# Qualifications for Overseers



## Blue Tick

I have a question regarding overseers. 

1 Timothy 3:4 reads.



> 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?



My questions is: If a married man does not have children would this disqualify him from the office?

I would say no. This does not disqualify him from the office as long as his duties as a husband are in order and the other qualifications are met. My understanding of the text is this: If he does have children they should be submissive and orderly. However, it doesn't seem that its a prerequisite for a overseer to have children.

What think ye?


----------



## HaigLaw

Years ago, when I was a RE in the Colleyville, TX, PCA church, we had a Godly deacon who came under conviction that "husband of one wife" meant he had to be married, and was a lifelong bachelor, and nothing we could say dissuaded him. He resigned from the deaconate, and as I recall, he was one of our best ones. A year or so later, he died of a brain tumor. Bless his memory. 

Since Paul had legal training, I don't know why he didn't say, "He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children, if any, submissive."

But years ago, I realized that the Holy Spirit has done a lot of things without checking with me on them.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

No. The qualification relates to how well he manages those that are in his household. It's inclusive of the most important things one would want to evaluate if a man had them in his household. I've seen others that read the qualities that a man's wife should exhibit as evidence that only married men can be Elders. This is a surface reading of the text. The text does not require that a man be married and have children, the qualifications relate to how well he manages it when he is married and has children.


----------



## Ivan

joshua said:


> Blue Tick said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a married man does not have children would this disqualify him from the office?
> 
> 
> 
> No.
Click to expand...


Agreed.


----------



## fredtgreco

Blue Tick said:


> I have a question regarding overseers.
> 
> 1 Timothy 3:4 reads.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> 
> 
> My questions is: If a married man does not have children would this disqualify him from the office?
> 
> I would say no. This does not disqualify him from the office as long as his duties as a husband are in order and the other qualifications are met. My understanding of the text is this: If he does have children they should be submissive and orderly. However, it doesn't seem that its a prerequisite for a overseer to have children.
> 
> What think ye?
Click to expand...


Think about that for a minute. If a marriage and children were necessary, then Paul could not be an elder.

Neither could Christ.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

fredtgreco said:


> Blue Tick said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question regarding overseers.
> 
> 1 Timothy 3:4 reads.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> 
> 
> My questions is: If a married man does not have children would this disqualify him from the office?
> 
> I would say no. This does not disqualify him from the office as long as his duties as a husband are in order and the other qualifications are met. My understanding of the text is this: If he does have children they should be submissive and orderly. However, it doesn't seem that its a prerequisite for a overseer to have children.
> 
> What think ye?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think about that for a minute. If a marriage and children were necessary, then Paul could not be an elder.
> 
> Neither could Christ.
Click to expand...


Think?

Fred, Fred,

You should be asking how I _feel_ about it.


----------



## Blue Tick

> Think about that for a minute. If a marriage and children were necessary, then Paul could not be an elder.
> 
> Neither could Christ.



 Well said.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Semper Fidelis said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blue Tick said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question regarding overseers.
> 
> 1 Timothy 3:4 reads.
> 
> My questions is: If a married man does not have children would this disqualify him from the office?
> 
> I would say no. This does not disqualify him from the office as long as his duties as a husband are in order and the other qualifications are met. My understanding of the text is this: If he does have children they should be submissive and orderly. However, it doesn't seem that its a prerequisite for a overseer to have children.
> 
> What think ye?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think about that for a minute. If a marriage and children were necessary, then Paul could not be an elder.
> 
> Neither could Christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think?
> 
> Fred, Fred,
> 
> You should be asking how I _feel_ about it.
Click to expand...


----------



## fredtgreco

Semper Fidelis said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blue Tick said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question regarding overseers.
> 
> 1 Timothy 3:4 reads.
> 
> My questions is: If a married man does not have children would this disqualify him from the office?
> 
> I would say no. This does not disqualify him from the office as long as his duties as a husband are in order and the other qualifications are met. My understanding of the text is this: If he does have children they should be submissive and orderly. However, it doesn't seem that its a prerequisite for a overseer to have children.
> 
> What think ye?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think about that for a minute. If a marriage and children were necessary, then Paul could not be an elder.
> 
> Neither could Christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think?
> 
> Fred, Fred,
> 
> You should be asking how I _feel_ about it.
Click to expand...


Quick, Quick! *EMOTE!!*


----------



## Pilgrim

fredtgreco said:


> Blue Tick said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question regarding overseers.
> 
> 1 Timothy 3:4 reads.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> 
> 
> My questions is: If a married man does not have children would this disqualify him from the office?
> 
> I would say no. This does not disqualify him from the office as long as his duties as a husband are in order and the other qualifications are met. My understanding of the text is this: If he does have children they should be submissive and orderly. However, it doesn't seem that its a prerequisite for a overseer to have children.
> 
> What think ye?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think about that for a minute. If a marriage and children were necessary, then Paul could not be an elder.
> 
> Neither could Christ.
Click to expand...


This seems simple enough to us but unfortunately there are many who cannot or will not accept it and insist that a man must be married. More commonly you hear the more pragmatic refrain "well how can he relate if he's single and/or doesn't have children."


----------



## tcalbrecht

Pilgrim said:


> This seems simple enough to us but unfortunately there are many who cannot or will not accept it and insist that a man must be married. More commonly you hear the more pragmatic refrain "well how can he relate if he's single and/or doesn't have children."



I've heard that same argument used many times against the Roman priesthood.

Was Paul an elder, or was elder an automatic subclass of apostle?


----------



## Pilgrim

tcalbrecht said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> This seems simple enough to us but unfortunately there are many who cannot or will not accept it and insist that a man must be married. More commonly you hear the more pragmatic refrain "well how can he relate if he's single and/or doesn't have children."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard that same argument used many times against the Roman priesthood.
> 
> Was Paul an elder, or was elder an automatic subclass of apostle?
Click to expand...


I haven't seen it argued recently but I think the usual argument asserts that Jesus and Paul were not ordinary church officers. But in one of his epistles If I recall correctly Peter (who was married) refers to himself as an elder.


----------



## KMK

> Tit 1:6,7 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God...



An elder must demonstrate that he is above reproach as the steward (house manager) of God. *Ordinarily*, that would be demonstrated by the stewardship of his wife and children. However, if blamelessness in stewardship could be demonstrated some other way, then that might be acceptable. 

I think disqualification based on the lack of children is going to far. That being said, I believe that *ordinarily* God prepares elders through the stewardship of their wife and children.


----------



## tcalbrecht

KMK said:


> Tit 1:6,7 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An elder must demonstrate that he is above reproach as the steward (house manager) of God. *Ordinarily*, that would be demonstrated by the stewardship of his wife and children. However, if blamelessness in stewardship could be demonstrated some other way, then that might be acceptable.
> 
> I think disqualification based on the lack of children is going to far. That being said, I believe that *ordinarily* God prepares elders through the stewardship of their wife and children.
Click to expand...


Suppose you are sitting on a candidates and credentials committee. What other comparable "stewardship" would be appropriate to demonstrate ability in this area? Remember, the key in Paul’s requirements is concrete demonstration of the ability to evoke godly submission. Household submission is important and unique and parallels to a degree the submission found in the church.


----------



## lwadkins

Semper Fidelis said:


> Think?
> 
> Fred, Fred,
> 
> You should be asking how I _feel_ about it.




 if i had a penny......


----------



## fredtgreco

tcalbrecht said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tit 1:6,7 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God...
> 
> 
> 
> An elder must demonstrate that he is above reproach as the steward (house manager) of God. *Ordinarily*, that would be demonstrated by the stewardship of his wife and children. However, if blamelessness in stewardship could be demonstrated some other way, then that might be acceptable.
> 
> I think disqualification based on the lack of children is going to far. That being said, I believe that *ordinarily* God prepares elders through the stewardship of their wife and children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Suppose you are sitting on a candidates and credentials committee. What other comparable "stewardship" would be appropriate to demonstrate ability in this area? Remember, the key in Paul’s requirements is concrete demonstration of the ability to evoke godly submission. Household submission is important and unique and parallels to a degree the submission found in the church.
Click to expand...


The same kind of godly submission that our Lord evoked in others.


----------



## KMK

tcalbrecht said:


> Suppose you are sitting on a candidates and credentials committee. What other comparable "stewardship" would be appropriate to demonstrate ability in this area? Remember, the key in Paul’s requirements is concrete demonstration of the ability to evoke godly submission. Household submission is important and unique and parallels to a degree the submission found in the church.



After I posted I began asking myself the same question. Do you know any godly elders who do not have families and how did they demonstrate blameless stewardship?



fredtgreco said:


> The same kind of godly submission that our Lord evoked in others.



Can you give some concrete examples? Perhpas a business owner or a teacher?


----------



## raekwon

We talked about this question (a little bit) in this thread.


----------



## fredtgreco

KMK said:


> tcalbrecht said:
> 
> 
> 
> Suppose you are sitting on a candidates and credentials committee. What other comparable "stewardship" would be appropriate to demonstrate ability in this area? Remember, the key in Paul’s requirements is concrete demonstration of the ability to evoke godly submission. Household submission is important and unique and parallels to a degree the submission found in the church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After I posted I began asking myself the same question. Do you know any godly elders who do not have families and how did they demonstrate blameless stewardship?
> 
> 
> 
> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same kind of godly submission that our Lord evoked in others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you give some concrete examples? Perhpas a business owner or a teacher?
Click to expand...


I would start with ministry in the church. One can lead and minister in a lesser role than an officer. In fact, that is probably the best way to judge a man's fitness for ministry - by giving him opportunities and watching him minister. You can also see it in his workplace. You can also see it in his family context, even unmarried men have family.

I don't understand how we can make marriage a _sine qua non_, when our Lord was not married, Paul was not married, and Paul (by inspiration of the Spirit) commends singleness _explicitly for the sake of devotion to ministry._


----------



## Wannabee

Was John married? He refers to himself as an elder in his second and third epistles. Not that it matters, since the text has already been adequately dealt with here. But it is another example.


----------



## KMK

fredtgreco said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tcalbrecht said:
> 
> 
> 
> Suppose you are sitting on a candidates and credentials committee. What other comparable "stewardship" would be appropriate to demonstrate ability in this area? Remember, the key in Paul’s requirements is concrete demonstration of the ability to evoke godly submission. Household submission is important and unique and parallels to a degree the submission found in the church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After I posted I began asking myself the same question. Do you know any godly elders who do not have families and how did they demonstrate blameless stewardship?
> 
> 
> 
> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same kind of godly submission that our Lord evoked in others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you give some concrete examples? Perhpas a business owner or a teacher?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would start with ministry in the church. One can lead and minister in a lesser role than an officer. *In fact, that is probably the best way to judge a man's fitness for ministry* - by giving him opportunities and watching him minister. You can also see it in his workplace. You can also see it in his family context, even unmarried men have family.
Click to expand...


I don't know if I agree with this. The best way to judge a man's fitness for ministry is definitely the family. That is why Paul singles it out.



fredtgreco said:


> I don't understand how we can make marriage a _sine qua non_, when our Lord was not married, Paul was not married, and Paul (by inspiration of the Spirit) commends singleness _explicitly for the sake of devotion to ministry._



I didn't say marraige and children was an absolute condition for eldership. I do think it is the _ordinary_ condition. Paul singles it out. Paul could have mentioned ministry within the church, or the workplace, or the extended family but didn't.


----------



## fredtgreco

KMK said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> After I posted I began asking myself the same question. Do you know any godly elders who do not have families and how did they demonstrate blameless stewardship?
> 
> 
> 
> Can you give some concrete examples? Perhpas a business owner or a teacher?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would start with ministry in the church. One can lead and minister in a lesser role than an officer. *In fact, that is probably the best way to judge a man's fitness for ministry* - by giving him opportunities and watching him minister. You can also see it in his workplace. You can also see it in his family context, even unmarried men have family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know if I agree with this. The best way to judge a man's fitness for ministry is definitely the family. That is why Paul singles it out.
> 
> 
> 
> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand how we can make marriage a _sine qua non_, when our Lord was not married, Paul was not married, and Paul (by inspiration of the Spirit) commends singleness _explicitly for the sake of devotion to ministry._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say marraige and children was an absolute condition for eldership. I do think it is the _ordinary_ condition. Paul singles it out. Paul could have mentioned ministry within the church, or the workplace, or the extended family but didn't.
Click to expand...


You mean the same Paul that said this?



> 1 Corinthians 7:7-8 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. 8 ¶ To the unmarried and the widows I say that *it is good for them to remain single as I am*



Doesn't sound like Paul viewed singleness as a barrier to ministry, but a benefit.


----------



## KMK

fredtgreco said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would start with ministry in the church. One can lead and minister in a lesser role than an officer. *In fact, that is probably the best way to judge a man's fitness for ministry* - by giving him opportunities and watching him minister. You can also see it in his workplace. You can also see it in his family context, even unmarried men have family.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if I agree with this. The best way to judge a man's fitness for ministry is definitely the family. That is why Paul singles it out.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say marraige and children was an absolute condition for eldership. I do think it is the _ordinary_ condition. Paul singles it out. Paul could have mentioned ministry within the church, or the workplace, or the extended family but didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean the same Paul that said this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1 Corinthians 7:7-8 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. 8 ¶ To the unmarried and the widows I say that *it is good for them to remain single as I am*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't sound like Paul viewed singleness as a barrier to ministry, but a benefit.
Click to expand...


I said I don't think it is a sine qua non. I agree that it shouldn't be a barrier. But when Paul was laying out the qualifications for eldership he did say, "If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly, or like me have the gift of singleness..." I mean, how many men do you know who have the gift of singleness?


----------



## tcalbrecht

fredtgreco said:


> You mean the same Paul that said this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1 Corinthians 7:7-8 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. 8 ¶ To the unmarried and the widows I say that *it is good for them to remain single as I am*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't sound like Paul viewed singleness as a barrier to ministry, but a benefit.
Click to expand...


I must admit at times difficulty in understanding the intent of Paul's language in 1 Cor. 7. E.g.,



> Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
> 
> I suppose therefore that this is good because of the present distress--that it is good for a man to remain as he is: Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed. Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife.
> 
> But this I say, brethren, the time is short, so that from now on even those who have wives should be as though they had none,



Is Paul really teaching here that all those who wish to marry are just weak in the flesh? Are we to believe that he is putting some pseudo-gnostic spin on the human desires?

Paul seems to have some immediate event in mind that would make it better for the unmarried to remain unmarried, etc. How else can we understand that within the rest of the teaching of the Bible on the benefits and blessing of marriage and family? So I take these verses to be extraordinary, not ordinary. 

In the immediate context he says:



> Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called.
> 
> Brethren, let each one remain with God in that state in which he was called.



Is a slave really duty bound to never try and obtain their freedom? 

Also, I don’t believe there is anything explicit in this passage that identifies ordained gospel ministry with singleness (since he was speaking to both men and women indiscriminately). All Paul says in this regard is, "And this I say for your own profit, not that I may put a leash on you, but for what is proper, and that you may serve the Lord without distraction." 

So I don’t think 1 Cor. 7 trumps the criteria of faithful household management in 1 Tim 3.


----------



## tcalbrecht

fredtgreco said:


> I would start with ministry in the church. One can lead and minister in a lesser role than an officer. In fact, that is probably the best way to judge a man's fitness for ministry - by giving him opportunities and watching him minister. You can also see it in his workplace. You can also see it in his family context, even unmarried men have family.



Fred,

I think you are missing Paul’s point and end up begging the question. 

There is no other position in the Church that engenders the sort of authority and submission required for the office of elder besides the office of elder. That is why Paul needs to look elsewhere for confirmation on a man’s qualification. The only other divine institution that comes close is the family. (Beside the fact that most modern ecclesiastical structure is not so much biblical as traditional in nature.)

And I know of very few men in the workplace where a congregation can have intimate knowledge of their abilities and results. Men do not live their work in the congregation. Unlike the family, we do not see the product of their vocation on a regular basis.



fredtgreco said:


> I don't understand how we can make marriage a _sine qua non_, when our Lord was not married, Paul was not married, and Paul (by inspiration of the Spirit) commends singleness _explicitly for the sake of devotion to ministry._



Jesus being unmarried is a non-sequitur, expect for the Roman Catholics. There are many things which Jesus did in His ministry that are neither barriers nor requirements for the ordinary ministry of the Church. 

True, Paul was not married, but Paul was never identified as the overseer in a local congregation selected by the congregation based on his spiritual temperament. I’m not sure how well we can transpose these extraordinary offices and conditions into the ordinary life of the Church.

Regarding the last statement, see my other comments on 1 Cor. 7.


----------



## wsw201

tcalbrecht said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> This seems simple enough to us but unfortunately there are many who cannot or will not accept it and insist that a man must be married. More commonly you hear the more pragmatic refrain "well how can he relate if he's single and/or doesn't have children."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard that same argument used many times against the Roman priesthood.
> 
> Was Paul an elder, or was elder an automatic subclass of apostle?
Click to expand...


Peter was also an Apostle but identified himself as an Elder in 1 Peter 5:1. Therefore, its safe to say that Paul also was considered an Elder. 

Though the Apostles were not voted on by any particular congregation, they were overseers of entire Presbyteries as well as the particular churches that they started and had the authority to direct their actions.



> This seems simple enough to us but unfortunately there are many who cannot or will not accept it and insist that a man must be married. More commonly you hear the more pragmatic refrain "well how can he relate if he's single and/or doesn't have children."



I think this goes to one of the problems with todays churches. We want our pastors to not only be married and have kids but have some "life experience" so they can relate to their congregation. This is nice but is it necessary? Does Scripture demand this?

Are we now asking our pastors to not only be able to handle the Word and Sacraments but fit a certain mold so they can relate and be better therapists? Can someone only counsel someone on marriage issues if they are married? Do pastors have to walk a mile in my shoes before I have to listen to what they say?


----------



## KMK

wsw201 said:


> This seems simple enough to us but unfortunately there are many who cannot or will not accept it and insist that a man must be married. More commonly you hear the more pragmatic refrain "well how can he relate if he's single and/or doesn't have children."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think this goes to one of the problems with todays churches. We want our pastors to not only be married and have kids but have some "life experience" so they can relate to their congregation. This is nice but is it necessary? Does Scripture demand this?
> 
> Are we now asking our pastors to not only be able to handle the Word and Sacraments but fit a certain mold so they can relate and be better therapists? Can someone only counsel someone on marriage issues if they are married? Do pastors have to walk a mile in my shoes before I have to listen to what they say?
Click to expand...


This may be true for some, but don't include everyone who desires to adhere to Biblical standards for eldership in that broad generalization.


----------



## Amazing Grace

wsw201 said:


> I think this goes to one of the problems with todays churches. We want our pastors to not only be married and have kids but have some "life experience" so they can relate to their congregation. This is nice but is it necessary? Does Scripture demand this?



I would actually prefer my pastor not to be married. His wife has some self elevated open door policy that allows her to be able to come and go as she wishes. I have been in his office with door locked for serious questions and dialogue and she has a key and walked right in!!! The 'family' is just another dimension that takes too much time for anyones life fully devoted to a congregation. For instance, we cant bother the pastor on such and such a day or certain hours of the day becasue "it's family time"!!!!! Plus the confidentiality is hard to be certain of becasue of 'pillow talk"... Then throw in kids, well now there is soccer, baseball, piano lessons, art classes which disrupt the flow of the body of the congregation. I am sure there are examples of pastors wives who, as "the Rock" would say, "Know their role", but I have been hard-pressed to find such a creature.


----------



## KMK

For what its worth, Chris Latch wrote the following on this thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/f17/husband-one-wife-20134/



> As a single man who would love to be a pastor, let me offer a few thoughts:
> 
> 1) If I have no wife nor children a congregation can observe, how can they know I can rule a house? The only way for me to show my fitness for the job is not merely by demonstrating a knowledge of scripture, but by demonstrating a Christ-like character, and I cannot fully do that outside of a family. I have people tell me constantly that I ought to be a pastor. I've been offered a job as a pastor. I love to preach. But without a family, there is no basis to assume I'm fit for the job. 1 Timothy 3:10 - let these also first be proved. In other words, don't hire a novice. Let him prove himself in his own home first.
> 
> 2) Dating a preacher? I'm not really a huge fan of modern dating, to be sure, but even more traditional courtship can cause issues for a preacher (I would assume). Imagine having little old ladies in church constantly trying to 'fix you up', putting you in a succession of awkward situations (imagine telling a dear old saint that her granddaughter is really quite pagan and unfit to be a wife, possibly even unregenerate... ).
> 
> 3) A couple of years ago, before I had developed a proper perspective of dating, I had met and really, really been smitten by a young lady. When she told me she wasn't interested in seeing me, I took it rather hard - and the next mo0rning, the music director of our church called me to ask if I'd fill the pulpit for mid-week service. I had to decline. My focus was gone. I'm sure married pastors deal with this regularly, but to be honest, I didn't enjoy the prospect of preparing a message while downtrodden over things not working out with this young lady.
> 
> 4) How can I fully articulate Christ's love for the church if I don't understand what it means as a husband to love a wife? If marriage is meant for us as a picture or type of our relationship with Christ, I'm hindered in ability to convey the beauty of this relationship, not having any practical experience in it.
> 
> 5) Consider Adam: He witnessed creation, he named the animals, he was on hand for some of the greatest works of history, but he never once spoke anything worth writing down until he was given a wife - at which point he spoke boldly! Theretofore Adam had been speechless, but in Genesis 2:23-24, Adam now boldly proclaims righteousness to all of creation. For the first time ever, Adam had a real live flesh-and-blood helpmeet to support him, even to validate him. Eve completed Adam, in a sense.
> 
> 
> 6) An extension of point 5 - a single, never-married preacher will rarely if ever be taken seriously to the same extent as a married man. Having a family, in one sense, validates a ministry, validates a message. People can look at a married man and say 'well, at least his wife beleives in him - let's give him a shot.'. An unmarried man doesn't get that.
> 
> 
> Al Mohler described marriage as the 'crucible of saint-making' in a sermon he did a few years ago lamenting the unwillingness of many twentysomethings to 'grow up'. I think he's right. As a single person, there is NO way I'll ever be sanctified in certain areas. I'm self-employed, money isn't an issue, I don't have a wife and kids to worry about, I'm not forced to put up 24/7 with someone who I love yet drives me batty with their quirks......a pastor NEEDS those things to help conform him, through trials, to the image of Christ. Titus 1:7-8 speaks of these things that are (I hope) products of a Godly marriage.
> 
> Anyway, that's my $0.02 on the issue.
> 
> <---single, waiting as-patiently-as-I-know-how for God to deliver a wife.


----------



## wsw201

KMK said:


> wsw201 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This seems simple enough to us but unfortunately there are many who cannot or will not accept it and insist that a man must be married. More commonly you hear the more pragmatic refrain "well how can he relate if he's single and/or doesn't have children."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think this goes to one of the problems with todays churches. We want our pastors to not only be married and have kids but have some "life experience" so they can relate to their congregation. This is nice but is it necessary? Does Scripture demand this?
> 
> Are we now asking our pastors to not only be able to handle the Word and Sacraments but fit a certain mold so they can relate and be better therapists? Can someone only counsel someone on marriage issues if they are married? Do pastors have to walk a mile in my shoes before I have to listen to what they say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This may be true for some, but don't include everyone who desires to adhere to Biblical standards for eldership in that broad generalization.
Click to expand...



As you noted the above statement was a broad generalization. There are always exceptions and I'm glad to hear that your church is one of them.


----------



## KMK

joshua said:


> [KJV]1 Timothy 3:2-5[/KJV] (My emphasis added)2Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of *but one wife*, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. 5(If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?)​From what I can tell, the intent of the language here is being directed that _if_ an overseer has a wife, it is limited to one woman (no polygamy); not that he _has _to have a wife. What if a man _is _married, but is unable to have children (v. 4), does that disqualify him?
> 
> Maybe this is the opposite extreme of Romanism's celibate priesthood, except we _require_ that a man be married before he is fit for ministry? That noted, I am just a peon and wouldn't presume to know this dogmatically.



From the KJV: 



> 1 Tim 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife



Which version are you quoting and I wonder why they insert a 'but' in there?


----------

