|
 Dear
bro. Turner:
Can
a Christian with only one child scripturally serve as an elder?
Please answer in Plain Talk. CBM
Reply:
Having
a child, or many children, is not the point of 1 Tim. 3:4--5 and
Titus 1:6. It is the ability to rule, with gravity, ones own,
that is being considered and made a qualifying run. Of course
ruled children necessitate children to rule, but we must not
allow the issue to degenerate to the level of genetics or
progeny. It is no reproach on a man to be childless, but unruled
children are a dishonor.
With
this aside, there remain two questions: (1) Do the scriptures
demand (positively) that he have ruled children, or do they
teach that such children as he may have, must be under
subjection? (2) Would the requirements (tekna) allow one child?
Fourteen
characteristics of “the bishop” are given in Timothy, headed
by “dei einai” or “it behooves — to be.” Each of these
are accusative predicates of the first “to be”; with the
last two being participles: “ruling” and “having.”
Literally (Marshall) it says, “It behooves — the bishop —
to be: household ruling, children having. Lenski notes that “the
objects of both participles have an emphasis because they are
placed forward.”
If
“(ruled) children having” is coordinate (on an equal
footing) with “household (well) ruling” then they are
equally required of a bishop — he must have “children.”
Lenski,
|
|
and others, think “children having” is
subordinate to “household ruling”
but nothing is cited in the text to substantiate this. It is
said that one may rule a household in which there are no
children, and this is true. So why did the Holy Spirit give such
gram- matically equal space to “children having”? If the
return to “household ruling” in 1 Tim. 3:5 means that “children
having” is subordinate, what conclusion are we to draw from
Titus 1:6 where well ruled children are a qualification, and “household
ruling” apart from children, is not so much as named?
As
unruled children are a reproach so well ruled children are an
honor and, I believe, on equal footing with other honoring
qualifications here.
Must
there be a plurality of such children? The word “tekna” does
not affirm it. Some admit that “child” is not ruled out by
the plural “tekna” (see Matt. 22:24 Eph. 6:1) but say it is
never so used where qualifications or regulations are being
given. Is not the single child of a widow bound to care for his
own? (1 Tim. 5:4,8) We sometimes make rules to fit our need.
And
now that the above is written, I must add that I favor the
interpretation or exegesis that calls for a plurality of well
ruled children. It may be my traditional upbringing, but of
course I assign it to my appreciation of the context. I can not
say a one — child bishop is unscriptural; but other things
being equal, I would select men “proven” in a multi -child
home. Perhaps I imagine this best fits the general context, but
I know it will avoid unnecessary confusion.
[Previous
Article] [Next
Article]
|
