"A One-Woman Man"

[raekwon]

Does "one-woman man" imply that the man has to be married or can it mean that the man is the kind of a person who would be faithful to his wife if he had one?

Here's what Alexander Strauch says to that question in Biblical Eldership

It's not uncommon to hear people say that an elder must be married because Scripture says that he must be "the husband of one wife." This, however, is not an accurate interpretation. If Paul requires elders to be married, he flatly contradicts what he teaches in 1 Corinthians 7 where he outlines the distinct advantages of singleness in serving the Lord and even encourages singleness for the purpose of more effective, undivided service (1 Cor. 7:32-35; cf Matt 19:12). If an elder is required to be married, Paul should have qualified his statements about the advantage of singleness because singleness would disqualify an aspiring elder or deacon. However, Paul didn't write, "an elder must be a man who has a wife." Rather, he says that an elder must be a one-wife man, which is quite a different point.

Using similar logic, some people also conclude that an elder must have children because of the qualification that an elder manage "his own household well, keeping his children under control" (1 Tim. 3:4). I've talked with some men, for example, who don't believe they can serve as elders or deacons because they only have one child. They say that Paul's qualification requires "children." Paul, however, is not requiring an elder to father two or more children. We must realize the limitations of Paul's language. He wouldn't use "child" because people would then think that an elder could only have one child. He is simply saying that an elder who has offspring must manage his home well.

The fact is, most men are married and have children. Scripture requires that these men have their homes in order and that their marital relationships exemplify what Christian marriage should be. These qualifications obviously don't apply to elders who are single or childless.

 

[Civbert]

I would only question the wisdom of having an elder who has not yet married. A divorced elder is also questionable, especially one who has been divorced several times. That's not a good track record.

It is interesting to note that the qualifications for elder/deacon are not particularly difficult to obtain. One might say they are qualities in a good bank teller. Scripture seems to be saying, pick men with good moral fiber and a good reputation, and here is a list of indicators. I think that's the point.

 

[Civbert]

Does "one-woman man" imply that the man has to be married or can it mean that the man is the kind of a person who would be faithful to his wife if he had one?

Here's what Alexander Strauch says to that question in Biblical Eldership

...
The fact is, most men are married and have children. Scripture requires that these men have their homes in order and that their marital relationships exemplify what Christian marriage should be. These qualifications obviously don't apply to elders who are single or childless.

Those are good points. But I think there is something to be said about the wisdom of picking men who, by being married and having their house in order, have demonstrated they will make good leaders. A single man, or a man who has never been married, or a man who has been divorces, may be lacking the experience and/or wisdom that a married man with a well run household has already demonstrated. While not disqualifying single men (et cetera), it seems that they will have to work harder to show they will make good elders.

 

[JBaldwin]

I have been reading this thread with interest and had planned on not saying anything, but this discussion of single men as elders is something I've thought about a lot.

I don't believe the scripture forbids a single man from serving as an elder. However, I believe the other qualifications should be very evident. In my experience in the church observing elders, I have seen only one single bachelor who I believed was qualified to serve as an elder. This man had clearly given up marriage to serve the Lord and was already doing the work of an elder long before he was elevated to that position. He was already well into middle age and had given up his free time as a single man teaching, shepherding and caring for the congregation. His vacations were spent on the mission field (instead of at the beach), and when he was elected as an elder, he lived up to that position better than some of the married men on the session.

 

[DMcFadden]

Anthony,

Since I have repeatedly argued for the "one woman man" being an indication of moral character in the sexual area in the present, permit me to observe that while a divorce does not need to be a "deal breaker" (particularly if it was for biblical reasons), that does not imply that a repeatedly divorced person would be qualified. Indeed, the point is to find men of high moral fiber. Sins in the past that have been confessed and forgiven should not disqualify unless the shadow of them continues into the present, besmirching the overarching "above reproach" standard. For example, I do not believe as a practical manner that I would ever feel comfortable with a "former" pedophile as elder. Recidivism statistics and public attitudes would probably make it impossible for him to establish himself as being above reproach. My former pastor friend who had the triple digit affairs would not qualify either, even though he is still married to his one and only wife. And, frankly, in the current technology environment, p*** addiction is becoming an increasingly problematic issue as well. Repeated divorces? Yikes!

 

[jd.morrison]

A clarifier on my answer...

The checked all of them. The one with the unmarried man, I do not believe he should be a ruling elder. A teaching and preaching elder, yes, a ruling elder say on session, no.

 

[SRoper]

I could see not allowing single Men who have never been married to hold the Office of Elder or Deacon. I think the ability to run a household is a significant prerequisite for Paul in electing Men for these offices.

What if a single man has household servants?

 

[timmopussycat]

I could see not allowing single Men who have never been married to hold the Office of Elder or Deacon. I think the ability to run a household is a significant prerequisite for Paul in electing Men for these offices.

What if a single man has household servants?

If he can afford them in this day and age: besides if he can afford them, it's a safe bet he'll be married soon. (cf. the first line of Austen's Pride and Prejudice).

 

[Blueridge Believer]

Westminster Confession of Faith
Chapter XXIV
Of Marriage and Divorce

I. Marriage is to be between one man and one woman: neither is it lawful for any man to have more than one wife, nor for any woman to have more than one husband, at the same time.1

II. Marriage was ordained for the mutual help of husband and wife,2 for the increase of mankind with a legitimate issue, and of the Church with an holy seed;3 and for preventing of uncleanness.4

III. It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry, who are able with judgment to give their consent.5 Yet it is the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lord.6 And therefore such as profess the true reformed religion should not marry with infidels, papists, or other idolaters: neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as are notoriously wicked in their life, or maintain damnable heresies.7

IV. Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity forbidden by the Word.8 Nor can such incestuous marriages ever be made lawful by any law of man or consent of parties, so as those persons may live together as man and wife.9 10

V. Adultery or fornication committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, gives just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract.11 In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce and, after the divorce,12 to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.13

VI. Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments unduly to put asunder those whom God has joined together in marriage: yet, nothing but adultery, or such willful desertion as can no way be remedied by the Church, or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage:14 wherein, a public and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed; and the persons concerned in it not left to their own wills, and discretion, in their own case.15

 

[raekwon]

I could see not allowing single Men who have never been married to hold the Office of Elder or Deacon. I think the ability to run a household is a significant prerequisite for Paul in electing Men for these offices.

What if a single man has household servants?

Also, what if a Christian man has been on his own for a number of years, is faithful to God, does his job, pays his bills, etc etc etc. Is that not the management of a household?

There was one man in his seventies that was in our elder training class. Had never been married, but it was fairly plain that he was able to run his house.

 

[raekwon]

A clarifier on my answer...

The checked all of them. The one with the unmarried man, I do not believe he should be a ruling elder. A teaching and preaching elder, yes, a ruling elder say on session, no.

Why?

(I have no dog in this fight, honestly. I'm just wondering. I think that the bifurcation between teaching and ruling elders is somewhat artificial, anyway.)

 

[Sonoftheday]

Only 92% thought the first choice was qualified, do we have a couple catholics running around the PB in disguise??

 

[raekwon]

Only 92% thought the first choice was qualified, do we have a couple catholics running around the PB in disguise??

Hah! I was thinking the same.

 

[2 Tim 4:2]

I do not find that the phrase "One that ruleth his house" is open to every activity in the household. else the church would need to investigate every intimate detail of the marriage relationship.

But the phrase is clearly defined and given specific parameter in that same verse "having his children in subjection with all gravity". There is no need to take the "One that ruleth his house" past its clearly defined parameter.

 

[raekwon]

I do not find that the phrase "One that ruleth his house" is open to every activity in the household. else the church would need to investigate every intimate detail of the marriage relationship.

But the phrase is clearly defined and given specific parameter in that same verse "having his children in subjection with all gravity". There is no need to take the "One that ruleth his house" past its clearly defined parameter.

So you're saying that "household management" in this context necessarily means that a man must have children in order to qualify for office?

 

[2 Tim 4:2]

I do not find that the phrase "One that ruleth his house" is open to every activity in the household. else the church would need to investigate every intimate detail of the marriage relationship.

But the phrase is clearly defined and given specific parameter in that same verse "having his children in subjection with all gravity". There is no need to take the "One that ruleth his house" past its clearly defined parameter.

So you're saying that "household management" in this context necessarily means that a man must have children in order to qualify for office?

I believe that is a legitimate argument. But if we are going to argue that it is not then we need not argue that "husband of one wife" means that the bishop must be a male.

 

[moral necessity]

Does the Greek language allude to an emphasis on a particular word, either the word "husband" or the word "one" perhaps?

 

[travis]

Yes.

 

[moral necessity]

And so, what word is given the emphasis?

 

[raekwon]

For those who only voted "Married men (who've only been married once)", a question that's already been alluded to . . .

If a plain reading of the text dictates that only once-and-still-married may hold office, does it not also dictate that only men who have children (not just a child) are qualified? If not, why not?

Likewise, if he becomes widowed must he demit the ministry?

Anybody?

 

[JBaldwin]

For those who only voted "Married men (who've only been married once)", a question that's already been alluded to . . .

If a plain reading of the text dictates that only once-and-still-married may hold office, does it not also dictate that only men who have children (not just a child) are qualified? If not, why not?

Likewise, if he becomes widowed must he demit the ministry?

Anybody?

If an elderly widow woman is instructed (I Timothy 5) to be doing the work of the Lord. Surely this would apply to men as well.

I don't believe a person loses their qualifications to serve just because their wife died. The death might cause an emotional hardship for awhile, but it certainly shouldn't suddenly disqualify him.