Church Minister Qualifications - Part 2
An expounding on the teaching of Paul in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1
Part 2 by Keith Hunt GENTLE (Patient): Barclay in his DAILY STUDY BIBLE writes, " The Greek is 'epieikes,' another of these completely untranslatable words. The noun is 'epieikeia,' and Aristotle describes it as 'that which corrects justice' and as that which 'is just and better than justice.' He said that it was that quality which corrects the law when the law errs because of its generality. What he means is that sometimes it may be actually unjust to apply the strict letter of the law. Trench said that 'epieikeia' means 'retreating from the letter of right better to preserve the spirit of right' and is 'the spirit which recognizes the impossibility of cleaving to all formal law.....that recognizes the danger that ever waits upon the assertion of legal rights, lest they should be pushed into moral wrongs.....the spirit which rectifies and redresses the injustice of justice.' Aristotle describes in full the action of 'epieikeia,' - 'To pardon human failings; to look to the law-giver, not to the law; to the intention, not to the action; to the whole, not to the part; to the character of the actor in the long run and not to the present moment; to remember good rather than evil, and the good that one has received rather than the good that one has done; to bear being injured; to wish to settle a matter by words rather than deeds.' .......The atmosphere of many a Church would be radically changed if there was more 'epieikeia' within it." Is there anyone - would be Church leader - present overseer - or any Church member - who can say they are ALWAYS patient and gentle, that they are never impatient? What if a would be, could be, pastor shows on a few occasions impatience, would that disqualify him from being considered to such a function and office within the Church? Now, if it was quite noticeable as a way of life with him, yes, it would disqualify him, until overcome. What if a present pastor or elder should become impatient at some time, should be less than gentle, would that error cost him his function as elder? If it becomes his life style - his practice - yes, but otherwise, no. It is rare indeed for ANYONE never to become impatient with something, somebody, somewhere along life's road. And again, in dealing with different people, one person may claim a minister was not gentle with them, yet another person would consider his manner very gentle. So to a point, and only to a point, I say, gentleness is in the eye of the beholder. But I think we all understand what I have stated as compared to a leader who rides rough-shod over people. Those who are bombastic, cutting, hard of speech, blunt and untactful, in conversation with people have no place being in the ministry of Jesus Christ. Even with dealing with those who are out of the way, and in total error, Paul was inspired to say that the true servant of the Lord had to be gentle, patient, apt to teach, and in meekness instructing such individuals, if God peradventure would grant them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth (2 Tim.2:24-26). NOT GREEDY OF BASE GAIN (filthy lucre): Barclay: "He will never do anything simply for profit's sake. He will know that there are values which are beyond all money price." Albert Barnes: "Greek, Not a lover of silver; that is of money. A man should not be put into the ministry who is characteristically a lover of money. Such a one, no matter what his talents may be, has no proper qualification for the office, and will do more harm than good." Now with that said, there is a contention that the above words are not a part of the original writing of Paul. I refer you to Adam Clarke's Bible Commentary for that matter. We seek just a few words later where the Greek word for "not loving money" is used, the KJV has, "not covetous." Would this be saying the same thing twice around? Maybe it would, then again, the first (if we conclude it is in the original Greek) would be a general statement, and including all one could imagine as "base gain" while the second pin-points a specific - the love of money. COVETOUS (not a lover of money): See the comments above. Adam Clarke: "......not desiring the office for the sake of its 'emoluments.' He who loves money will stick at nothing in order to get it. Fair and foul methods are to him alike, provided they may be equally productive. For the sake of reputation he may wish to get all honorably; but if that cannot be, he will not scruple to adopt other methods. A brother heathen gives him this counsel: 'Get money if you can by fair means, if not, get it by hook and by crook.' " NOT CONTENTIOUS (not a brawler): William Barclay: "The Greek means 'disinclined to fight.' There are people who, as we might put it, are 'trigger-happy' in their relationships with other people. But the real Christian leader wants nothing so much as he wants peace with his fellow-men." Barnes: "Comp.2 Tim.2:24. That is, he should not be a man given to contention, or apt to take up a quarrel." The man of God is an individual who is not prone to enter into quarrels or contentions with people. He is not going about to see who he can fight with over this matter or that matter. There is a difference between having a discussion or even a debate with someone over a religious matter, and keeping it within the "spirit" of Christianity, and stepping over the line where it becomes a "knock down drag out fight" of verbal abuse, where the evil side of contentions step in. And there is also a difference between that unrighteous adoption of verbal fighting, and the now and again time when righteous indignation and "righteous judgment" must be employed with some individual. The true minister of the Lord will know the differences and will know how and when each is occurring, and govern himself accordingly. Again, let me say, the servant of the Eternal is not perfect, he is still flesh and blood, he may make an error some time, but what makes him a true Elder of the Lord is that he will repent of it, as soon as he sees it, or when it is pointed out to him. Overall, the man of God is, as a person and as a way of practical life, NOT A BRAWLER. He is not a hard-nosed street fighter with words or with actions. Anyone who is, and will not repent and change, cannot and should not be in the ministry of the Church of God. ONE THAT RULES WELL HIS OWN HOUSE: As Richard Nickels has noted: "This qualifications for an overseer covers two areas of his personal life: (a) management of the home and (b) training of children. Is his home neat, clean, orderly? Does he manage his finances well? Does he provide well for his family? Are his children respectful, eager to learn more of the Eternal's truth?......... Here is something that takes time. Obviously, an elder or overseer is just that, an older man who has had the time to prove his spiritual maturity........" Albert Barnes has a lot to say on this point, and I will take the time and the space to quote much of what he has written. "One that rules well his own house. This implies that the minister of the gospel would be, and ought to be, a married man. It is everywhere in the NT supposed that he would be a man who could be an example in all the relations of life. The positions which he occupies in the Church has a strong resemblance to the relationship which a father sustains to his household; and a qualification to govern a family well, would be an evidence of a qualification to preside properly in the Church. It is probable that, in the early Christian Church, ministers were not infrequently taken from those of mature life, and who were, at the time, at the head of families; and, of course, such would be men who had had an opportunity of showing that they had this qualification for the office. Though, however this cannot be insisted upon now.......yet it is still true that, if he has a family, it is a necessary qualification, and that a man in the ministry should be one who governs his own house well....... (Note: We have covered the fact that some in the ministry of the NT apostolic Church were not married with families, but that was the exception and not the rule. Remember these are general rules of qualifications Paul lays down, without going into the exceptions. He himself knew the words of Christ that some to whom it was given and could receive it, would make themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of heaven's sake - Keith Hunt). Continuing with Barnes: Having his children in subjection with all gravity...........He should be a grave or serious man in his family; a man free from levity of character, and from frivolity and fickleness, in his intercourse with his children. It does not mean he should be severe, stern, morose - which are traits which are often mistaken for gravity, and which are as inconsistent with the proper spirit of a father as frivolity of manner - but that he should be a serious and sober-minded man. He should maintain proper dignity, he should maintain self-respect; and his deportment should be such as to inspire others with respect for him. For if a man know not how to rule.........A Church resembles a family. It is, indeed, larger, and there is a greater variety of dispositions in it than there is in a family. The authority of a minister of the gospel in a Church is also less absolute than that of a father. But still there is a striking resemblance. The Church is made up of an assemblage of brothers and sisters. They are banded together for the same purpose, and have a common object to air at. They have common feelings and common wants. They have sympathy, like a family, with each other in their distresses and afflictions. The government of the Church also is designed to be 'paternal.' It should be felt that he who presides over it, has the feelings of a father; that he loves all the members of the great family; that he has no prejudices, no partialities, no selfish aims to gratify. Now, if a man cannot govern his own family well; if he is severe, partial, neglectful, or tyrannical at home, how can he be expected to take charge of the more numerous ' household of faith ' with proper views and feelings? If, with all the natural and strong ties of affection, which bind a father to his own children; if, when they are few comparatively in number, and where his eye is constantly upon them, he is unable to govern them aright, how can he be expected to preside in a proper manner over the larger household, where he will be bound with comparatively feebler ties, and where he will be exposed to the influence of passion, and where he will have a much less constant opportunity of supervision?......." End quotes from Albert Barnes. Again, I must emphasis that Paul gives here a "general" rule. To insist that a man MUST have children or MUST even be married to qualify for the ministry, is to lift this instruction completely out of the context of the NT. For what about a man and his wife who were unable to have children (I guess some would argue they could adopt children)? What about those who lost their children in some terrible accident (I guess some would argue they could have more or adopt)? What if a man was on the verge of being ordained to the ministry (say in one week) and through a car crash he lost his wife and children? Would that mean his ordination was on an indefinite hold? Oh, no indeed not, for he had already proved himself qualified and called to the ministry of Jesus Christ. This is an important matter, a man ruling well his own house. Many variables come into play, and must be taken into consideration by the ministers and Church as this qualification is acted out in a man's life. I will give some examples to illustrate. (1) A man has six children. Five are model children, well behaved, respectful and a pleasure to know, but the sixth one, that is another story altogether, a long way to go to catch up to the other five. Does that one out of six children disqualify him from being ordained to the ministry? I am not saying that sixth child has murdered someone or anything of that nature, and we are talking about "children" - under the age of 18 in North America. The whole situation would have to be looked at I know, but my general opinion would be that the one unruly child out of six would not disqualify him from the ministry. (2) A man raises his children well (I realize his wife is probably just as much or even more responsible for this). They are young teenagers. He is ordained to the ministry. Then a few of his children some years later as older teens, go wild and become a disgrace, yet most of his family stay true and strong in the Christian faith. He and his wife did the very best with all of them in very way, but a few got in with the wrong company. Some could contend he did not do enough and he failed. He did not have 100% complete success. Is he now to resign from the ministry, or have this function taken away from him? Again I realize each situations would need to be looked at within its own context. But do you see that Paul was giving a general principle qualification, without going into all the fine points. (3) Now here's one for you to think about. A man raises his children very well. They are all say under the teenage line, but the oldest is not far away from 13. The youngest we shall say is 10 years old. And we shall say there are three children. This man for many years, since the children were babies, has ruled well his own house in every way. He and his wife have been model parents, and tried to do things by the book. The husband/father has proved himself in all the qualifications Paul here lays down. He is ordained to the ministry. Then as the years slowly roll by and the children become teens, the troubles really start. All three children start to get into troubles, and troubles, and more troubles. It becomes quite obvious to all in the Church, these three children from one of the Elders are way out of control, and they finally do things that bring open disgrace on the congregation and community. Should that Elder step down from the function of the ministry? Should other Elders and the congregation ask/demand that he step down? Don't think this never happens, for it indeed does. I have witnessed it personally with men I knew. The above is something like an overseer who, during his ministry becomes controlled by wine/alcohol for whatever reasons. Is such a man to be allowed to continue in the function of a Church leader while being an alcoholic? Or should he not step down until at least the problem is overcome? Let's remember, Paul here gives general over all principles of qualifications without going into all the varying details of exceptions and individual specific cases that could possible arise in the life of people and the Church of God. It's something like what God established with ancient Israel. They were given basic laws and regulations to live by, but the answer to every specific situations that could arise in Israel was not all written down and answered in hundreds of books to be kept in the Tabernacle for reference when needed. God set up "judges" in Israel who had the job of deciding all the various specifics of the many variants that could arise within the lives of people - see Deuteronomy 17:8-13. What must govern is that a man shows he has all these points of qualification under basic control, way more control than not for sure. He must have shown he has passed the exam on these points, scored a very good grade, very close to the top of the class, along with other men who could qualify with him, if there are any others of course (remember Jesus said we should pray the Lord of the harvest to send more laborers into the harvest, for the harvest is ripe and ready to be gathered in). This man is not ruled by covetousness, impatience, wine, money, etc., but has the mastery over these. And he has shown that he leads his own home well. He does all these things well, very well in fact, notwithstanding the errors and slips he may make sometimes on account that he is still flesh and blood. I have known a minister who did resign or stepped to one side because his teenage sons [3 he had] became out of control. He said [rightly so] he had to step away from the ministry, while his sons repented and got their lives in proper order. I really had more respect for that man, then ever before. That was taking the work of the ministry in true serious form. NOT A NOVICE: Richard Nickels: "A minister cannot be a recent convert, lest he become proud and conceited at his authority and fall into the same sin as Satan did. Any organization that send young men fresh out of school to be 'spiritual leaders' of Churches is heading the way of satan. A true elder has been trained for years under another man. He knows life's problems because he has lived many years, and worked with a great number of people." I understand fully the comment by Nickels, as I have first-hand experience in being, at one time, a part of an organization that did send young men fresh out of Theological School to be "spiritual leaders" of Churches. Most of them had never experienced walking as a Christian in the world, with all its trials, temptations, job problems for those who keep the Sabbath and Feast days, and all the other things that life in society can bring. Most were young in marriage with no children or very young children, having little experience in this aspect of life. And indeed, many did become inflated with pride and vanity, until the whole organization eventually became filled with the cancerous way of the deceptions of Satan. It was only the few that remained faithful and had to pull away from the body of sickness, to learn from the errors committed and move forward in spirit and in truth. It is a hard way to learn. They say experience is the best teacher, but it is often not the most pleasant, as those who have gone through the experience I mention above will quickly assert. It should be obvious to most Christians that a man serving as a Church overseer should be well grounded in Biblical knowledge, understanding, and PRACTICE. The average person wanting the best possible job done on his house plumbing, electrical work, carpentry, or his children's dental work, eye care etc., is going to find someone who he knows is WELL QUALIFIED in that area of work. With many years of study, knowledge, and PRACTICAL experience behind them. It should be no different for those entrusted with the care and guidance of the Church of God. If he lacks knowledge, understanding, wisdom, and practical experience in the things of God, and living as a Christian in the world, how easy it would be for Satan to catch him and reap havoc within the flock of the Lord. To try to save-guard this happening, Paul was inspired to lay down a basic qualification for the ministry - no novice to Christianity was to have the function of overseer within the Church. This would help to guard against the attack of Satan, but as we see from Acts 20 it would not guarantee complete elimination of false seduction from Elders within the Church. Paul knew well that even Elders who were not novices could go astray and be caught in the web of Satan. There is much the NT has to say about apostasy entering the Church from WITHIN the Church itself via ministers who would fall away from the truth of the word of God. That is another subject for another time. Here is what Albert Barnes writes: ".....The Greek word, which occurs nowhere else in the NT, means, properly, that which is NEWLY PLANTED. Thus it would mean a plant that was not strong, or not fitted to bear the severity of storms; that had not as yet struck its roots deep, and could not resist the fierceness of a cold blast. Then the word comes to mean a new convert; one who has had little opportunity to test his own faith, or to give evidence to others that he would be faithful to the trust committed to him. The word does not refer so much as to one young IN YEARS, as one who is young IN FAITH. Still, all the reasons which apply against introducing a very recent convert into the ministry, will apply commonly with equal force against introducing one young in years. Lest being lifted up with pride. We are not to suppose that this is the ONLY reason against introducing a recent convert into the ministry, but it is a SUFFICIENT reason.........He falls into the condemnation of the devil. That is, the same kind of condemnation the devil fell into; to wit, the condemnation on account of pride....... The idea of Paul is, that a young convert should not suddenly be raised to an exalted station in the church. Who can doubt the wisdom of this direction? The word rendered LIFTED UP, is from a verb which means, to smoke, to fume, to surround with smoke; then to INFLATE - as a bladder is with air; and then to be conceited or proud; that is, to be LIKE a bladder filled, not with a solid substance, but with air" (Emphasis his). A GOOD REPORT OF THEM THAT ARE WITHOUT: Richard Nickels has truly written: "Last but certainly not least, is this important must for a would-be elder or overseer. Those outside the Church are the best judge of religious hypocrisy. They are quick to detect the fakes who don't practice what they preach......" Once more we shall hear from Albert Barnes: "Who are without the Church; that is, of those who are not Christians......The idea is he must have a FAIR REPUTATION with them.....He must be true, and just, and honest in his dealings with his fellow men.....He must not give occasion for scandal or reproach .....with the other sex......The reason for this injunction is too obvious. It is his business to endeavor to do such men good, and to persuade them to become Christians. BUT NO MINISTER OF THE GOSPEL CAN POSSIBLE DO SUCH MEN GOOD, UNLESS THEY REGARD HIM AS AN UPRIGHT AND HONEST MAN......Go to a man whom you have defrauded, or who regards you as having done or attempted wrong to any other, and talk to him about the necessity of religion, and he will instinctively say, that he does not WANT a religion which will not make its professor true, honest, and pure. It is impossible, therefore, for a minister to over-estimate the importance of having a FAIR CHARACTER in the view of the world, and no man should be INTRODUCED INTO the ministry, or SUSTAINED IN IT, who has not a fair reputation....... Lest he fall into reproach......His life will be such as to give men occasion to reproach the cause of religion. And the snare of the devil.......The snare to which reference is here made, is that of BLASTING THE CHARACTER AND INFLUENCE OF THE MINISTRY OF THE GOSPEL......If there is anything of this kind in the life of a minister which they can make use of, they will be ready to do it......Satan is constantly aiming at this thing; the world is watching for it; and if the minister has any PROPENSITY which is not in entire accordance with honesty, Satan will take advantage of it, and lead him into the snare" (Emphasis his and mine). Paul is saying that generally, overall, a man chosen for the ministry must be well liked and respected by the overall neighbors, business associates, etc. To be sure, given enough time, and enough people, someone you rub shoulders with in the world is not going to get along with you for one reason or another (sometimes it's just personality clashes), and would be happy to blackball you if asked about you. Often such may be due to misunderstanding, or not getting what they wanted from you, disagreeing with you over some issue, maybe it is pure jealousy. Whatever, there is probably someone, somewhere, that you have crossed paths with, that has it in for you and will be glad to speak evil of you if given the chance. This Paul I'm sure knew very well, from his own personal ministry and the enemies he had. This is not the point Paul was addressing. What he was stating is the overall points that Albert Barnes talked about in his comments. We must also remember this report comes from "those without" the Church, not from those within on this particular qualification. The general opinion must come from the world, without any influence from the Church. The world must speak for itself fair and square. This point of qualification also shows forth the truth that in the mind of the apostle Paul, a man fit for the ministry was a man who had working experience within the daily life of the working world. He was not a man straight from High School into Theological School and out to pastor a Church or serve as assistant pastor for a year or two before moving on to full pastorship. He was a man who had served in the working world for quite some time, because he was able to have built up a reputation among the people of those without the Church. Again, what better way to serve those in the Church who have to deal with and live as a Christian on a daily shoulder rubbing basis, with the world, than having the personal experience of "being there." They will truly know what it is like and can be a faithful helper, guide, comforter, and server of their needs, because they have walked the same road at one time. Jesus, it is written, is a faithful High Priest for us, because He became flesh and blood. He was tempted in all points as we are, yet was without sin. He knows exactly our needs, our pains, our trials, our fight against Satan and his world, as well as the pull of human nature. He has been there, experienced it all in an overall way, and so it fitted Him to be a better High Priest in heaven above. QUALIFICATIONS IN TITUS Paul was inspired to tell Titus the qualifications needed for a man to attain the function of Elder or Overseer in the Church. Below I give the list of comparisons between Timothy and Titus, as drawn up by Richard Nickels in his study paper on this subject. 1 Timothy 3 Titus 1
|
No comments:
Post a Comment