|
Bro. Turner:
 Assuming
a man is qualified in all other respects, may he serve as elder
being scripturally remarried? TAB
Reply:
“The
husband of one wife” (1 Tim. 3:2 Titus 1:6) like most other
qualifications of overseers, has been immobilized, sliced into
one-thousandth inch wafers, and examined so minutely that its
practical, common-sense use may have been missed. I believe Paul
was telling brethren of future congregations (through Timothy
and Titus) how to go about selecting the men to whom they would
look for oversight. Is he respected by his peers, or does a
cloud of accusations hang over him? Is he an exemplar family
man, having one wife (not a bigamist), and having children whose
conduct indicates wise parental nurture and admonition in the
Lord? “If a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall
he take care of the church of God?”
It
is not my understanding that “one wife” demands she be still
living (he could be a widower); nor that he is disqualified if
he marries the second time. I believe he could
scripturally remarry following divorce because of fornication on
the part of his first wife (Matt. 19:9), although such
remarriage is subject to close examination and much
soul-searching. The more questionable the remarriage, the less
qualified the man, regardless of his “rights” according to
the letter of God’s law. A divorced elder would work under a
severe handicap.
What
of one having but one child, yet qualified in other respects? HW
|
|
“Tekna”
(children) of 1 Tim. 3:4 and Titus 1:6 is a plural word, but its
use in such passages does not exclude its distributive
component, the “child.” A more detailed study of this is in
the August 1971 issue of Plain Talk. (See Matt. 22:24; Eph. 6:1;
1 Tim. 5:4, 10; for “children” used in this non-exclusive
sense.) The point is to test a man’s ability to rule by
examining his efforts in his home. Even so, I favor looking for
men with a plurality of well-ruled children.
May
the church vote on matters of judgment? Doesn’t voting make
the church a democracy, not a kingdom? Doesn’t voting usurp
the right of the elders to “rule?” AM
The
“kingdom” aspect means all are subject to Christ —- a
unanimous decision of elders, or all saints, could not alter His
authority as expressed in the Scriptures. The whole church has
expressed its judgment when agreeing that certain men are
scripturally qualified to shepherd and lead the flock. Wise
leadership always considers the judgment of other saints; but to
call for a “church vote” on the elder’s “leading”
would negate God’s plan for oversight, allow the unqualified
and babes to “outvote” mature judgment, and make for
anarchy.
Mutual
submission (Eph. 5:21) rules out “voting” in the political
sense. Campaigning, and “lining up votes” in elder selection
or other church matters, is carnal and earthly. There is a vast
difference in self-expression, and counting votes to determine
rule. In one we work together to serve the Lord, but the later
is man-serving.
[Previous
Article] [Next
Article]
|
