Elder qualification

[twogunfighter]

Timothy and Titus give us some qualifications for elders.

Should these be taken as guidelines whereby the whole man is judged or as a checklist where if a candidate does not meet one of the criteria he is automatically excluded?

Should the elder's children be Christians or just not clearly rebellious against Christian morality?

Should more emphasis be put on the elder's Christian walk or his abilities (ie teaching, administrative etc)?

If there is already a thread on this someone could point me to it.

Chuck

 

[Scott Bushey]

[quote:e760fbed63][i:e760fbed63]Originally posted by twogunfighter[/i:e760fbed63]
Timothy and Titus give us some qualifications for elders.

Should these be taken as guidelines whereby the whole man is judged or as a checklist where if a candidate does not meet one of the criteria he is automatically excluded?

Should the elder's children be Christians or just not clearly rebellious against Christian morality?

Should more emphasis be put on the elder's Christian walk or his abilities (ie teaching, administrative etc)?

If there is already a thread on this someone could point me to it.

Chuck [/quote:e760fbed63]


1) Should these be taken as guidelines whereby the whole man is judged or as a checklist where if a candidate does not meet one of the criteria he is automatically excluded?

Yes. However, this would also imply that single men would not qualify. So, I believe there are instances where each case must be judged accordingly.

2) Should the elder's children be Christians or just not clearly rebellious against Christian morality?

No. The elders home should be "in order". (The CT would state that his children are children of the covenant, etc. etc. etc. ) [img:e760fbed63]http://www.semperreformanda.com/images/before01.gif[/img:e760fbed63]

3) Should more emphasis be put on the elder's Christian walk or his abilities (ie teaching, administrative etc)?

Absolutely! To him who is given much, much is required. These men will in fact be held accountable to a higher standard.........

 

[BlackCalvinist]

Scott (or anyone else),

Would you also hold the view (and I think Scott does, if I'm reading his post correctly) that an elder MUST be married, because the home serves as one form of training for the possible elder/deacon ?

Kerry

 

[Scott Bushey]

[quote:b2e44a29e6][i:b2e44a29e6]Originally posted by OS_X[/i:b2e44a29e6]
Scott (or anyone else),

Would you also hold the view (and I think Scott does, if I'm reading his post correctly) that an elder MUST be married, because the home serves as one form of training for the possible elder/deacon ?

Kerry [/quote:b2e44a29e6]

Kerry,
No, I do not necessarily believe that an elder must be married. However, one whom is, he must have his familiy and home "in order".

 

[pastorway]

An elder is not required to be married. Otherwise Paul, Timothy, and Titus would not have been qualified to hold the church offices that they did! The quality of being the "husband of one wife" has nothing to do with marital status. The phrase means literally "a one woman man." He is not a womanizer. He is pure in his relationships with the opposite sex. And if he is married he is a faithful husband.

The qualifications in 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1 are to be taken as a whole. In fact, in the Greek, the long list modifies the phrase "above reproach." So the qualification is that a man in the office of elder must be above reproach, which Paul then explains and fleshes out, so to speak, with the list of character qualities.

For more details about the qualifications and the Scriptural duties of pastors, refer to this article on our church's website:

The Role and Duties of Pastors

Phillip

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

[quote:040c46d8f7]
Otherwise Paul, Timothy, and Titus would not have been qualified to hold the church offices that they did!
[/quote:040c46d8f7]

Or Jesus for that matter...

1 Peter 2:25, "For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and [b:040c46d8f7]Overseer[/b:040c46d8f7] of your souls."

(i.e. episkopos) (cf. 1 Tim. 3:1f; 2 Tim. 4:22; Tit. 1:7; 3:15; 1 Pet. 2:25)

 

[rembrandt]

Would you put an age requirement on the position of elder? I know the Bible doesn't give one, but for practical reasons. For example would you allow a 19 or 20 year old (assuming they are not novices) to be an "elder?" Because a young person who has been a Christian for 15 years may be more qualified than an older person who has been a Christian for 5-10 years.

What if the younger person meets all the intellectual requirments (adequate Bible knowledge etc.)?

Also if a person of that age can preach the gospel, should they still not be an elder? I'm thinking of all the great theologians of the church who began their teaching ministry at 15, 16, 17.

thanks,
rembrandt

 

[cupotea]

Sometimes just having intellectual knowledge of Scripture may not be all that is required. There is a maturity that goes along with age. They have faced life's struggles and have had to make leadership decisions during the course of their life, family or work and can relate those experiences with his congregation.

Just my humble opinion,

Brent

 

[rembrandt]

[quote:2001061d7f][i:2001061d7f]Originally posted by CajunBibleBeliever[/i:2001061d7f]
Sometimes just having intellectual knowledge of Scripture may not be all that is required. There is a maturity that goes along with age. They have faced life's struggles and have had to make leadership decisions during the course of their life, family or work and can relate those experiences with his congregation.

Just my humble opinion,

Brent [/quote:2001061d7f]

Does that mean however, that we must choose the person who has been through the most struggles in their life? Should we choose a vietnam vet, now a business man who went bankrupt 3 times and is starting over again after his whole family died in a car accident only while teaching sunday school classes to kindergardeners and remaining faithful to his lot in life for the last fifty years, but hasn't had as much time to spend in devotion to God as another young man has, and may or may not have the intellectual qualifications of an elder in comparison to the young man?

should we automatically choose the older more experienced person? I would have said yes a couple days ago. But now that I changed my views on who is qualified to preach (that age or experience doesn't matter) I am wondering how this would fill in in relation to an "elder."

thanks,
rembrandt

 

[cupotea]

Paul,

Anybody can preach, regardless of age or experiences, however the role of elder or pastor requires someone who possesses some degree of maturity and wisdom that can only be derived from life's experiences, such as parenting, dealing with financial decisions, family counseling. This job is not for the faint of heart. One who has never married or has raised children has very little experience to work from in dealing with cases that a pastor has to handle.

I'm in that same position myself. Eventhough I have the knowledge and education for the ministry, I do not feel qualified to pastor. In fact I turned down a possible deaconship because I am single, although I have completed course work in both Master of Ministry and Master of Christian Counseling.

Keep in mind that there is a difference in being a preacher and being an undershepherd of God's flock.

Brent

 

[fredtgreco]

Brent,

While I agree with you that maturity is a good thing, there is a difference between maturity and age ( "not a novice" and yet "let no man despise your youth" ) .

But I would also say that there is no real distinction between being a (true) preacher and an undershepherd of God's flock. The problem is that we think that any man who can stand in a pulpit and say interesting things about the Bible is a "preacher". That is foolishness. A true preacher must be a good undershepherd in order to righly apply the Word of Life to his congregation. The two go together, that is why the preacher MUST be an elder - there is no office in the church of "preacher" apart from elder.

 

[pastorway]

Elder does not refer to age, but to the maturity that is required of the position that one is qualified to hold. It does mean mature, but not necessarily mature in years! Spurgeon was pastoring in his late teens! Edwards and others of his generation went off to the University at age 15!

So age has [i:9e69e41e77]nothing[/i:9e69e41e77] to do with the qualifications for the office. He must not be a novice in the faith, but age is never even considered in 1 Timothy ot Titus. In fact, Paul wrote to Timothy as he was serving as an elder at Ephesus: "Do not let anyone despise your youth...."

Phillip

 

[rembrandt]

thanks fellows. Let me first of all say that I in no way see myself qualified to be an elder, whether it be intellectually equipped or spiritually or what have you (just so you know that I am not talking about myself here).

fredtgreco said that the preacher MUST be an elder. As of now I agree. Does this mean that at 16 or 17 years of age a young man who preaches the gospel (as did many great pastors and theologians at that age) can rightfully be an elder? Both the Word and history tell us it is unwise to hinder any (true) preacher of the word from fulfilling his God- given task. But MUST we ordain this young man as an ELDER?

Rembrandt

 

[rembrandt]

this leads into my next question. and I would greatly appreciate any response.

Scenario: All of the regular pastors are out for a week or are unable to make it into the pulpit for whatever reason. One of the elders could preach, but for whatever reason one of the pastors sees it fit to not ask one of the elders and instead asks a member of the congregation to fill the pulpit.

Question: I know one of the elders should have done it and that was a folly on behalf of the pastor. But should this person agree to do it or back out of the situation and demand a reason why an elder cannot do it? Should ANY congregation member who is not an ordained minister and/or elder be allowed to speak to the congregation on behalf of God during a worship service?

thanks,
Rembrandt

 

[Scott Bushey]

My opinion, the situation would direct the outcome. For instance, it is planned, not a refusal on the elders part. If the situation was different, for instance, the elder didn't want to preach, I would have issue with this.

 

[fredtgreco]

Paul,

There is a difference between preaching once and being a preacher. I do not think that every single time that a person preaches he needs to be an elder - after all, that is why most Reformed denominations have the concept of "licensing men to preach"

I also think that there isa nothing wrong with on an occassion having an unordained man preach (even if elders would be willing) as a way of testing a man's gifts. We do far too little of that before we send men off to seminary.

 

[rembrandt]

so should edwards, spurgeon, etc. have been elders of their church when they were 15-17 years of age? if yes, then we must allow cases of this in the modern church to those who are extraordinarily gifted.

Rembrandt

 

[sundoulos]

Fred, you said, "the preacher MUST be an elder." If this is statement is limited to internal church function, I would agree (mostly). However, not all preaching is done in the church. There are two deacons who preached: Stephen and Philip. Philip's preaching was at the explicit command of the Holy Spirit and was owned by God with the salvation of many.

I, too, agree with your statement about trial preaching. I would be exceeding happy to have men in my assembly consider a calling to the ministry and then be able to see through practical experience that God has or has not gifted them for such a calling.

[Edited on 3-30-2004 by sundoulos]

 

[twogunfighter]

So if I understand Phillip and Scott right, the qualifications in Timothy and Titus are a general list that describes the overall life of the man. Therefore if a man lacked one of those attributes, he could still be an elder? If this is what you all think, is it OK for a man to be lacking in any one or two of the attributes or is he authorized to be lacking only in certain ones?

 

[fredtgreco]

[quote:c845225d5c][i:c845225d5c]Originally posted by twogunfighter[/i:c845225d5c]
So if I understand Phillip and Scott right, the qualifications in Timothy and Titus are a general list that describes the overall life of the man. Therefore if a man lacked one of those attributes, he could still be an elder? If this is what you all think, is it OK for a man to be lacking in any one or two of the attributes or is he authorized to be lacking only in certain ones? [/quote:c845225d5c]

The man must be qualified in each of the areas. Actually, these qualities (except aptness to teach) all are required of believers (albeit imprefectly). It is just that elders are required to be evident in their Christianity and spiritual maturity.

 

[twogunfighter]

Fred

So you would disagree with Phillip/Scott and say that the passages are a checklist rather than a general idea of what the whole man ought to look like? If I understand you correctly, you are saying that all of the attributes that are possible (ie no kids in order if he is not married) in the man's life must be present, understanding that each man will have different strengths and weaknesses.

Chuck

 

[pastorway]

Perhaps I have been misunderstood. If a man is lacking one or more of these qualities then he cannot be "above reproach" and is therefore disqualified from the position!

Now then, that does not mean that the man has to be married and have children. These requirements apply in that he must be pure and have his house in order, whether he is single, married without kids, or married with kids.

He must meet the qualifications, but we have to be sure we understand what the qualifications actually mean!

And Fred is correct, that these are really the requirements for all believers - but especially our elders as they lead us and shepherd us in the faith.

Phillip

[quote:28ccee6fd4]taken from [i:28ccee6fd4]The Role and Duties of Pastors[/i:28ccee6fd4] by Phillip M. Way

[b:28ccee6fd4]Scriptural Qualifications for Elders[/b:28ccee6fd4] - 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9

1. Blameless - above reproach and disrepute
2. The husband of one wife - literally a "one-woman man." This does not refer to marital status, but to purity.
3. Temperate - vigilant and serious minded
4. Sober-minded - self-controlled, curbing one's own desires and impulses
5. Of Good Behavior - well arranged, seemly
6. Hospitable - "lover of strangers", generous
7. Able to Teach - a skillful teacher
8. Not Given to Wine - One who does not abuse or become addicted to wine
9. Not Violent - not a "bruiser" or given to fights
10. Not Greedy for Money - Generous, not controlled by a desire for money
11. Gentle - reasonable, fair
12. Not Quarrelsome - not contentious or looking for trouble
13. Not Covetous - not controlled by desire for possessions
14. One Who Rules His Own House and Children Well - Manages his family rightly, either as a single man, or as a husband and father. If he is married he must have a submissive and godly wife. If they have children they must be obedient children. (He must be a good husband and parent!)
15. Not a Novice - not a new convert, mature in the faith
16. Having a Good Testimony among Those Outside - an upstanding reputation even to those outside of the church
17. Not Self-willed - not self pleasing or arrogant
18. Not Quick Tempered - not prone to get angry quickly, not hot headed
19. A Lover of What is Good - loving and desiring what is good and right
20. Just - upright
21. Holy - devout, pleasing to God
22. Self-controlled - disciplined
23. Holding Fast the Faithful Word - Believing and being convinced of the truth of God's Word and offering the truth to others.[/quote:28ccee6fd4]


[Edited on 3-30-04 by pastorway]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Yea, What Phillip and fred said..................[img:3f66b79643]http://www.semperreformanda.com/images/before01.gif[/img:3f66b79643]

 

[fredtgreco]

[quote:1393dc4f18][i:1393dc4f18]Originally posted by twogunfighter[/i:1393dc4f18]
Fred

So you would disagree with Phillip/Scott and say that the passages are a checklist rather than a general idea of what the whole man ought to look like? If I understand you correctly, you are saying that all of the attributes that are possible (ie no kids in order if he is not married) in the man's life must be present, understanding that each man will have different strengths and weaknesses.

Chuck [/quote:1393dc4f18]

Chuck,

I didn't mean to imply that they were a checklist. I was not even thinking of the marriage and children qualifiers in that sense. But there is a sense in which that is true. A man acn obviously be an elder and neither be married nor have children - the Apostle Paul for example. But if that single man gets married and has children, he must have a house in order. There is also a sense in which a single man who (for lack of a better word) plays the harlot or is too loose with his relationships with women that he is disqualified.

As far as the other character qualifications go, I think they are non-negotiable. We don't say that a man has great qualities, and even though he is a drunk (or a man filled with rage) he can be an elder. His character must be above all things, above reproach.

Does that clarify?

 

[twogunfighter]

Yep

A Fred/Scott/Phillip three of a kind.