Elder Qualifications (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Christian Doctrine



Message

hartmann -> Elder Qualifications (4/14/2008 6:55:56 PM)

I am currently having a serious look at Titus and 1 Timothy. Some of my family members are leaving the church we fellowship at because they think the scriptures say that elders have to have believing (saved) children. Our church practices plural eldership and 2 of the 4 pastors have unsaved children that are grown and out of the home.
I do not think, in light of 1 Timothy, that Titus 1:6 is saying children of an elder but be believing--as in saved.
I believe it to mean "faithful"--the greek word "pistos". Which means the elder is responsible for being a good, Christian leader in his home and that there should be order. His children should submit to him.
How can a man be required to be responsible for his children's salvation?
~Sadie
I appreciate any and all comments.



hartmann -> RE: Elder Qualifications (4/14/2008 7:08:19 PM)

Is this in the wrong category or something?



Ps103 -> RE: Elder Qualifications (4/14/2008 7:38:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hartmann

Is this in the wrong category or something?



No--I think it is just suppertime for a lot of people[;)]. Give it a while.



TheoJunkie -> RE: Elder Qualifications (4/14/2008 9:06:05 PM)

quote:

How can a man be required to be responsible for his children's salvation?


A man is indeed not held responsible for his children's salvation. The text IS saying that a man's kids need to be saved, if he is to be an elder. But the text is not saying that unsaved kids are a poor reflection on the father or his leadership abilities.

I thought as you up until about last fall.

The reason why an elder's kids (if he has any) are to be believers (unto salvation), is because if they are not, this will distract the man from his job as elder. He naturally will be worried about his kids, and focusing on them... praying for them, steeping them in the gospel... (as rightly he should). But as Elder, he should be free to focus on the church-- his charge.

Therefore, the text does not mean to say a man is negligent or immature if his kids don't believe... rather, it is saying simply that he should not be elder because God has another calling for him right now.

As such, if an Elder discovers that his kids don't believe, then he should feel free to step down from the position -- in grace and without shame-- and tend to his family. And the church should applaud his humility and service to the kingdom for doing so. (And, if the Elder truly cares about his church, he will do so, lest his distraction result in negligence to his office).



colliefan -> RE: Elder Qualifications (4/14/2008 11:39:45 PM)

Let me toss out a question: can an elder be a single man? If one adheres to a strict interpretation of the bible, the answer would be "no." If so, then Paul could not be an elder in his own churches. The reason I ask is a local Baptist church takes the literal view.



TheoJunkie -> RE: Elder Qualifications (4/15/2008 7:22:20 AM)

Strict interpretation of which passage?

My answer would be yes, he may be single. It seems to me that the relevant passage says "a man... whose children believe..." and not "a father, whose children believe..."

There is a subtle difference. The former does not mandate that the man be a father... and the second one does.



colliefan -> RE: Elder Qualifications (4/15/2008 10:21:26 PM)

Titus 1:5 - 6 (ESV) 5This 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— 6if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife,£ and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination.

Interpreting the bible in a literal manner mean the man must be currently in his first marriage, not single or a widower. He must have children and they all must be believers,

Since Paul was single and didn't have children wouldn't this be better interpreted on matters of principle. For example, if married he is a one-woman man. If single he is honorable in his dealings with single woman.

If he is married, and has children his dealings with them have not alienated them from the church.



TheoJunkie -> RE: Elder Qualifications (4/16/2008 6:48:56 AM)

Yes, from the larger context (including not only Paul's singleness, but also other biblical statements on the subjects of marriage and childbearing) it would seem that "if" the man is married, it should be to his first wife... and "if" the man has children then...

... but when it comes to the "then" regarding children... it is clear that the children-- if he has any-- need to be believers (in Christ unto salvation) and well behaved.

Especially regarding the children's faith, this does not reflect on the man's leadership abilities, but on his calling and priorities in the moment (if his kids don't believe, he should focus on them, and let others care for the rest of the flock at this time).

Regarding the insubordination of the kids, it may reflect on his leadership abilities (for if he cannot keep his family on the right path, how can he keep the church on the right path?)... but also again, it definitely reflects on his calling and priorities in the moment (same as above).

And if he is concerned about his family, his mind will be torn between his duties to his family and his duties to the church. This is not good for anyone involved.

So these are not designed to be a basis for judgment of the man in question... rather, these are right priorities to uphold, so that no one (including the elder, the elder's kids, and the church itself) suffers.



Jhud -> RE: Elder Qualifications (4/17/2008 11:54:16 AM)

This is an interesting question; our church has plural eldership based on the passages in Timothy and Titus as well.

In fact one of the things that encourages me about the church is that of the 14 pastors that we have, they seem consistently to have spiritually mature believing children; many of them adults now with their own families which are also admirable. It greatly increases my confidence as a father to have men I can emulate and turn to for proven wisdom.

There is one exception I know of; the oldest son of one of our oldest pastors has recently gotten divorced; and I have to admit I have struggled with that. I don't know that his son is 'unbelieving', but obviously there have been some difficulties. I wonder if the commands in Scripture concerning their children of elders apply for the remainder of their children's lives, or if at some point we realize they have their own lives and make their own choices, and we can't always hold the parents responsible for that?



JimboFletch -> RE: Elder Qualifications (4/17/2008 12:23:29 PM)

Jack, do you consider it a sin to divorce?

Sometimes, a person is totally innocent and not wanting a divorce but are thrown into one anyway. Should that disqualify the father from serving as an elder?

There comes a time when a child grows up, leaves parents and are, IMO, completely responsible for their own actions.



Jhud -> RE: Elder Qualifications (4/17/2008 12:38:10 PM)

quote:

Jack, do you consider it a sin to divorce?

Sometimes, a person is totally innocent and not wanting a divorce but are thrown into one anyway. Should that disqualify the father from serving as an elder?

There comes a time when a child grows up, leaves parents and are, IMO, completely responsible for their own actions.


I think that Scripture provides for circumstances where divorce is allowed (and quite frankly, I don't want to get into that debate here) and I have known elders who had exactly that happen to them.

While I think it might be good for an elder in such a circumstance to step back and reflect on where such a thing leaves him and his family, I don't think it should disqualify him from service all together per se.



GrahamCracker -> RE: Elder Qualifications (4/17/2008 7:13:45 PM)

We have and have had elders who were either single or married without children. However, I have had some discussions with elders who had no children but had pretty easy answers to some troubling family difficulties. I had, frankly, more experience and knowledge than they did yet I was never considered for the position of elder.

Likewise, it seems to me that some families have simply never had to grapple with the same issues as other families. By virtue of financial ability, I would certainly have sent my daughter to a private school and she would never have had to grapple with some of the difficulties that we have had.

It could get complicated. I think one-woman man means that a man's marriage relationship is stable and is not a philanderer. I don't necessarily think it excludes divorcees, provided that he has be properly vetted concerning his role and other issues. But caution is advised.

So, likewise, grown children desert the faith, while a father may protest and beg the erring adult to return, the elder is responsible only for what happens when his children are in the household. I wouldn't ignore someone in such a situation but would probably be careful about considering him.



Page: [1]



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI