# Husband of one wife...



## KMK (Mar 23, 2007)

This may have been debated before but my search was inconclusive.

What is the meaning of 'husband of one wife' in 1 Tim 3 and Tit 1?

a) Must be married.
b) Must be married only once in a lifetime.
c) Simply a prohibition against polygamy.
d) Simply a commendation of sexual purity.
e) All of the above
f) None of the above

(I am preaching on this this Lord's Day)

What say ye?


----------



## Chris (Mar 23, 2007)

KMK said:


> This may have been debated before but my search was inconclusive.
> 
> What is the meaning of 'husband of one wife' in 1 Tim 3 and Tit 1?
> 
> ...



There is room in this passage to discount b) in the event of a divorce that the pastor/bishop/deacon couldn't avoid - though in honesty, there are few truly 'one party not at fault' divorces....

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.


----------



## SRoper (Mar 23, 2007)

"C" and "d." "A" contradicts 1 Cor. 7.


----------



## KMK (Mar 23, 2007)

Chris said:


> There is room in this passage to discount b) in the event of a divorce that the pastor/bishop/deacon couldn't avoid - though in honesty, there are few truly 'one party not at fault' divorces....
> 
> As a single man who would love to be a pastor, let me offer a few thoughts:
> 
> ...



I am blown away by your honesty and your humility! I do not even feel worthy to be on the same message board, brother!

I do not want to turn you from your convictions but have you considered the argument in the post above?

I agree with you that all things being equal I would rather have a marreid man with children as an elder of my church but do you think there are exceptions? (Once again I am not arguing with you)

Also, would you mind if I shared your testimony with my church?


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Mar 23, 2007)

c and d.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 23, 2007)

F) None of the above. (If we are speaking of the passages refering to the role of elders and ministers)

If married...not polygamous or divorced & remarried. Marriage after widowed acceptable as there is only one living spouse.


----------



## KMK (Mar 24, 2007)

joshua said:


> An article on this particular subject from Dr. McMahon (with which I agree)



Good article by our exteemed brother!


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Mar 24, 2007)

joshua said:


> An article on this particular subject from Dr. McMahon (with which I agree)



A most excellent and scriptural study. I concur with brother Matt's opinion.
Thanks for the post.


----------



## non dignus (Mar 24, 2007)

Paul wasn't married. Would he qualify as an elder?


----------



## KMK (Mar 24, 2007)

non dignus said:


> Paul wasn't married. Would he qualify as an elder?



Neither was Jesus!


----------



## Chris (Mar 24, 2007)

KMK said:


> I am blown away by your honesty and your humility! I do not even feel worthy to be on the same message board, brother!



I appreciate the support. Don't let one post decieve you, though. Just think of me as someone who realizes that the current state of his denomination isn't going to be helped by having yet another unqualified pastor, and is therefore erring on the side of caution. 



> I do not want to turn you from your convictions but have you considered the argument in the post above?



I've considered it at length. My understanding of 1 Corinthians 7 is based on:

1) the church had issues; the existing families needed to be sorted out before anyone thought about starting new ones. No use building on bad foundations. 
2) Paul (possibly) expected division and/or persecution in their near future, so didn't want those issues compounded by a bunch of newlyweds (see verses 26 and 29). 
3) I suppose an unmarried pastor might do a great job of pastoring a church full of celibate people - but how many churches full of celibates are there? Paul spoke of all men being celibate. He didn't address (here, anyway) the issue of how to best lead a group of people who were 95% married. I'm convinced that there are people God will call to celibacy for His glory. Praise God for that! It's a high calling. But I don't think they'll generally be called to pastor a local church - despite its misuse by modern evangelicals, it's good to be able to relate to people. More on being relational later. (Let me emphasize that I speak in generalities here. I'm not dogmatic about this). Remember, Paul was a traveling missionary with a brutal mission. Pastors generally are called to a different (more domestic) sort of work. 



> I agree with you that all things being equal I would rather have a marreid man with children as an elder of my church but do you think there are exceptions? (Once again I am not arguing with you)



Absolutely. Scripture does give us a bit of latitude here, and I don't see it as something to be divisive about. 



> Also, would you mind if I shared your testimony with my church?



I'd count it an honor. 


More on being relational: 

If a couple comes to a pastor with a marriage issue (sex, children, discipline, conflict between spouses, etcetera, ad nauseum) it's one thing to be able to say 'here's what Scripture says'. It's another thing entirely to say 'here's what my family believes _and practices _based on Scripture'. You've probably heard the adage that it's easy for people without kids to give advice to those with kids, because those without have never dealt with the realities of having children. In other words, they have no experience to fine-tune or even validate their advice. So a single person has limitations in counseling a married couple. They also have limitations in counseling other single people - especially women. Of course, in a perfect world, there would be elders in the church able to fill in and assist the (single) pastor in those situations, but the reality is that there are congregations where there are no qualified elders or counselors. 

I guess being able to demonstrate your own family as an example of can be likened to the book of James, where James spoke of how true faith would have works. It's easy to _tell_ someone what I believe. It has much more weight if I can _show_ them what I believe. 

Something I'm beginning to see from the last few months' experience reminds me of the church in Acts (I'm involved in a new church plant):

We start out wanting to spread the Gospel. Along the way, you pick up some people that become sources, some that become sinks (for enegry and effort). As the church grows and more needs arise within the congregation, more domestic ministry has to be done, and married folks are quite simply better qualified at this. I'll be honest: As a single guy, I can go do door-knocking without issue. I can preach. I can teach. I can go do missions work. But there are lots of everyday church functions I have a hard time getting involved in - and while a pastor should be able to delegate those tasks to others, he should at least be able to _act as if those tasks are important._ I haven't developed that ability yet - and it seems that this ability is tied to the early years of marriage. If nothing else, continuing to be single (I'm almost 32...) is making me worse about that - I get tunnel vision. I worry about 2 or 3 core tasks and treat other things as if they don't exist. A pastor doesn't have that freedom, and he should learn to deal with that in his family, and not at the expense of the church (I suppose that point could be argued....). 

Anyway, that's my opinion. I could be wrong. I'd have no problem supporting a single pastor or elder - I just recognize that it's not the norm, and it has inherent issues that will rear their heads from time to time.


----------



## SRoper (Mar 24, 2007)

Chris said:


> 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 strongly disagree with this. We are sanctified by the means of grace. The ordinary means of grace are the preaching of the Word, the administration of the sacraments, and prayer. We deny the Romish error that marriage is a sacrament. The idea that one cannot be fully sanctified because he remains unmarried is nonsense. That's not to say that marriage can't be a way we are sanctified; it's just not one of the means God has promised.



> If a couple comes to a pastor with a marriage issue (sex, children, discipline, conflict between spouses, etcetera, ad nauseum) it's one thing to be able to say 'here's what Scripture says'. It's another thing entirely to say 'here's what my family believes and practices based on Scripture'.



We need to affirm sufficiency of scripture. If you practice chastity in singleness you are living according to your calling.


----------



## KMK (Mar 24, 2007)

Chris said:


> I've considered it at length. My understanding of 1 Corinthians 7 is based on:
> 
> 1) the church had issues; the existing families needed to be sorted out before anyone thought about starting new ones. No use building on bad foundations.
> 2) Paul (possibly) expected division and/or persecution in their near future, so didn't want those issues compounded by a bunch of newlyweds (see verses 26 and 29).
> 3) I suppose an unmarried pastor might do a great job of pastoring a church full of celibate people - but how many churches full of celibates are there? Paul spoke of all men being celibate. He didn't address (here, anyway) the issue of how to best lead a group of people who were 95% married. I'm convinced that there are people God will call to celibacy for His glory. Praise God for that! It's a high calling. But I don't think they'll generally be called to pastor a local church - despite its misuse by modern evangelicals, it's good to be able to relate to people. More on being relational later. (Let me emphasize that I speak in generalities here. I'm not dogmatic about this). Remember, Paul was a traveling missionary with a brutal mission. Pastors generally are called to a different (more domestic) sort of work.



I have always thought 1 Cor 7 was a poor argument against the obvious statements that elders should be married. 1 Cor 7 says nothing about eldership. It is not the same context.





Chris said:


> I don't see it as something to be divisive about.



 However it would be worth dividing over the issue of an unmarried *female* pastor.



Chris said:


> More on being relational:
> 
> If a couple comes to a pastor with a marriage issue (sex, children, discipline, conflict between spouses, etcetera, ad nauseum) it's one thing to be able to say 'here's what Scripture says'. It's another thing entirely to say 'here's what my family believes _and practices _based on Scripture'. You've probably heard the adage that it's easy for people without kids to give advice to those with kids, because those without have never dealt with the realities of having children. In other words, they have no experience to fine-tune or even validate their advice. So a single person has limitations in counseling a married couple. They also have limitations in counseling other single people - especially women. Of course, in a perfect world, there would be elders in the church able to fill in and assist the (single) pastor in those situations, but the reality is that there are congregations where there are no qualified elders or counselors.
> 
> ...



I agree with you. Paul teaches us that the elder must be able to rule his own family well because he is going to be charged with ruling a precious church of God well.

I suppose there are other ways a single man might prove that he has expertice in managing a household, but it would normally be done by examining a family.

I think we would all agree that we would be suspicious of a church where the majority the elders were single, unless the church itself was mainly singles.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Apr 3, 2007)

I am shooting from the hip here, but . . . this seems like it's all in view of a "One man show". Some of the concerns can be answered in that Scripture presents a plurality of leadership in the local church -- several elders. Plurality of leadership means plurality of gifts/experiences. Who's to say one of the other Elders (or someone else in the body) would not be better suited to counsel a particular situation than a Teaching Elder.


----------

