Wisdom needed on 1 Tim 3:4 (Reformed Pastors and Elders cooments only please)

[JOwen]

Dear brothers,

Recently in our presbytery a ruling elder (who is also a new Student under care) has come forward with the sad confession that one of his older children (15 or 16 years old) refuses to abide any longer under the governing laws of the Christian home and has taken it upon herself to run away from home. She has made it clear that she is not a believer nor does she care about the Christian values that have raised her.

This elder has other children (some older some younger but all teens or young adults) that are sublime examples of a godly heritage and are in full subjection and submission to the rules of this home. The testimony of the other children is one of covenant blessing and Christ\'s faithfulness.

I need some help in working out 1 Tim 3:4 1Ti 3:4 "One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity". Do you think that this elder should step down from his office?

Here is my take on it. I would appreciate any insight you may have, especially those who are seasoned presbyters.

The AV rendering is less informative at this point because τεκνα εχοντα is better rendered "having children" in subjection. This would indicate that in the home, the father is one who not only rules well (that is with gravity according to the Word of God), but that there is a dominant theme among his children of respectful obedience to the rule of law and the rule of Christ. If a father has 5 children, and 4 of them are in godly subjection to the head with all gravity, and one refuses to adhere to Christ's authority, this does not remove the qualification already present, namely, that there are children who are in subjection.
This passage is speaking strongly to the neglect of godly parenting rather than the result of one child who does not wish to be in subjection to Christ (such as Eli, who did not use his authority, or lay his commands upon his sons). The question should go further that the simple prima facia of the matter especially when this child has removed himself from the home.

Thoughts?

Kind regards,

Jerrold

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

J -

The Greek in 1 Tim 3:4 is that he does in fact posses children that are in subjection to him, with all gravity or reverence. You don't want to interpret the passage in order to "squeek" by on a technicality. Practically, if he is the cause of them not being in subjection, or cannot place them in subjection, or has done something to cause them not to be in subjection, then there is a problem. But you cannot stop there.

In Titus 1:6, there is also an admonition as well, "if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination."

"Faithful" in this context is not "saved" but rather "persons who show themselves faithful the execution of commands, or the discharge of duties."

avswti, - riot, means an abandoned or dissolute life (from Baur).

avnupo,taktoj , unruly, means the very opposite of 1 Tim 3:4. (i.e. unsubjected or those that cannot be subjected to control, disobedient, etc.)

You'll have to weigh both of them in relation to the children.

Family stewardship is the hallmark of those that are able to lead the people of God. If one cannot control/manage their family, they are disqualified from the office.

You will have to answer "why" the child left the home, and what actions were taken to 1) cause the child to leave (cf. Eph. 6:4), if any, and 2) what the parent did to hinder the rebellious action.

 

[JOwen]

We have been able to investigate the reasons for this child's departure and have discovered that she wishes to live with the world and date an unbelieving boy from her school. Her parents have attempted to speak with here, but unless she is allwed to live as she wishes under her parents roof, she has refused to come home. Her comments hae been, "I am not a christian, I do not want to be, and you cannot make me". There are no aligations of sbuse by the girl, only, they are too strict as parents. We found out that this menat the parents would not let her date an unbeliever, wear suggestive clothing, and stay out late with unbelievers.

My question is, because we are not dealing with a adolecent, but a young adult, at what point does the responcibillty shift from the parent to the child? I have watched these kinds grow up and there has never been a question about the parenting skills of this elder. In fact, he is a model father.

Kind regards,

Jerrold

 

[LawrenceU]

Jerrold,
Not knowing the man and his family it makes it very difficult to offer appropo advice regarding his situation. I can however relate what has occurred in a situation which was strikingly similar.

First, I believe that our extending adolesence beyond the antiquities old 15-16 years is a tragic mistake. At that point an individual should be reared to the point of young adulthood. If a parent has displayed Godly parenting and the young adult child is a rebel it is the child who bears the culpability (Deut. 21:18 ff).

Secondly, and herein is the example, we had an elder in the same situation. He was allowed to remain in service because of the reasoning above. After three years his son returned in repentance. It was the Lord working through Godly parenting that brought about that return. This young man was 'tough loved' out of the family circle and fellowship for a season as well. This situation only further shored up the elder's character in the long run.

[Edited on 4-23-2005 by LawrenceU]

 

[JOwen]

Very helpful indeed. Thank you both for your advice.

Kind regards,

Jerrold Lewis

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by LawrenceU
Jerrold,
Not knowing the man and his family it makes it very difficult to offer appropo advise regarding his situation. I can however relate what has occurred in a situation which was strikingly similar.

First, I believe that our extending adolesence beyond the antiquities old 15-16 years is a tragic mistake. At that point an individual should be reared to the point of young adulthood. If a parent has displayed Godly parenting and the young adult child is a rebel it is the child who bears the culpability (Deut. 21:18 ff).

Secondly, and herein is the example, we had an elder in the same situation. He was allowed to remain in service because of the reasoning above. After three years his son returned in repentance. It was the Lord working through Godly parenting that brought about that return. This young man was 'tough loved' out of the family circle and fellowship for a season as well. This situation only further shored up the elder's character in the long run.

[Edited on 4-23-2005 by LawrenceU]

I would tend to agree with this post. Remember that Jewish boys came of age at 13. While Paul is writing to Greeks, I see no reason why he would abandon his views on adulthood. A 13 year old was an adult in the eyes of the Law, a "son of the covenant," and as such able to marry, read and expound the Torah, and take his place in Jewish society. I'm certain Paul had young children in mind. Nevertheless, I firmly believe that he should seek the advice of and submit to the judgment of the higher courts on the matter.