Elder Position Paper - Lesson 7

I. Overview of Elder’s Family Qualifications

The next topic we’re going to look at is the whole issue of the elder’s family, the family and the husband’s faithfulness to his wife and his children. This is a topic that is quite controversial.

There are many different things you have to consider as you’re making up your guidelines along these topics. So, it’ll take time for you to work on it. This is one where you simply have to take tradition and throw it out the window. For some of these decisions, you’re going to feel a tendency to want to make a certain decision because that’s the way it’s always been. You can’t do that. You just argue biblically. Think biblically, argue biblically. 

II. Proven Managerial Ability

Number one, the elder has to be a proven manager with people. Just because you can run a major enterprise doesn’t mean you’re any good at managing your home. There’s not any necessary correlation at all. This has to do with a proven managerial ability visible in the person’s family. In 1 Timothy 3:4, “He must manage his household well…for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?” This is the idea that the home is the microcosm and abilities that are seen in the home will reflect on how the person would or would not do managing the church.

So many of these things I’ve noticed as I’ve been going through these; there’s a real balancing act that goes on. On the one hand, you have someone who manages with dignity. That’s the important phrase there, “managing with dignity.”

I remember a person who, in church, after church, would scream and yell and berate his kids. It was horrible. All three kids just ran full speed away from Christ. I don’t know what’s going on in their lives now, but that was terrible. He had no managerial ability with his own kids, much less his own church. 

On the other hand, I knew another guy who was—his kids were perfect. I mean, they were perfect. They never said anything out of line. Rob and I went over to their house once for dinner. We’re sitting around the table—watch my finger, this one. We’re sitting at the table, and the wife started to say something, and he just did that. Just moved his finger. The wife went, “All right.” She was beaten. She’s just beaten. In private he was so tyrannical that she was terrified of even expressing her opinion in public. All he had to do is raise a finger, and she shrunk. She shut up.

You have to have a proven managerial ability with people. Sometimes this can be really obvious. Then, on the other side, sometimes it’s not obvious at all. You must take your time on this.

III. Faithfulness in Marriage

The second is probably the most controversial thing there is in the pastorals on leadership. That is this issue of being faithful in marriage. It’s a very difficult phrase to translate. You cannot claim that this is the only legitimate translation of the Greek because Paul uses a phrase that’s not used anywhere else in Greek literature. I mean, nowhere else. Now with the Perseus Project, we can search all Greek literature, ancient up through probably 5th or 6th century AD. Paul’s phrase never occurs. It must be a “one-woman man” or a “one-wife husband,” depending upon what you do with those words.

We have an expression, “I’m a one-woman man,” but that expression doesn’t exist in Greek, so don’t read English into that. But it’s a very difficult phrase to interpret. Some translations will say, “the husband of one wife” or “the husband of but one wife.”

In Greek, when you want to make something more significant, you move it to the front of the sentence, and the one is at the front. It’s a one-woman man, that you’re a husband of one wife. The NIV, and I believe the NLT, has gone to, “he must be faithful to his wife.” I personally think that’s what the phrase means. But it’s a very difficult phrase. At a minimum, it certainly means that an elder has to be faithful to his spouse.

You can get lost in the controversy, but don’t do that. Just ask, at a minimum, what does this mean? The elder must be faithful to his wife. I would argue that’s not only sexual faithfulness. Perhaps he hasn’t had an affair, but I think it also applies to what leads up to having an affair. Lots of things can lead up to having an affair, right? Pornography would be the most obvious one. Also, there is emotional abstinence, withholding yourself from your spouse. Emotional abuse, not just physical or verbal abuse, but emotional abuse, shutting your spouse off or other things. Also, there’s degrading speech and conduct, talking about how stupid she is, or excessive attachment to other women. 

One of the best preachers I’ve ever heard had to step down. He didn’t have an affair, but he was excessively emotionally attached to a woman. That’s what we call having an ‘emotional affair,’ right? But I think all of those all fit into this category, being faithful. If I was emotionally attached to a woman, my wife would say, “You’re having an affair. You’re not being faithful to me, with me.” Intimacy is one-on-one. It’s not one-on-three, or one-on-one-on-one, okay? A lot of things that can lead up to an affair, and I think all of them are categorized by the phrase, “You must be faithful in all things to your wife.”

At a bare minimum, it also excludes polygamy. Wayne Grudem, in his wonderful Systematic Theology, takes this position that it excludes polygamy. But after that, this is really an issue of interpretation and how you want to do it within your context, within your culture.

That’s why I call this an “elder position paper.” We weren’t claiming this is the biblical truth. This is the only truth, so help me God. But this is, to the best of our ability, how we are going to interpret this phrase. I think you need to put it forward that way, because there are good arguments for lots of different positions. Nobody can say, “Well, this is what the Bible says,” because in this case, it’s not. It’s just too ambiguous of an expression. If somebody claims divine knowledge on this point, stay away from them. 

Here’s the position that we took in my church. This allows for an elder in his second marriage when the first ended in death. In Romans 7, death ends the covenant (Romans 7:1-3). You’re free to get remarried.

There are people that will disagree with that, but our position was based on Romans 7, that if the covenant ended in death, the covenant was over, the person was free to remarry. This means he could be defined as faithful to his spouse, either the spouse in his first marriage, or if he gets remarried, his second marriage. 

We also decided that faithful in marriage allowed for an elder who has divorced many years in the past and has since been faithful for many years to be an elder. In other words, are the sins of youth, for example, going to go with you forever? Or if you were unfaithful, like in your 20s, you get remarried, you were faithful for 30 years, can that person be an elder? You’re going to have to decide that for yourself. We decided it was okay. 

Then there are two related ones here. If a man had not been faithful to his wife, even if it didn’t end in a divorce, he’s excluded himself. I think that’s pretty straightforward, okay? If you’re married and you have an affair, even if it doesn’t end in a divorce, you’re not eligible to be a leader in the church. But it’s also true the other way. If a person was unfaithful to his spouse but got divorced, he too is not eligible. In other words, if a man is unfaithful to his spouse, one gets a divorce, the other stays in the marriage because he likes free cooking or whatnot. You can’t treat those two people differently. Unfaithfulness is unfaithfulness regardless of what happens. Those are kind of two sides of the same coin.

We also agreed that a man does not have to be married to be an elder. This is why I covered in detail in the first lesson the nature of the lists. Most people in the ancient world were married—but it doesn’t mean that you have to be married. Just like it means you don’t have to have children, you don’t have to have multiple children in order to be an elder. But if you’re not married, then the same guidelines of sexual purity apply to you as well. If you’re not married and you’re sleeping around with different people or you’re developing deep, intimate relationships with multiple women, I don’t think you’re eligible to be an elder. So, you don’t have to be married, but that doesn’t mean you can do whatever you want. 

One of the other clarifications that we came up with is this: what if the person wasn’t a Christian, had an affair, years later became married, was faithful for many years. Can he be an elder? Well, if you’re young and you’re not a Christian, you have a different set of standards because you’re not breaking any standards that you’re aware of. You’re breaking God’s standards, but you’re not breaking standards you’re aware of. Later you become a Christian and then you’re faithful. Can that person be an elder? You have to make up your mind on that.

Remember, too, that leadership is a privilege, it’s not a right: “I’ve been faithful for 30 years and I have—I have a right to be considered to be an elder.” No, no one has a right to be considered to be an elder. If someone is insisting on their rights, then get them out of the process because that person is insisting he has a right to be a leader. There’s something wrong. Now, you could have someone say, “I’ve watched this, I think I’m qualified, and I really want to be in leadership.” That’s a good thing. It’s a noble thing, right? It is in 1 Timothy 3:1. But a person who’s demanding his rights is not a qualified elder, in my mind. 

Okay, so that’s faithful in marriage. A husband of one wife, a husband of but one wife. I think it was from the older NRSV where it was excluding a second marriage. That’s why the ‘but’ was put in there. 

In the commentary, I go on for pages on this, so you can get the information there if you want. Okay, so that is proven managerial with people and your relationship with your spouse. The third one is your relationship with your children.

A lot of different scenarios here you’re going to have to think through. You have to be very careful at saying, “thus saith the Lord.” This is the position that the elders—the interpretive position that the elders in the church are taking. You have to be willing to explain—in fact, you need to explain it. All these things need to be explained to your church, so they know what’s going on. 

IV. Relationship with Children

So, what about children? According to 1 Timothy 3:4, you treat them “with all dignity, keeping his children submissive.” In Titus 1:6, his children are “not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination.” Then again, this is the managerial ability. Does the prospective elder manage his children well? It doesn’t mean that an elder has to have children, and he doesn’t have to have multiple children. But if you have children, this is how you have to be able to treat them. 

There are actually three different scenarios we came up with for children. One was, okay, what about if your children are at home? How do those requirements affect you when your children are at home? Well, there you can really see if the children are submissive to his authority because they’re there. You can see them. You can see how they behave. You can have them over for dinner, and you can watch how they behave. You can watch how he corrects his children or guides his children. So, if the children are home, it’s actually really pretty easy to do this. 

But I would add something. There are many situations in which a child is in rebellion. People may say that means you can’t be an elder. Well, a person’s managerial ability is sometimes best seen in times of conflict with his kids. Maybe they’re 15 years old, and they’re going through adolescence struggling to do anything that pleases their parents. You know the scenario. Often, when you see how the man cares for the rebellious child it is a good indication of how good a people manager he really is.

We’re not talking about short-term issues. We’re talking about long-term issues here. I often say, life is not a sprint. It’s a marathon. This is only the end of the first quarter. There are three more quarters in this child’s life to go, three more quarters in the prospective elder’s life to go in terms of parenting.

You just can’t judge, necessarily, based on one thing that happens early on. Anyway, you understand what I’m saying. A person’s managerial ability is sometimes best seen in how he loves and cares for a rebellious child.

But I would add, too, that if someone has a rebellious child, why would they want to be in church leadership? I mean, if he really is a good dad, if he really is a good leader, then wouldn’t he want to remove time responsibilities from his plate and say, “I’m going to have more time to be available for my child who’s just really struggling”? Maybe they’ll come home and they’ll say, “Hey, do you want to go to a ball game?” Well, if you’re always off doing church work, you don’t have time to go to a ball game. So, if somebody has a rebellious child and the child’s at home, I don’t think that necessarily excludes them, but I would wonder why you want to be in leadership if your child needs your love, your attention, and your guidance. 

Here’s a second scenario. What about if the children have left home? They’ve gone to college, they’ve flown the coop, and they’re off doing whatever they’re going to do. Just because children leave doesn’t somehow mean that the father is a qualified manager. 

I’m sorry that all these stories are floating in my head, but I know someone whose kids were really troubled. He actually stepped down from being a leader in the church because his kids were troubled. Okay, that’s good. But the minute the last one left home, he thought he was eligible to be an elder again. I asked why. He said, “Well, the kids are out of the home. I don’t even control them any longer.” I answered, “Yeah, but you still weren’t a good manager of your kids. You have three kids that are living rebellion to Christ, and just because they’re out of the home doesn’t mean that somehow you’re a good manager.” So, just because they leave home doesn’t somehow turn you, the parent, into a good manager.

A person’s managerial ability and a lot of other things will be shown in how he manages his distant children. I know of someone who has a child that lives on the other side of the country. He has a good relationship with her. Whenever he can, he gets on a plane to go visit his daughter. Why? He wants to maintain the relationship. He loves his daughter. He wants to be there in case she wants to talk about spiritual things. In that process, you’re saying, “Wow, that’s a really good dad.” That’s a good manager of people, to put it that way. So, look at how they manage their distant children. But if you have someone whose children have left the home and all are living in rebellion to Christ, they’re probably not the right person to be a leader in your church. Among other things, what I wanted to be able to do to my kids is point out someone and say, “Now, that’s what a godly man looks like. That’s what a godly leader looks like.” Look at his kids, too. They’ll tell you that he’s a godly person.

The final thing is this phrase in Titus 1:6. I have to tell you, I was the New Testament chair of the ESV, and I argued for a reading. I’m on the NIV committee now. I argued for the same reading, and then I changed my mind. Then I wrote the commentary, and then I changed my mind again. Okay, so you’ll understand that’s how difficult this phrase is. In Titus 1:6, it says that the eldest children are to be ‘faithful.’ The Greek word can either mean ‘faithful’ in the sense they have faith; in other words, they are Christians. ‘Faithful’ can also refer to a faithful kind of character. They’re good kids. So, do the eldest children have to be Christians, or do they have to have high character? This is the text. You can argue both ways back and forth very easily. You just—you cannot say, “thus saith the Lord.” But you need to take a position on this.

Tell your church why. If you look at Bibles, you’ll see that some of them have footnotes. The ESV, CSB, NIV, and Net Bible all have footnotes at this point. They choose a translation in the text, and they put another translation in a footnote. By the way, translators, except for the Net Bible translators who love footnotes, don’t like footnotes. As a general rule, they want to argue and debate and come to their best understanding of what the passage means. That’s when they put in the translation, and they don’t like to add footnotes. So, when you see a footnote in any of the standard translations, understand this was a very controversial topic. It was a difficult decision, and the translators with integrity want you to understand that there’s another position. When you see footnotes, that’s pretty important. 

Do the children have to be a faithful character, or do they have to be believers? Now, we understand that parents have no absolute control over their children’s salvation, right? But they have tremendous influence, don’t they? I mean, the vast majority of people who are Christians were raised in a Christian home. Why? That’s the influence of godly parents on their children. So, if you want to say—some people say—you can’t require them to be Christians because the parent doesn’t have control over that. But they have a lot of control over that. They don’t have ultimate control, but they have a lot of control. Just understand the balance. 

Our decision was if the majority of the man’s children are not believers while they’re living at home, he should not be a leader. I would say, “Why would he want to be a leader?” I have three children. If Tyler, Kirsten, and Hayden were all home and none of them were following Christ, I would be shedding every responsibility I possibly could to have time for my kids. We went skiing all the time, snow skiing and water skiing. We went hiking, we went on trips, and I have three great kids. But if they had not decided to follow Christ, I would have done more skiing, more trips. I would have done everything I could to influence them to live within a covenantal relationship with Jesus Christ. If the children are not Christians, I don’t know why you’d want to be a leader in the church. I really don’t. I would want to be home building relationships with my children.

The one little caveat in there is that there are elders who became Christians after their children left home. They left not as Christians because their parents weren’t Christians, so they had no influence. Once they leave home, can that person be an elder? You’re going to have to decide that for yourself.

V. Reflection Questions

Like I said, this is some real controversial stuff in these qualities, but they give some good reflection questions. What are your standards on divorce and remarriage? This is not about tradition, it’s about what the Bible says. How does that impact your understanding of leadership in the church? How will that affect who a leader is in the church relative to your general view of divorce and remarriage? 

I relate about a somewhat separate thing. Are you, the parent and the church, protecting the pastor’s children, the elder’s children? Being a “PK” is really hard. Churches are notoriously cruel to preacher’s kids. They expect them to have all the answers. They expect them to never deviate from perfect behavior. I remember my son came to me once and said, “Dad, it’s just too hard. Their expectations of me are too great. Do you mind if I go to a youth group at another church?” I was delighted he wanted to go to a youth group. I said, “Yes, go get out of here. It’s perfectly okay.”

The expectations placed on pastor’s kids, both from the church and from the pastor, can be excruciating. Robin and I decided to buy a cabin an hour and a half out of town. We needed a place where we could get away, but where our kids could get away as well. That’s where we now live. We moved up here full time. But understand there’s tremendous pressure on the kids.

Be really careful judging the parents based on one or two things that happen relative to their kids. All right. Have fun reflecting on this one.