Though none of these subjects are exactly pleasant to address, this one is most unfortunate. I sincerely wish that there was no cause for me to share such, but as I look out into the world of Christianity into which I was birthed, I fear that someone must, so “Here I am, send me”. If I must bear the reproach of Christ, so be it, for He has already done likewise all the more on my behalf.
God shares His simple plan for making “church leaders”, and somehow we have apparently missed it.
(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?). (1 Timothy 3:5)
God’s plan is so simple and so wise. However, this does not happen immediately, and does not follow our American “Fast-Food” Mentality. We want it all right now, even if the quality is compromised and our health will suffer adverse effects in the years to come. God’s plan is painful and full of suffering and death, and yet it is extremely necessary, hence His prescription of such a manner ahead of time.
There are really three main requirements for a man to be considered a leader within a local congregation. The first is that he should be living a noticeably sanctified life. This makes sense, especially in light of Hebrews 12:14, “Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord”.
Since no one will see the Lord without holiness, it makes sense that God would want a leader to be holy. Though words such as “sanctified” or “holy” do not show up in the actual text of 1 Timothy when qualifications for church leaders are being listed, many of the characteristics and requirements can be summed up by those terms.
These men are to be “blameless… sober, of good behavior… not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre… not a brawler,” and “not coveteous” according to 1 Timothy 3:2-4. Titus 1:7-8 goes even further and specifically mentions “holy”, as well as “blameless”, “not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre”, “sober”, “just”, “temperate”, as well as other praiseworthy characteristics. These men are not to be hypocrites, but their life should match their identity in Christ, and even “have a good report of them which are without” (1 Timothy 3:7).
The second requirement is that they should be “the husband of one wife” (1 Timothy 3:2 & Titus 1:6). Overseers within the local congregations should be married, to only one woman, forever. This is most important for several reasons, some of which we will address shortly.
The third requirement is perhaps the most compromised of the three (though God’s entire simple plan has been thrown out of the window for the most part).
“One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;” (1 Timothy 3:4)
Titus 1:6b states, “having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.”
Here’s where things begin to get really interesting.
Since a man’s household is a direct extension of himself, you can learn a lot about a man by observing his family. If a man is unable to rule his own house well, he will not properly care for the church of God. This is a promise directly from God’s Word. A man’s house should be much easier to succeed in anyway, since his wife loves him more than any other mortal and has sworn an oath of allegiance to him until death, and since his children are really “clean slates”, tainted only by their inherited sin nature, with which he often has the better part of two decades to mold, shape, and discipline.
To be able to spend multiple hours with them on a daily basis, every day of the year, certainly provides more opportunity for success than an hour or two one morning a week, as is the common interaction with other believers in “church”. In this family situation, a man who seriously desires to please God can succeed. Howsoever, to invest in one’s own house first, is certainly not the fast-track to reach our current misunderstanding of what “full-time ministry” is supposed to be. Raising faithful children is most certainly a full-time ministry in God’s eyes and should be the foundation upon which other “ministries” are built, but we have for the most part rejected that notion. Until we either are succeeding, or have succeeded, in our own house, our efforts are not needed elsewhere.
The subject of “faithful children” is worth addressing as well. The Greek word translated as “faithful” here is “pistos”, and can be translated as either “faithful”, “trustworthy”, “reliable”, or “believing”. What if a man was supposed to have “believing children” in order to be considered a leader within a local gathering? This certainly could be God’s desire, and I see no reason to conclude otherwise.
Of course the age of the children must then be taken into consideration, but the age of the man already should have been considered. You see, Titus was given a charge by Paul to “ordain elders in every city” (Titus 1:5). It is within this context of ordaining elders that the qualifications for a “bishop” are given. “Elder” simply means “older” or “ancestral”, and in many cases refers just to an older individual, apart from any inference to any sort of church leadership. These leaders then, were to be older, holy men, who were married to one woman, and had raised believing children.
As I have pondered that, I could not help but to call into remembrance the first chapter of the Bible, Genesis 1. There we are repeatedly told that things reproduce after their own kind.
These men which God is speaking of here, whether in any form of leadership or not, are succeeding in the male Christian life. They are sanctified, with a strong life-long marriage and have successfully passed their faith on to the next generation. If they are then allowed an outlet such as shepherding in a local flock, they can labor to reproduce after their own kind, (since the large amount of time that successful child-rearing requires would have already been invested).
When I think of all of the disobedient children, and how many walk away from the faith, all the broken marriages within the church, and the general unholy, assimilated-into-the-world lifestyle of so many churchgoers, I cannot help but to deeply desire obedience to this simple principle laid forth by our Creator.
I must at this point state what some of you must already be thinking. Why I am only addressing what is said about “elders” and “bishops”, and not what is said about “pastors”? Herein lays a great mystery. “Pastor”, as such, appears only once in the whole King James Version New Testament, and all that is said is that “he gave some,.. pastors and teachers” (Ephesians 4:11).
Were it not for our traditions, we would most likely conclude that such a passage was not worthy to warrant a full time paid position with complete earthly control over (almost) every word spoken in the gathering. Now “pastor” can also be translated as “shepherd”, but most mentions of “shepherd” speak solely of Jesus as the Chief Shepherd. Also, in regard to “shepherds”, we are warned to beware of the “hireling” (John 10:12-13). This certainly does not help our brothers in “the clergy”.
We may also ponder, “What about the ‘Pastoral Epistles’?”, but, as a brother recently answered me when I asked him such a question, “There aren’t any”. Neither Timothy nor Titus were “pastors”, and Scripture is very clear on that. If we are to conclude that Titus was, then we must also believe that he pastored the entire island of Crete, after all, he was to “ordain elders in every city” (Titus 1:5).
No, Titus and Timothy were fellow laborers with Paul and may have served as missionaries, church-planters, evangelists, and disciple makers, but they were not “pastors”. They were teaching believers to function without them, and not to be dependant upon them. As Paul stated concerning Titus, “Whether any do enquire of Titus, he is my partner and fellowhelper concerning you:” (2 Corinthians 8:23a). This is why we see Timothy and Titus traveling all over, rather than “pastoring” one specific church.
That said, since “pastor” also means “shepherd”, and since “bishop” also means “overseer”, I view them as the same. (That at least gives us some qualifications for a “pastor” other than “not a hireling”.) A shepherd “watches over”, which I equate with “over seeing”. Jesus was called by both titles in the same verse, when Peter referred to Him as “the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls” (1 Peter 2:25). The body is supposed to function and the sheep are to interact, but the shepherd watching over them keeps them from going astray.
If we read what else is shared about God’s approved church leaders, an even more unfortunate picture begins to emerge.
“Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.” (1 Timothy 3:6)
This directly follows our main verse;
“(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)” (1 Timothy 3:5)
Obviously, there is quite a contrast here. We must choose either between a sanctified man already approved in his own house, or a proud novice. Can a young man, though he may be “on fire” for the Lord, really be a son and then a student and not still be considered a “novice”?
Simply put, he cannot teach anyone from experience about such things as succeeding in marriage or raising believing children. I fear this is a main failure of “the reformation”. There was not a “restoration”. The attempt may have turned Roman Catholicism back into something more Biblical, but it did not scrap Roman Catholicism and begin anew with the Bible. Many methods and traditions were carried over, and we are still reaping the tainted harvest. Just as a celibate priest cannot teach anyone experientially about marriage or parenting, neither can many seminary graduates. Since most seminary graduates are young men, it would be as foolish to consider them “elders” as it is for the Mormons to refer to their young members as “elders”.
The issue of pride must also be commented on, since it was mentioned in 1 Timothy 3:6. We are clearly told that “Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth” (1 Corinthians 8:1b). Pride is contrary to the way of love (charity), and knowledge is a way to obtain such pride. I am sorry to say, but most of what the seminary-trained and ordained clergy have to offer is “knowledge”, and this is dangerous.
A young proud man, who has been rigorously trained in what to believe and how to teach that to others, will never be as effective as a man following the way God has prescribed. A true disciple cannot be made in a classroom. If classroom “education” was the way to produce great spiritual leaders, then Jesus would have done accordingly with His disciples. The Christian life must be experienced, and not read about, because the life of the believer is death.
When a man conforms his life and his will to the obedience of God, he dies to himself. His desires have been replaced by God’s desires for him, and his life is sanctified. When a man marries, he now has another to submit his will to (mutually), and he dies to himself all the more. Then the children come. Successful childrearing is a death, and the more a man has to give of himself, the less of himself he has for himself, so the more he dies. Death and Christianity cannot be separated, which is why even before He was ever crucified Jesus commanded His followers to pick up their own crosses. Once a man has died to himself (especially in so many ways), he is all the more useful to the Lord.
“Verily, verily, I say unto you, except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.” (John 12:24)
Without death, one abides alone, just as an unmarried man with no children. This is not the most effective way to bring forth fruit.
Yes Paul and Timothy were “single” men used greatly by the Lord, but we must remember that all Paul’s “education” and credentials were “dung” compared to knowing Christ. Again, to “know” Christ must happen experientially in life. One can know about Him in a classroom, but to really know Him requires more. Also, the lives of these men (Paul and Timothy) were marked by much sacrifice, and dying to themselves in order to bless others was a reality that characterized their lives.
It is most unfortunate that so many young men desiring to serve God choose the route of Bible College or Seminary in an attempt to be what they believe God wants them to be, rather than following His plan for preparing church leaders. These passionate young men are most likely the same ones who could have lived an appropriate life, marrying their one wife and raising the next generation of believers.
Unfortunately, just as so many before them, they get bogged down with our current misconception of “ministry”. Their hearts are never really turned towards their homes, their time and energy is used elsewhere, and everyone suffers: them, their families, and “their” congregations. This is a most tragic reality. I fully realize that many “pastors” do accomplish much, and I certainly hope that they would. They have been freed from all other obligations as far as providing a living for their family goes and can spend all day in the Word and prayer, interacting with believers and encouraging them.
I seriously hope that anyone with such an opportunity could accomplish something for the Lord, especially since His Word does not return void. Still, greater blessing always comes with actual obedience.
When a man successfully dies, he can bring forth much fruit and reproduce after his own kind. What kind of men do we need to be reproducing in our churches these days? Do we need more proud novices, or more holy men raising believing children within lasting marriages?
Whatever you may believe about church leadership, or wherever you may disagree with me about the things shared above, you still have the Word of God to consider:
(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?). (1 Timothy 3:5)
