Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
And now one has suggested that someone who never has children is simply disqualified. On what basis? Just because they didn't have the opportunity to govern their children well? That kind of approach to the list smacks of legalism that does no one any real good. And it means that someone who is otherwise the most truly qualified, and willing to serve in the best way is disqualified because there are no children? I don't think so.
|
1 Tim 3:5 "For if a man know not how to rule his own house how shall he take care of the church of God"?
Disqualified from what? He can be an evangelist. There is no requirement to first raise a family before being an evangelist. He could be a prophet, there is no requirement to raise a family before speaking the word of God. He can teach, he can shepherd, he can function in any and all gifts. He can pray, he can worship, what is it that he cannot do? Well, he cannot be a grandfather because he never had children.
Suppose you wanted to start a rock band and you were taking applications and you had the perfect applicant, he was above reproach, temperate, respectable, the husband of one wife, etc. Everything you wanted in a rock star, the only one small issue, he never played an instrument. But he always wanted to! He has read a book on it, he even has some video games on being a rock star. Would he be disqualified? I hope so.
OK, bad example, suppose you were hiring a nanny for your children (a more appropriate example). Again, she is perfect in every criteria except for one, she has never taken care of any children before. Would she be disqualified? Maybe not, if she is the best candidate what can you do, but I would hope that having good experience caring for children would figure very high in your calculation.
OK, not the best example, so lets get a better example, suppose you have a man that does meet the criteria in 1 Tim 3, and everyone is in agreement that this is the man they want for elder. However, he has misgivings because he never went to seminary. So you tell him that going to seminary is not a requirement, but he says that "being apt to teach" is a requirement and he is not comfortable with getting into theological debates. Therefore it is crucial to define this, apt to teach, to teach what? Is being willing to teach the theology concerning the triune God a criteria to being an elder? I don't think so. I think being willing to teach the saints to be temperate is, to teach them to be the husband of one wife is, to teach them to raise their families well is, to teach them to be above reproach and respectable is.
My point is this, here is a man that never had children, clearly his choice since he is married, respectable, beyond reproach, etc. so he could easily adopt children or he could be a foster parent. He chose not to do either but he wants to take care of the house of God? That seems weird to me.
Let's try some more examples: Michael Vick, is he beyond reproach? No. Is he a great quaterback? Yes. Is being beyond reproach a requirement for being a quarterback? No (just ask Rothlesberger). On the other hand would you want either to be an elder? I hope not. Would you disqualify them over this one or two mistakes? Yes. Most CEO's are type A personalities and are not "temperate". Is being temperate a requirement to being a good CEO? No. So these men could be great CEOs but not elders. An elder is not a CEO, he is not a quarterback.
He doesn't even need to teach that much. Just because a brother is a talented and gifted teacher doesn't mean he should be elder. Let the elders use this brother to teach. Simple. An elder does not need to be an evangelist. Let some other brother run the gospel meetings, that is fine. There are many members, many gifts. But at least on one level the church is the family of God and we need some fathers (you have many teachers but not many fathers).