be people of mercy, “who are to be judged by the law of liberty.” (James 2:12) and “speak the truth in love.” (Eph. 4:15)
Just something to consider from the “other side”:)
Sincerely,
Robert Prater
Jay asked for “group hermeneutics”, but I haven’t seen a lot of exegesis or hermeneutics taking place.
There are several questions of the text that must be asked to understand the passage(s) in question.
1. Is the requirement that an elder be the “husband of but one wife” an absolute requirement that elders be married, or is it simply a requirement that a married man be faithful to his wife in order to be qualified?
2. Is the requirement of respectful/believing children an absolute requirement that an elder be a father, or is it simply a requirement that a man who is a father have children of a certain quality?
3. Does the word “children” imply a plurality of children for each elder, or was Paul simply using language efficiency?
And what about the cultural influences behind these requirements? How did society in general view a man who was childless? How did society view an unmarried man? If there are cultural biases inherent in these qualifications, how do our cultural biases differ and do differing biases alter the the characteristics expressed in the requirements?
As the answer to these questions are pondered, let me present a hypothetical situation.
Imagine a man who marries in his early twenties, but his young bride dies before they are able to have children. He later meets another woman and they marry in their early thirties. A couple of years later, when they are both 35, they successfully conceive and give birth to a a child, however, that child is born with a severe birth defect and dies at the age of 5. The man and his wife, both already 40, decide that they cannot properly raise any more children due to their age and decide against further childbirth or adoption. In the meantime, the man’s sister divorced her husband and move in to her brother’s house with her three young children. They are not his children, but he is their male role model and all three grow up to become believers. Now, in his late 50’s, his congregation is selecting new elders. Is this man qualified?
Is he the husband of one wife? He was faithful to his first wife during their short marriage and he has been faithful to his second wife. He seems to fit to me, but as one commenter pointed out, there are those that believe a second marriage automatically disqualifies this man.
What about the children requirement? Is this man qualified? Those who want to argue that the requirement absolutely requires an elder to be a father have already disqualified this man based on his circumstances in life rather than on his character. The fact is, he is not a father.
Can you really discount this man’s shepherding of his household even though it did not include children of his own? Can you discount the depth of the man’s faith in the face of the circumstances he has faced in his life? Would Paul really exclude this man from the appointment as an elder?
I understand why people might use caution regarding a man who has no children, but I hope there would actually be an examination of the facts and circumstances rather than a knee-jerk response that the lack of children automatically disqualifies the man. I would hope there would be an examination of his character.
Would Abraham have qualified ?
@ Grizz – I have the same problem that I thought I saw in your post. My wife tells me that I tend to say things in a way that makes people defensive, especially when I sense that it’s a shallow argument and rooted in legalism. (something I’m recovering from) So I am not qualified to help you, because I am you, brother.
I agree with the position held by many here, that Paul was not giving an exhaustive and comprehensive list so that we could just check the boxes and poof….you have an elder.
Now let me sound to some like I’m a heretic. I don’t believe that Paul imagined that his letters would some day be considered Holy Scripture, along side Isaiah, Torah, Psalms etc.
In 1 Cor. 3 he writes that he would like to talk to them about spiritual matters, but they are not ready. He then spends chapters 3 thru 11 instructing them on all the problems they have going on. He then concludes in 11:34 by saying “the remaining matters I will arrange when I come”. This makes me want to say NO, NO, PAUL….Don’t you realize you are writing Holy Scripture. How are we to know the instruction in the remaining matters?
Just one reason I don’t think he intended to give immaculate detail and cover every detail.
One more point – In Colossians 4:16 Paul points to a letter to Laodicea. Where is that letter and what instruction is in it that we may be missing.
I don’t mean to sound like I don’t believe Scripture, or that I question the inspiration of Scripture. I just don’t believe Scripture was ever meant to be a check-list.
OK, now you can start the stoning.
If the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write to Timothy and Titus that one qualification for an elder was to be a father (I Tim. 3: 4, Tit. 1: 6), and the Apostles were teaching the same thing in every church ( 1 Cor 7:17) why is this question up for debate?
to Righteous Judgment (which is a very presumptive pseudonym) — Paul did not use the word “qualification” in either passage. And it is not obvious what 1 Cor 7:17 has to do with your comment, or this topic.
Question for those expert in Greek… The translations use the English word “must”…does that grammatically apply to every character trait listed ?? Or, is “must” correctly applied just to a few ?? “must” seems less than ambiguous.
Price,
I’m not a Gk scholar but I’ll do my best.
Verse 6 really doesn’t have a Gk for “must”. I’s basically of the form “If anyone is blameless, husband of one wife…” The sense is that if not, then don’t appoint them.
Verse 7 has
Thayer’s Gk dictionary says of #1163:
Comparing a few respected English translations gives the same idea. If there are men who meet the qualifications, appoint them.
The word for “must” to which Price referred …
Original Word Word Origin
deÑw third person singular active present of (1210)
Transliterated Word Phonetic Spelling
Dei die
Parts of Speech TDNT
Verb 2:21,140
Definition
it is necessary, there is need of, it behooves, is right and proper
necessity lying in the nature of the case
necessity brought on by circumstances or by the conduct of others toward us.
necessity in reference to what is required to attain some end
a necessity of law and command, of duty, equity
necessity established by the counsel and decree of God, especially by that purpose of his which relates to the salvation of men by the intervention of Christ and which is disclosed in the Old Testament prophecies
concerning what Christ was destined finally to undergo, his sufferings, death, resurrection, ascension
When I read Strong’s definitions and then check them with my BAGD, I usually do not go beyond the first few lines. That part is more in line with the BAGD, which I believe to be a superior reference lexicon, but a volume which I do not have in electronic form. So I copied Strong’s here from the tools on Studylight.org.
I know it does not address how many of the phrasings are connected to ‘must’, but it does tell us something about ‘must’ which is a bit different from calling it an imperative.
Perhaps this contributes something useful to you as it does to me.
Blessings,
Grizz
Ted Hughes, I totally identify with what you said about difficulty in communicating in a way that does not elicit a defensive response, and my personal educational consultant advises me about that, too..
Why are all the traditionally called “qualifications” for elders given in application to one person, but whenever a function is given in the NT it refers to elders (plural) acting as a body or group? Most of the examples in the comments to this post have referred to the actions of an elder as an individual (acting as shepherd or not, using, again, our traditional meaning). Where does the NT talk about the action of one elder by himself? Then, for what are the “qualifications” intended to apply, except for how all of the individuals operate as a group? You can logically divide the work of elders and say that each one is supposed to do that work as an individual, but where does the NT specify that? There is a big, big difference between the function of an elder and that of an eldership. A lot of information about an eldership can be found in Acts 11:30; Acts 15:4,6,22,23; Acts 16:4; Acts 20:7; Acts 24:1; 1 Tim 4:14; 1 Tim 5:17; Jas 5:14, 1 Peter 5. We must first understand what the Holy Spirit has charged the eldership to do, and then look at the “qualifications” of individuals and see why they were put in there.
We have missed a great deal of scriptural meaning from these verses by wearing a traditional filter when reading them. The church pays a price for that.
From this perspective, some of the discussion has not been totally relevant to an eldership function.
Perhaps it would be better for people to study that approach for themselves rather than my making someone defensive by giving my opinion as the answer.
@ K R Butts
Just saying … what? What is it that your saying here? You actually say: Just go by your experience and common sense – we may use the Word of God as one source of insight among many others. What works best shall be done.
How about this one?
OK, yes, this is a children’s song about a child-like faith … Just saying …
Alexander
I can’t believe what I am reading from most of you.Just because some congregations have elders that have no children , don’t make it scripture right. Just because someone does things outside the scripture we cannot come up with what we think is right. What does God think? The reason the Bible was written was to do what God wants, but man wants to change it to what he THINKS. Two wrongs don’t make it right. Read the Bible,not commentaries .
Irvin, when I want to know what the Bible means, I ask the Author directly. Do you accept that “commentary”? If I want to know what God thinks, I ask God.
As to what is biblical, the very idea of autonomous, disconnected congregations in a city is a non-biblical idea. So how do we apply some sort of biblical rules to these organizations? The answer seems anything but cut and dried.
As to RJ’s question, apparently your interpretation of what Paul wrote is not entirely convincing. Hence, the discussion. Fear not. One reason that we have one another is to more fully understand God’s revelation of Himself. It’s a GOOD thing, my brother.
When an Elder assigns a man to cut the grass that has a big fine riding mower when all the other men only have push mowers doesn’t mean that man was better qualified to be an Elder.
Leaders lead like pulling a straight rope which means he is in front, no one can lead by pushing a rope.
The best Elders I have ever known were not the best doers, but, the best assigners.
Alabama John wrote
Luke said that in his first treatise he wrote of what Jesus began both to do and to teach.
An elder who can only assign without showing the way by doing is not much of a leader; he become a “lord.” Now organizational skills are needed – and that includes knowing how to assign. However, in an army of volunteers, an elder/bishop must lead from the front, which includes doing as I do – not just doing what I assign you to do.
That is the way Jesus led, and He was the Good Shepherd. Those who are under-shepherds need to learn from his example.
I have seen too many men who have ideas – but are not willing to work to implement them. When they say “Why don’t we …..” what they really mean is “Why don’t you….” do whatever they are suggesting. Such men do not contribute much to the leadership of an organization if they are not willing to work to see their suggestions come to fruition. This does not mean the man who suggests something must do all the work in seeing it through – but if he is not willing to pitch in with more than suggesting activities, he’s not much of a leader.
Jerry
Jerry,
The problem with Luke is he didn’t understand how to delegate as most doctors don’t. That’s why they must hire an office manager better at assigning.
Now take Alabama football, Mike Sabin is doing very well and hasn’t himself in a game run a single foot or thrown a single pass but is considered by all as doing a great job of putting the right man in the right position and calling the right play.
Elders that pick and assign the right persons to do all the task needed for success are in that same category in my book.
Bless her heart, my daughter in law typist is an Auburn graduate.
Nick Saban!
Only Jay would of caught that!!!