Parakaleo
Puritan Board Sophomore
After reflection, prayer, writing an exegetical paper, further conversation with others (including with those in my presbytery), I would like to revisit the matter of family qualifications for ordained office in the church and issue a retraction of sorts. To be honest, I am hoping brethren here will meet me "half way". What do I mean by this?
In the first post, I was pretty adamant in my stance that the word of God absolutely forbids a man who lacks first-hand experience as competent husband and father/guardian from being considered for ordained office in the church. There was sharp criticism against this stance. Maybe I have been overly wooden. I am open to that possibility.
Brethren, what if I dialed back the intensity and said my stance is that no man should be considered for ordained office in the church without having first-hand experience as a competent husband and father/guardian unless there are notable and compelling reasons for an exception? This is more than stating it is "statistically normative" for officers in the church to be competent husbands and fathers, but saying there is onus upon men to show why an exception should be made for a man coming under consideration, despite not being able to prove himself by these family qualifications.
I trust the difference will be appreciated between a presbytery that says (essentially), "No wife? No children? That's fine. We'll need to examine other indicators that would give us a good idea of whether or not he has the makings of a competent husband and father," and a presbytery that says, "No wife? No children? That's out of the ordinary. We may need to delay proceeding unless there are compelling reasons to make an exception in this case."
In the first post, I was pretty adamant in my stance that the word of God absolutely forbids a man who lacks first-hand experience as competent husband and father/guardian from being considered for ordained office in the church. There was sharp criticism against this stance. Maybe I have been overly wooden. I am open to that possibility.
Brethren, what if I dialed back the intensity and said my stance is that no man should be considered for ordained office in the church without having first-hand experience as a competent husband and father/guardian unless there are notable and compelling reasons for an exception? This is more than stating it is "statistically normative" for officers in the church to be competent husbands and fathers, but saying there is onus upon men to show why an exception should be made for a man coming under consideration, despite not being able to prove himself by these family qualifications.
I trust the difference will be appreciated between a presbytery that says (essentially), "No wife? No children? That's fine. We'll need to examine other indicators that would give us a good idea of whether or not he has the makings of a competent husband and father," and a presbytery that says, "No wife? No children? That's out of the ordinary. We may need to delay proceeding unless there are compelling reasons to make an exception in this case."