| The Elder and His Children | | Print | |
| October 11, 2005 | |
|
Thanks for the honor of including me in this important occasion. The approach you have chosen to solicit Wyndham Shaw (Boston), Gordon Ferguson (Phoenix), Douglas Jacoby (Athens), Ron Brumley (Seattle), and myself (Chicago) may benefit many in our fellowship of churches. Prayerfully, matters relating to the family of an elder will reach a greater clarity from our reflection on the following questions: 1. Do the children need to baptized? If they need to be baptized, do all of the children need to be baptized? If not, how many do? The fact that we are discussing a departure from our traditional approach of simple answers for complex questions means that the model for deciding difficult questions must also change. Before this paper is over I will recommend covenants and conclaves. I know, before long a rumor could spread saying that I am influencing the church to go towards Catholicism (my roots) or Evangelicalism (my education). Seriously though, the questions you have raised will press you to eventually adopt a different model for evaluating potential elders. In this paper I will first briefly cover the Exegesis-Hermeneutical Method-Application methods as they apply to Titus 1:6-9 and 1 Timothy 3:1-7 concerning the status of an elder-candidate\'s children. Then I will attempt to answer the five questions from the conclusions I have drawn. Lastly, I will recommend the model for making decisions on candidates; this will include terms of candidate reevaluation.
Many Christians do not know how to use interpretive tools in applying a passage from an ancient context to modern situation. The five questions at hand present difficulties. It is tempting to use one of a variety of lazy default methods when deciphering quagmires: proof-texting, ambivalence or just reading what some scholar says. The tools of exegesis, hermeneutical method, and modern application should be seen separately. The process called exegesis is an inexact science and begins by using the best translations, paying attention to structures in grammar, the particular genre of the Scripture, the forms of words, and their common usage. The exegetical process aims at what a passage says. The process of hermeneutics tends to be an art and focuses on the author, recipient, the reason for writing, how it was heard, aims to find out what the passage originally meant. Not all hermeneutical methods are equal. Neither of these two operations can be done completely separate from each other just as forensics are a combination of observation and explanation. Often a final interpretation will be tweaked by reconsidering the exegetical and hermeneutical observations. The third process of modern application or principalization involves identifying the priority of passages and philosophical concerns in consideration of the whole will of God. For example, an exegetical examination of Acts 2:4 will identify that some men spoke in languages other than their own. The hermeneutical consideration reveals that the men were operatives fulfilling a prophecy in which they were speaking in the known languages of a diverse audience. Though Pentecostals will disagree, the direct application of this verse for today is non-existent. This conclusion is based on the fact that the unique occurrence of tongues on Pentecost was highly circumstantial and involved God\'s initiative not human desire. Everything in this inquiry hinges on an exegetical-hermeneutical understanding of the passage in Titus -- \An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.\ (Titus 1:6) This verse is a classic case where exegetical method (what it says) and hermeneutical method (what it meant) are intertwined processes. This is because of more than one possible meanings of the phrase pista tekna. The Greek word from which we derive \believing\ and \faithful\ is one and the same -- pistos. The \children\ from teknon, used in Titus 1:6 and 1 Timothy 3:4, is a word that implies offspring of all ages. This word is also used in Romans 8:16-17 and clearly refers to offspring of any age, not just young people. Does the phrase pista tekna mean: Merely believing in God\'s existence as the demons believe is untenable because it is no benchmark for an elder to have children on the same level as Satan\'s pupils. Thus, I will narrow the discussion to Paul\'s intent. Was he referring to Trustworthy Offspring or Offspring Believing [in God According to Their Ability]? Consideration #1: Trustworthy Offspring An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. (Titus 1:6) He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God\'s church?) (1 Timothy 3:4-5) In Ron Sawhill\'s paper, Harmonizing Elders\' Qualifications, he makes an argument for pista tekna meaning faithful children [to his/her father]. This is not an issue of coming to faith, but an issue of moral conduct. Such an interpretation is consistent with 1Timothy 3:4-5. Additionally, the rendering of Titus 1:6 as \faithful children\ in reference to the relationship between the children and their father is completely consistent with 1 Timothy, because it focuses on the elder\'s ability to enforce proper conduct upon his children without losing their respect. Sawhill comes from the perspective that the passages must be harmonized or else the lists are contradictory and possess a problem. Although I don\'t take issue with Paul giving Titus and Timothy somewhat different requirements, his point deserves attention. This view holds that the elder candidate must have offspring that are well-behaved and reflect his character and these children must possess a healthy relationship with their father. An additional argument in favor of pistos = trustworthy, is based on the fact that in some parables the Greek word pistos is rendered as \trustworthy\ (Luke 12:42 and 16:11). The object of the servant\'s trustworthiness is a manager in these two scenarios. Consideration #2: Offspring Believing in God According to Their Ability The phrase pista tekna of Titus 1:6 does not have a direct object. The father is mentioned in the same sentence but Paul did not complete the thought as to the children\'s beliefs or faithfulness. Was it toward God, the father or society? The first chapter of Titus opens with the goal of having, \... a faith and knowledge resting on the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time\. Then Paul mentions \God our Savior,\ \God the Father,\ and weaves the phrase \God\'s work\ into the eldership requirements and concludes the importance of silencing people who \... claim to know God but by their actions they deny him.\ Elders were being appointed with God in full view. This view states that pista tekna would naturally be heard as faith toward God. An elder with children who rely on God with their actions would have been one of the best arguments to silence the \mere talkers.\ This second consideration is my view. The main objection against this perspective raised by Ron Sawhill is \I can find nowhere in scripture where a man\'s leadership is judged by the faith of his children.\ This is a fair observation, apart from Eli the priest. The Old Testament reveals many great leaders with severely troubled children. However, I can think of many reasons, namely, from the lives of Bible figures why God, not to mention us, would desire to see a change in this regard. A measure of expectation on an elder\'s family is a helpful safeguard (but not prevention) against nepotism, not to mention a comfort to the family of God and an improvement of chances for the following generation in the church. Considerations for Applying Scriptures As I have said I believe that the second view for Titus 1:6 is the correct one. Though my conclusion that Paul was speaking about faith in God, it is not necessarily my view that it is wrong to practice differently. What I am saying is that under the situation of Crete for that moment, I believe that Paul was inciting Titus to have elders whose families met this standard. We have to guard ourselves against a Restoration Patternist hermeneutic that leads Christians to believe in just one way to do church things. The patternist has to come up with absolutes by being an detective of all the minutia of the New Testament. This notion suggests that we will achieve \the biblical way of doing things.\ All forms will look and act the same including worship, ritual and frequency in communion, and governance, when the saints meet, and finally, leader qualifications. This hermeneutic has led to doctrinarism and bitter feuds. Though I have a firm belief in what Paul was trying to get across to Titus for Crete about \believing children\, I don\'t hold that this circumstantial passage is written in the weighty language of a universal proclamation as was the passage, \... for you and your children and for all who are far off--for all whom the Lord our God will call\ (Acts 2:39). Perhaps what we have missed is the fact that Paul intentionally wrote different qualifications to two different churches. Paul did not write in a manner that indicated these were to be the last words on elder qualifications even for the first readers. Titus comes across like a missive with basic training for an urgent situation. The qualification lists for Timothy in Ephesus and Titus on Crete somewhat vary from each other. Paul did not mention in his letter to Timothy that an elder must have believing children or that an elder on Crete was not to be \a recent convert\. Did Crete and Ephesus end up with elders of slightly different qualifications? Possibly! Why is that so bad? It certainly does not threaten the concept of the inspiration of Scripture. We simply were not the first intended reader therefore we can glean its lessons but not take it as our final prescription. And adding up the criteria from both lists is strange because it is a modern luxury not a stated requirement. It should not be hard to imagine that variations would exist for what is important for an elder in one area of the world or time over another. We simply don\'t have a standardized formula in Scripture. The book of Leviticus was meant to be taken as law. It came from the Sinai experience directly through Moses with countless prescriptions. There is no New Testament equivalent of this book. It would be a misuse of Paul\'s writings to use them this way. The timeless values of the New Testament were delivered through miraculous events done in front of audiences and were spoken openly to crowds by representatives of the Son of God (Hebrews 2:1-4, Acts 1-2). We have received our core beliefs through these epic events found throughout the pages of the New Testament. The ecclesiastical models seem to vary a bit more because of real dilemmas on the front lines of the mission field -- needs, urgency, availability, etc. We should not equate unchanging beliefs relating to salvation with forms of developing a community which depend on circumstances. The foundation of my argument is that Paul is helping the churches in how to think not just what to do -- his lists are descriptive more than prescriptive. The descriptive approach considers all relevant Scripture for answering the two questions, \'What is God\'s intent for a shepherd?\' and \'What are the current needs?\' God\'s virtual silence on exact variations of eligibility has given us some room to explore the meaning of this office against new variations of culture, needs and availability of candidates. We should use the overall Bible as our map and passages like 1Timothy 3:1-7, Titus 1:6-9 and others as a compass. I don\'t believe in \the biblical answer\ for all of these questions but rather biblically principled answers, filling in God\'s silence with Scriptural principles and wisdom gained from experience.
1. Do the children need to baptized? If they need to be baptized, do all of the children need to be baptized? If not, how many do? While I have argued that not everything Paul wrote for Crete or Ephesus is necessarily binding for today, I believe it is still best to hold the station of a child\'s faith as part of the equation. In order to provide guidance for the flock and to guide parents through the raising of children through adolescence on the way to a genuine self-motivated faith is perhaps the flock\'s greatest treasure. Let\'s consider the apostle\'s admonition that required that the elder on Crete be \a man whose children believe\ (Titus 1:6) and in Ephesus that \He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect\ (1 Timothy 3:4). Putting both criteria on a scale that goes from conservative to speculative in interpretation, we have at least five considerations for the children of an elder: 1) All baptized and still faithful. 3) All believed, converted, obedient at home, but after reaching adulthood some of the children never became Christians but others did. Even a conservative usage of the Scriptures easily allows for the first two options. (The next three options are the heart of the following questions.) Additionally, both options are in line with what seemed to be Paul\'s intention of an elder\'s family being where it should be in relation to its season in life. In the family of a prospective elder I would argue that we should expect that at least one child\'s initial faith would make the jump from an intellectual faith into a heartfelt faith in God resulting in conversion/baptism. His other children, if any, might be in different stages but he needs to be able to speak with some degree of authority on this matter. However, requiring that men must wait until all their four their children (ten years apart) have been baptized has led to some churches to struggling under \the shepherding\ of some well-meaning evangelist who has had no baptized children. 2. If they are baptized, are they required to remain faithful in order for the man to remain an elder? If so, how long? Proverb 22:6 haunts many Christians. Varied translations state that parents are to train a child ... \... in the way he should go, even when he is old he will not depart from it\ (Proverbs 22:6) It is advisable that we protect discouraged parents against accidental or intentional misuse of this passage. It seems that countless Proverbs are not always true but are usually true or offer wisdom for calibrating our vision. It is stunning that some people are inflexible on this proverb but can see countless exceptions for, \Lazy hands make a man poor, but diligent hands bring wealth.\ (Proverbs 10:4). We know lazy people who get rich and diligent people who are poor. Additionally, not all the translations of Proverbs 22:6 read the same and there seems but be little consensus on its absolute meaning. Perhaps it is best to render it, raise your kids right and they will turn out well. Even then, we know that an unavoidable predator or other crisis can tragically scar a child forever. I argue that Proverbs 22:6 is a positive proverb not a law like gravity or e=mc2. For our purposes let\'s take the terms accountable and responsible to be two different degrees of being answerable. By nature and in many societies, parents are accountable (as in punishable) for their children while they live under the same roof. If the children turn out bad, the parents bear the shame of the outcome. Just beyond the cusp of becoming independent beings, Eli\'s children betrayed God and him. Eli\'s sons were wicked men; they had no regard for the LORD. (1 Samuel 2:12) This sin of the young men was very great in the LORD\'s sight, for they were treating the LORD\'s offering with contempt. (1 Samuel 2:17) In this situation Eli needed to provide an answer, moreover, he was responsible to provide an answer. He was also to be held accountable because they were \young men\. The problem in Eli\'s house had been evident all along and it finally erupted. However, if Eli\'s sons were well-behaved children and became fully independent adults and years later turned against the Lord, Eli would not be to blame. The community would look to him to try to provide an answer and he would likely feel responsible. But he would not be accountable. The prophet Jeremiah spoke of a principle that was to take place in the future when a father and son will be self-responsible adults. If a child is not faithful immediately upon leaving the home, then the conditions that existed when the child left home point back to the parents. Something gone awry and unresolved in a home disqualifies a man from being an elder because it can be repeated in the flock. Our goal is to see what has been going on in the lives of the elder candidate. If it is difficult to determine if the lessons have been learned that led to the candidate\'s child leaving the faith, we should not yet consider him a candidate. The outcome of a leader\'s way of life is a priority in the leadership of the church (Hebrews 13:7). I would caution against prematurely using protracted periods of struggle against a parent\'s spirituality. A child of God\'s periodic failures and lapses are under God\'s provision. It is through such hard times, even with sin, that God\'s hand is most evident in the life of a Christian. These periods can also keep a parent from becoming prideful about his own family and help him relate to the struggles of every family. I hold that we should leave prudent time before we draw conclusions unless substantial deceit or an unworkable spirit has been evident. How long are the children of elders to remain faithful in order for the man to stay an elder? The telltale number of years will vary. Is the elder to be held accountable for his son or daughter who clearly charted his own life authentically as a Christian and then left the Lord in their late twenties? The father would naturally anguish over the matter but I don\'t think that Scripture holds him accountable. In the end, it is difficult to answer question (2) precisely. 3. Once the man has been appointed, are these qualifications also to be used as disqualifications? In other words, were these passages to be applied in appointing men and later disqualifying them? In both passages about elders the language is \An elder must be ...\ (Titus 1:6) and \Now the overseer must be ... \ (1 Timothy 3:2). It is best to have minimal differentiation between qualifications for becoming an elder and qualifications for remaining an elder. After determining which attributes are most binding and important for your circumstances it seems logical you should be consistent. 4. Is the qualification about children just to be applied to those who live with the elder, or is he responsible for their actions regardless of their age, even after they are adults and living apart from the parents? This question was largely answered under question (2). The concept of being responsible and being accountable were differentiated. We look for answers to a person who is responsible. We look for blame to someone who is accountable. A father is accountable for the outcome of his child in his home and in the immediate period thereafter. The degree of accountability changes over time. I argued from Jeremiah 31 that eventually a father is not accountable any longer -- we become self-determining adults -- but that doesn\'t mean any possible weaknesses that led to a straying child have just been eliminated by time. A father is responsible to figure out what has happened to his straying/struggling child and those near the elder candidate must be free to contribute to the discussion of his history. Some investigation should be involved. 5. Is it possible for children of an elder to rebel, struggle or go through times of serious sin or questioning and it not be attributed to sins of the father who is an elder? Our children are a reflection of our home shepherding more than anything else The parent\'s decisions, example, blind spots are more significant in our child\'s development than most conceivable mitigating circumstances. Fathers must keep the highest pressure on themselves about their children but even the son or daughter of the ideal father will sin and rebel. This is even true of God\'s children from the beginning of mankind. Where do we draw the line? I would like to answer this one from the family of one of your own elders. My wife and I were discipled by John and Nancy Mannel for many years. Roger and Marcia Lamb reached out to them when their marriage was in trouble and their children were young. They did not grow up in the church and their Christian foundation was very weak prior to becoming Christians. We first came to know them when their oldest son Jeff had gone through some problems. John and Nancy were very transparent about their past struggles after Jeff came around and John eventually became an elder. Then their next oldest son Kevin went through a time of wandering in his teens. It was no secret and John sought much advice about his family and intentions to step out of the eldership and not bring possible disgrace on the eldership. He was persuaded to stay and ride out the matter. In my mind, John was the antithesis of Eli (1 Samuel 2-3). He pursued every spiritual avenue with conviction while embracing full responsibility for his family. I believe that he still was able to \manage his family well\ while his son was haphazardly obedient because John gave full attention to the situation. The problem was never hidden or accepted as \okay\. John and Nancy stayed very open about what they were learning and it set an example that overseers are people too and even their struggles can be part of the growing process of the church. The story was dramatically repeated again with Holly. Again, John desired to step aside. Again he was told by his peers and others to let it be what it was. Many people were in the mix of knowing and helping -- teen workers, friends, other disciples in/out of the ministry. As it turned out, all three children were object lessons that an elder\'s child can struggle, not have it hidden from the various peer groups, and be turned around without undue disgrace. I wonder if Jeff, Kevin, and Holly would have made the turn if their father was pulled out of his role as soon as they first experienced trouble. The three Mannel children are in the church as solid Christians. They are in great marriages and have used their talents to help the kingdom in a great way -- church leader, administer and youth ministry. The weaknesses that were attributed to this particular elder were learned and changed while under the spotlight. The humanity and spirituality of this family has been in full view of thousands of disciples. Obviously, any of these three situations could have turned out differently. If a child\'s situation continues in such a way to compromise the elder\'s leadership and example to such a point that disciples are not willing to follow him, then he should step down. What I think is of utmost importance in these situations is using the consistent criteria and providing and authentic means of evaluation without making the elders family fodder for gossip. The faith of many elders\' children can be hurt in this way.
One example of this misplaced practice is to overlook men with the talents and heart of a shepherd by opting instead for men whose main credential is children who were baptized. If the children are all faithful, baptized disciples, does that qualify the father to be an elder? Have we not all marveled at families in which the children are remarkable Christians, but the parents are not necessarily shepherds at all? Truly parents are incredibly important in shaping children, but they are not the only factor. Men who look older and have baptized children in spite of themselves should not be considered candidates for eldership. Wherever you in Los Angeles or our churches go on these matters, I hope that we maintain deep convictions about shepherds and also have deep convictions about where the fault lies with older prodigals. The Parable of the Lost Son of Luke 15:11-32 seems intended to describe God\'s heart towards his wayward children. However, I wonder that if the father of the parable was in our congregation would he be stepped down as one unfit to serve as an elder. Is it not more logical to determine what kind of shepherd a man will be by how he treats his established adult child who left the safety of the flock? In any event, we probably all agree that children at home should not be \open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.\ We are here today to discuss these questions because the apostle Paul did not discourse on the difference between the prodigal independent adults and the rebellious child at home. I believe that the distinction can be discerned by a further reflection on all of Scripture -- not just by parking on a dozen verses in Titus and 1Timothy.
A covenant is an agreement. Agreements empower the church when problems arise and protect everyone. It is beneficial that its members understand the practices, especially under the questions asked at the beginning of this paper. A conclave is the vogue word to describe a gathering of qualified and trusted individuals. Covenants Some elder roles appear like Supreme Court lifetime appointments creating the same impression that the right of tenure does in the education profession. There should be defined reevaluation periods in the lives of elders. How is he functioning? Does he care for the sick? Is he exhausted at trying to be super elder that he is not functioning well? Is he a servant like Christ or a man who wants position? Is he abrasive and difficult to confront? The selection and reevaluation process should have healthy boundaries but not be a totally closed system. The flock who knows the difference between a hired hand from a shepherd must have some way of providing input to the elders and/or evangelists who will make the final call as men who will give an account. A covenant agreement will describe the qualifications, process, and measures that are needed to make sure that true shepherds are in place. Here again, where the Bible is silent, God has entrusted us to call on the Holy Spirit to give us wisdom to apply the Scriptures. Exceptional situations arise that would keep a man from being an elder in one church or another. An agreement can describe how select men in the church will review those unique situations. For instance, some have had children with a condition from birth, disease or accident who may never be baptized. Scripture is envisioning the normal family situation, leaving us room to draw principles of a man\'s candidacy from the non-extenuating situations. Most would agree that it would be bizarre to exclude a man based on the situation of a child who is mentally retarded. The same would be true of someone who adopted an older child from a disadvantaged upbringing. One way to deal with problems that arise is to designate a length of time in a your agreement for a struggling but not scandalous child to be worked out (maybe 4-6 months as an example). This gives the matter time to work out. Another important area that a written agreement would cover is privacy. The pressure on children growing up in an elder\'s family --- the \fishbowl\ effect is real. Taking measures to make sure the church does not judge or allow idle talk. It is not everyone\'s right to know why an elder goes on a sabbatical from the role or steps down for his own personal reasons. I know men who will not serve as an elder because of how they have seen other elders treated. They want to protect their family from the abuse of bloggers, malicious talk and the present lack of an agreement with the congregation of what to do when this arises. A protocol would help protect the entire church. If you take my suggestion to develop a short covenant about matters relating to elder selection, I would suggest two things that came from my experience in various churches during the upheaval in our movement. First, always distinguish the difference between members proposing solutions and candidates, and people voting for candidates. Secondly, aim to have the church elders and evangelists function according to their gifts not their title. In the last two years some novice elders have made tragic mistakes that could have been avoided if so much importance was not placed on position. I would consider noting the various kind of elders of differing honor such as the case of 1 Timothy 5:17. We could end up with teaching elders, preaching elders, elders with the gift of leadership. There is a clout differentiation where some elders are proven and have longstanding courage and integrity and others have less moral authority. I believe that in the Jerusalem congregation we even see a longstanding elder like James who had more influence and leadership. This concept is controversial but nonetheless true and Scriptural. Conclave In those talks we observed two opposite tensions that will also play into the five questions at hand. First, there are some who always tend to take the strictest possible interpretation to \play it safe.\ We agreed that the Pharisees used this sincere-sounding hermeneutic, not Jesus. The most rigorous standard is not necessarily the same as a God\'s intent. The second tension we observed occurs when someone felt that so-and-so would be a really great elder because of this-or-that (\he seems like an elder\), preferring a feeling-based evaluation but overlooking the Scriptures. Both tendencies can be dangerous in creating paranoia or laxity in our use of the Bible. This cursory group of brothers proved to be invaluable. Thereafter, when the storm soon came, there was so much at stake in obtaining more elders. In some ways it was the worst imaginable time to move forward in this endeavor. The initial stage (decided upon from consultation of wise brothers) was to form a hand-selected advisory group of impartial but spiritual men. We knew we had to consider the potential issues of favoritism, respond to the politicking from some \intense\ disenchanted members, all-the-while trying to build a truly representative eldership from the men that God had placed in our flock. Listening to God\'s whispers through our conscience was vital. We stood with our existing views of an elder\'s qualifications pertaining to family, even if a bit strict, rather than open new doors when the wind was blowing. In March/April of 2003 it was our goal to be able pray, \In my integrity you uphold me and set me in your presence forever.\ (Psalms 41:12). Thus we formed a temporary \conclave\ of evangelists and an advisory brother from each ministry who were above reproach in every respect but not capable of serving as an elder. These long-standing older brothers would weigh in all the candidates under consideration to provide another set of eyes for the evangelists. Jim Lefler and I, the current elders, oversaw the process as only to overrule if an unhealthy situation were to develop. It was amazing to watch. I can say in good conscience that we ended up in some cases with different men serving as elders than whom I anticipated and that I would have selected myself. This is good. We kept the process free of manipulation and still protected the church from unqualified or those who were not quite ready for this role. We put the necessary controls in the process to make it \a God thing\, not a man thing. It was encouraging to note that the outcome of five additional elders so closely matched the congregation\'s nominations. For all the days of our lives, neither I, Tony Singh, or Jim Lefler will ever forget overseeing the selection of new elders during the onslaught of slander and hysteria of March-June, 2003. Even at the immediate and anguishing loss of some longstanding members our congregation (mostly from one region), we can look God and man in the eye -- we had done the best we could. What made this happen so productively was a primitive version of an ecclesiastical conclave which was a gathering of spiritual men representing the entire congregation. Conclusion You will most likely find some tangible agreement among yourselves from this occasion. I am sure that the Los Angeles church will accept your conclusions as binding for your current stage. This process is a good example of striving to do the right thing and demonstrating brotherhood. Smaller congregations that are unable to bring in guest teachers will profit greatly from this discussion.
|