As churches in mission areas move toward naming elders there is typically one big stumbling block. 1 Timothy 3 says that an elders children should “obey him with all respect.” Titus however says that his children must “believe” or be “faithful.” We’ve traditionally interpreted that to mean that an elder’s children must be Christians. This, frankly, is much more difficult in a mission situation. Most of the men that you are going to consider as elders have adult children. A lot of times, they aren’t converted when their parents are.
Some scholars, like Carroll Osburn in our brotherhood, feel that the faithful or believing children in Titus are like the obedient children in 1 Timothy 3. If this expression refers to them being Christians, it’s a rather unusual way to express it.
If we consider what was seen in the last post, it may very well be that there was something special in the situation in Crete that called for “believing children” (like what we see in Titus 1:12-13). Paul didn’t ask the same of the church in Ephesus, and that was a church that had been around for decades. If it were about children being Christians, wouldn’t it make sense that would be asked of the Ephesian church? I’m convinced that elders need to have raised a family that respects him and lives according to the values he taught them. But I’m not sure that we haven’t created an unnecessary stumbling block to the naming of elders.
In the Bible, elders were named within months of the planting of congregations. We have many churches around the world that have gone years without naming elders. Something is wrong with this picture. I think part of it is our misapplication of this phrase from Titus.
Tim, I don’t know what the minimum qualifications should be to become an elder. I have a couple question on the subject, why did Paul think the church needed someone other than the preacher? and if a preacher has been at a church for more than twenty years, and still does not have elders, what could be the reason for this.
Laymond,
If you can be patient, I’m going to hit on that last one tomorrow, and maybe the first one indirectly.
Grace and peace,
Tim
I just realized that I used Kirk and Michael Douglas in the photo; that wasn’t planned.
I wondered what the connection was, I thought maybe you thought Paul and Timothy, looked like the Douglas boys, since Paul called Tim, his son.
I don’t have anything but patients :)
OK, changed the picture…
Pingback: TimothyArcher.com/Kitchen » Blog Archive » Elders: How long must we wait?
When I first read this I instantly think of Judaism in that religion was essentially hereditary. There was no question that children of God-fearing Jewish men would also be Jewish.
Christianity is different, however, in that God has no grandchildren. The personal decision in the hearts of children (young or old) is a commitment that has a lot fighting against it unlike when culture completely accepted it back in the first century.
Jews never converted in mid-life either, as many elders are in the position of today. By being raised Jewish, they were already Jewish when their children were born thus already creating a culture of religion in their house. Today, however, the mid-life conversions occur when these men’s children are already adults.
It’s an interesting situation and I like your interpretation… but I still think that the prerequisite for elder-ship should stand with children fully obeying with all respect (fully respected would mean obeying a command to explore who Jesus is). It’s tough and I know it isn’t so today but we should strive for it. Having the experience of walking through faith with your children is very much useful for an elder of a church.
That’s what I think, thank you for reading/writing!
God Bless,
Thomas
Also, one more thought!
I think there’s good and bad to not naming elders within years of the establishment of the church.
It’s good because perhaps people simply aren’t qualified. I would rather have no elder than an unacceptable one.
It’s also good because it SHOULD promote the spiritual growth in a man to BE an elder. If it doesn’t, it is because the church isn’t working properly (in my opinion) in discipling / raising men.
It’s bad because.. well I just kind of hit upon it– no qualified elders = no qualifying process = no spiritual growth into full blow spiritual maturity.
What do you think?
-Thomas
Thomas,
I agree that an elder should “govern” his home well, as Scripture says, and should have respectful children.
As for the pros and cons, I also agree that immature men should not be appointed, nor those with obvious problems that would impede them from serving. Like you said, if a church is doing nothing to produce men who are capable of shepherding, then something is terribly wrong.
To use preaching as an example, in a situation where men are expected to preach soon after conversion, the men learn to do so very quickly. If the expectation is changed, however, to only allow certain professionally trained men to preach, then your average Christian will never feel qualified.
Grace and peace,
Tim