Marital Qualifications for Elders

Transcript

GR 745
8/3/1986
Marital Qualifications for Elders
Titus 1:6
Gil Rugh

The Book of Titus in your Bibles. Titus and the first chapter. This brief, 3-chapter epistle written by the Apostle Paul has as its main theme the subject of good works for godliness. Godliness in the living of our lives, in our relating to one another. In our ministering as the Body of Jesus Christ. And Paul begins this key subject by a consideration of the leaders in the Body of Christ, and he is discussing in vs. 5-9 the identification and characteristics of those who are to be appointed the leaders in the churches that have been established on the island of Crete. Several facts have already been touched upon, and we've looked at these in our study. The first is the name of these officers or leaders in the church. They are called elders. That name was used in v. 5. They are called overseers in v. 7. And we've noted they are also called pastors. They have the responsibility for shepherding the flock or leading or ruling in the body. They are in number a plurality. The indication of the New Testament is there is a plurality of godly leaders in each local church. That plan is not that one man rules or leads in the body. His plan is not that the body in its entirety has the responsibility for leadership, but that a number of godly men be given that responsibility.

Their responsibilities are twofold—to lead and to feed. To lead or rule, to oversee the body; and to feed or teach the people of God. Those are the key, prime focal responsibilities of the leaders that God would have appointed. Now it's God's church, and He appoints the leaders. Back up to Acts chapter 20. It does not really matter what I think about running the church. It does not really matter what you think about church government. All that matters is what God says about the running of His church and our obedience to what He says. And in Acts chapter 20, v. 28, Paul exhorts the elders in the church at Ephesus, "Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood." And you note the facts related there. That they have been appointed by the Holy Spirit. It's the Holy Spirit who made you overseers, so it is God's position and it is with God's authority that the elders in each body are to be appointed. And we're going to talk about that further in a moment. You'll note they are to shepherd the church of God. It's not a person's church on earth, doesn't belong to an individual or a group of individuals. It's the church of God, it's His by purchase. He purchased it with His own blood, and that occurred when Jesus Christ died on the cross. He paid the penalty for sin so that by believing in Him, trusting Him as the One who loved me and died for me, I could be cleansed and forgiven. The moment I do that, I am brought into a personal relationship with God and I am made a member of His church. So you see, the church of God is comprised of those who have been purchased by Him. The way you get into the church is not by joining a certain church. You get in by being born into that church--not physical birth but spiritual birth. You get into that church by being purchased by God for Himself. Now this local church is to be a gathering and a fellowship of those who have been redeemed by faith in Jesus Christ. That's what makes us a church before God.

That being the fact, what our responsibility is in the area of leaders is to recognize those that God has appointed. Now that drives us to the question, how are we to recognize the leaders that God has selected? And it's not so difficult as we might think. It is God's intention to have a church that He has purchased for Himself. It's His intention to appoint leaders in that church. I would expect that He would make it clear to us how to recognize His appointed leaders. Otherwise, we would be in the dark; we would have no way to know who is to lead and who is not to lead.

The prime way, if I can summarize it in a statement, is to recognize the men who meet the biblical qualifications and have a desire to serve. It's just that simple. Recognize the men who meet the biblical qualifications and have a desire to serve. Those are the ones we are to appoint. I take it those are the ones appointed by God.

Let me make a couple of comments before we look into some details. I think it is important to note especially in our day that only men are biblically qualified to hold the office of elder. I believe that the New Testament is as clear as it could be that God appoints only men to the position of office, overseer, or pastor. Those 3 titles all referring to the same position. That is not to put down women. That is not to say women are inferior. But in God's sovereign plan, He has ordained different roles and realms of responsibility for men and for women. And equality does not mean sameness. And men and women are equal when they are free before God to function in the capacity God created them to function. When it comes to the role of leadership in the Church, God has appointed that men do the leading.

Look in First Timothy chapter 2. We're not going to delve into a detailed consideration of this. It will come out in our study of qualifications as we move through them, that Paul is addressing men as the leaders. But you'll note in First Timothy 2 as Paul talks about the functioning of the church, v. 11. "Let a woman quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet." The two realms of responsibility of an elder is the teaching and the ruling. And a woman is to learn quietly in submission. She has a different realm and a different sphere of responsibility. Also, while you're in First Timothy, another thing to note is that a man ought to have a strong desire for this position, the position of elder. God is not in the position of begging. He's not in the position of bargaining. It's simply a fact of God calls and appoints you to that position, you'd better serve. Otherwise you are in rebellion and resisting the sovereign will of God. And you'll note in First Timothy chapter 3, v. 1. "It is a trustworthy statement; if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do." That word "aspires", any man 'aspires' to the office of overseer literally means 'to stretch yourself,' to reach out your hand. So it comes to mean 'to strive for something,' 'to desire something,' 'to aspire to something.' I take it that's what we talk about when we talk about the call of God in this area. That God places in a man's heart that He has appointed that desire to serve Him in this capacity. Not the fleshly desire that I would like to be leader; I want to have the visibility of being responsible and in charge. But God gives me that desire to serve Him and the people of God in that position. So that's key. And I believe that in this local church as we look for men to serve in this office that we stoop to begging or beseeching or urging in the wrong way, men desert. You simply challenge and lay before them the biblical qualifications and the privilege, and I believe God will burden the men that ought to serve, if we're being sensitive to the leading of the Holy Spirit in our lives.

Now what Paul is going to do in Titus is turn our attention to the central issue of leadership, the qualifications of the men who are to serve. How are we going to recognize these men? Well, in Titus chapter 1 as well as in First Timothy chapter 3, God unfolds a list of qualifications that must characterize a man who will serve as leader in the church of God. Now as we examine these qualifications, I want you to note that they are the marks of a godly man. It's not a matter, number one, if you're a lady you say 'I can't be an elder so it doesn't pertain to me.' You are a man who does not have the aspiration or office at this time, 'This doesn't apply to me.' Because what really we're unfolding in Titus 1 and also 1 Timothy 3 is, What are the characteristics or marks of a godly individual? These are characteristics that ought to be true of all of us as we mature in Christ. But they must be true of one who will lead in the body. And what we're in effect saying is, Godly mature men in Christ must be appointed to the responsibility of leadership. Now I also want to note, for my own defense as well as for us to have a realistic perspective, there are no perfect people on earth at this time. There are people who have been perfected in their position in Christ, but there are no perfect men on earth. There are no perfect men in this body. So I want to be realistic. I'm not everything that I yet need to be in my walk with the Lord. I would be glorified if that were the case. We want to be careful that we don't become unrealistic, either as we evaluate our qualifications as a man for this office or to evaluate others. There were no perfect men in Crete, yet Paul tells Timothy to appoint men who are maturing in their walk with Christ and who would in effect manifest a certain maturity in that relationship.

Alright, let's look into what Paul says, particularly I want to focus our attention in our study together today on the qualification that has to do with our homes. That will be the focal point in v. 6, but he is going to begin with a general, all-encompassing qualification. Titus is to appoint elders in every city, and note v. 6: "Namely," who is to be appointed? Well, here are the guidelines. "If any man be above reproach." Paul begins with this general, all-encompassing, all-inclusive qualification. "Above reproach." A word that basically means 'no charge or accusation that can be brought against this man.' There are no areas of glaring defects or short-comings. No areas of obvious sin in his life. Not an area where he could be charged or accused in this area. Now he is to be above reproach.

Paul says the same thing at the beginning of his discussion of the qualifications in 1 Timothy 3:2, where there, again the English translates it, our, English translation, "above reproach," the same as we have in Titus. It's a different word that's used, but the idea is very similar. In 1 Timothy 3 when Paul says that the elder must be above reproach, he uses a word that means 'there is nothing in his life which could be laid hold of,' a word that means ‘to lay hold of something.1 He's not open to censure in any way. There's no area of his life which you could grab hold onto and say 'he is out of line with what a godly man ought to be.' So that is a rather encompassing, inclusive kind of qualification. Now what it means to be above reproach will be developed in the details that follow. The rest of these qualifications. And if you put 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 together, there are about 21 qualifications altogether. So you have some elaboration of the details. How will I know if I'm above reproach? Well, here are the guidelines I can use to examine myself as well as the men who would
serve.

He begins by focusing on the family here in Titus of the man who would be considered for the position of elder. I think important to observe here, we're going to talk about godliness, talking about being what God wants us to be, and he begins with our family. That's where my true character, my true godliness, will be reflected. And he has some things here to say to men, I want the men to especially take note. There is a tremendous breakdown in this area of our homes and the blame for it rests at the feet of the men. That's where God places it. When God evaluates me as a man and speaks to my godliness, He says that could be practically observed in my home. And in effect, if my home is not what it ought to be, it is not my wife's fault but it is a reflection of my walk with God. A serious and important area.

He begins by saying, "If any man be above reproach, the husband of one wife." Now there has been much discussion about the meaning of this qualification. And what I want to do is work through some of the major possibi1ities and spend a little time here. But I would like to come to the conclusion where clarity of what he is talking about. There's some real abuse, I believe, that goes on in using this qualification as well. What does it mean to be "the husband of one wife"? One view is, the elder must be married. Doesn't it say he's the husband of one wife? If you're the husband of one wife, you're married. So he could be saying an elder must be married, so you're not qualified to be an elder if you're not a married man. I have some real problems with this. I don't think that can be what is meant here. Number one, it does not accurately and properly represent the force of the adjective "one." That gets the emphasis. In this statement in the Greek language, when you wanted to put emphasis on something, you put that word at the beginning. So the word "one" is first--"a one-woman man" is the expression here. The word "one" gets the emphasis. So when we say he must be married, we're taking the emphasis off of "one" and putting it on "wife." He must have a wife. That's not the way Paul puts it. He puts it on "one."

Another area that I think ought to be considered is, Paul himself may have well have been an elder and yet he is not a married man. Now there's some question as to whether Paul ever was married in the past, but at least we know when he writes the letters in the New Testament he is not married. And he refers to himself as unmarried in 1 Corinthians chapter 7. So any question about whether Paul had been previously married and widowed or whatever, is at best speculation. Paul says as he writes to the Corinthians that he is an unmarried man, and yet he may well have been an elder. Look at some passages.

First Timothy chapter 4, v. 14. "Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you"--he's writing to Timothy--"which was bestowed upon you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery." So the "presbytery", the elders, the overseers, laid hands on Timothy and Timothy was gifted by God for ministry. Now compare that verse with 2 Timothy chapter 1, v. 6. "And for this reason I remind you"--writing to Timothy again--"to kindle afresh the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands." So in 1 Timothy he says "you received this gift through the laying on of the hands of the elders" and in 2 Timothy when he talks to Timothy he says "you received it by the laying on of my hands." This may mean that Paul joined with the elders as an elder himself in appointing and being part of gifting Timothy to this ministry. That would fit because in 1 Peter chapter 5, Peter who was an apostle, says that he is also a fellow-elder as he addresses the elders. So Peter was an elder as well as an apostle, so that would fit that Paul too would have had that responsibility, yet he was an unmarried man.

The New Testament is clear that the unmarried state is a special gift from God to enable an individual to minister and serve Him most effectively. I have a real problem, therefore, in disqualifying a person from any area of ministry because they are not married. When God says "I specially gift some people with the gift of celibacy so they can be unmarried so they can be more effective and more free in their service for me." This is in 1 Cor. 7. In 1 Cor. chapter 7, v. 7, Paul talked about every man has his own gift from God, referring to the matter of being single or being married, in 1 Cor. 7, v. 7. V. 8 he says, "to the married and to the widows, it is good for them if they remain even as I," in other words, unmarried. "But if they do not have self control, let them marry."

Down in v. 17, "As the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each in this manner, let him walk. Thus I direct in all the churches." So we see it's God's determination whether a person be single or married, and they are to live in accord with that. Down in v. 32, "I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord." That's a special gift of God. Gives a person added freedom, thus added effectiveness in ministry. I have real serious question, then, about disqualifying a person from the responsibility of leadership, in fact the central position in the church, because the elders are the teachers and Paul says after apostles and prophets, teaching is the most important gift in the body in 1 Cor. chapter 12. And to say, Well, if you're unmarried, you’re disqualified from this key office" not only does violence, I think, to the grammar of the passage but to the tenor of what Paul has to say in the New Testament.

Some believe what is forbidden here is polygamy, and that would be true. You have one wife and one wife only. That would rule out polygamy; I can't have more than one. But that's ruled out for every believer. That would be a little like saying 'elders should not be murderers.' Well, that is a, I don't want to say a given, but it is assumed. Murderer, you should be an elder. Elders shouldn't kill people. Even people who cause problems in the church! I must admit I've waivered on occasion, but come back to the right position!

Also polygamy was forbidden in the Roman Empire at this time, even for the pagan. There's some debate on how widely it was practiced among Jews. But nonetheless, it was recognized as unacceptable even among the pagans. There's also a problem in 1 Timothy chapter 5, v. 9, Paul talks about widows who are going to be enrolled in the church. Elderly widows. And it says there a widow must have been a one-man woman. Here, an elder must be a one-woman man; a widow to be enrolled must be a one-man woman. Well, if it means polygamy in talking about elders, it must mean polyandry, many husbands, when talking about widows and there's no indication anywhere that there was any practice of men marrying multiple husbands. So that qualification, it just seems to be not really a real possibi1ity.

There are those who say an elder cannot be a remarried widower. And it's difficult for me to understand the logic of this view. I know one or two perhaps, one probably, Bible teacher that I respect and admire who holds to this, but I can't understand the logic of it or find any biblical support for it. Romans chapter 7 says death effectively ends that marriage relationship. Romans chapter 7, the opening 3 verses, Paul is talking about the issue of the law but he uses the analogy of marriage, and when the partner dies all responsibilities and all obligations in that relationship are severed. There is complete freedom to remarry should you choose. So to say, therefore, that a widower who does remarry is disqualified from being an elder, seems this view developed later in church history when there was an emphasis on an asthetic life. And even though we say marriage is honorable, you demonstrate something more godly if you remain single. But that doesn't come out of the teaching of the Word of God. In 1 Corinthians 7 again, we won't go back and reread it, Paul says that widows and widowers have a right to remarry, a God-given right to that. So that's some other explanations as well in 1 Timothy where he referred to the widows that would be enrolled in 1 Timothy 5:9, while later on in 1 Timothy 5:14 he encourages the younger widows to remarry. Well, if they remarried according to his advice and it means you could remarry as a widower and be enrolled, they'd be cutting themselves off from a perhaps very important position later. I don't see much validity in that position.

The one which is probably the most popular, most controversial and the most difficult, is that an elder cannot be divorced and there is much discussion and many good Bible teachers hold to this view. I have several problems with it. Number 1, it does not say that an elder cannot be married more than once. We're going to talk about the expression "a one-woman man" or a man of one woman. But it does not say that an elder can only be married once. He could have said that. Very simply, "An elder could only have been married one time." Not what he says. Secondly, in light of the pattern, if you're in Titus chapter 1, that he's going to follow with most of the qualifications, it would have been simple to say "not divorced." There's a good word in Greek for divorce. You'll note as he talks about the qualifications in v. 7 of Titus 1, "Not self-willed, not quick tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain." It would have been simple to follow that pattern and say "not divorced." That is not what he says. So I want to be careful about not trying to read more into this than is there. Also, the Bible does recognize divorce and the validity of second or third marriages. Now it speaks to the sin of divorce, but the Bible recognizes that a divorce does break a marriage, but remarriage constitutes a valid second marriage. Nowhere in the New Testament do I have find instructions for a believer to separate from his second or his third wife. Yet you can believe that in churches like Corinth there were people who were in their second, third, fourth, fifth marriage. Paul never says 'I want you to end those relationships. They're not not marriages." The Bible recognizes the validity of that second marriage. So a man who has been divorced and remarried? Does only have one wife. We recognize that legally in our society; it's recognized biblically. So he does fit the qualification of having one wife.

I want you to note, these qualifications, all of them, and over the next five years as get through them probably, you're going to see that these qualifications are obviously dealing with a man's present condition. Now that's important. We're going to be reiterating that and restating that. So we're dealing with a man's present condition. No one would ever be qualified for the position of elder if these qualifications had to have been true for your whole life. Obviously before salvation I was a rebellious person. I was self-willed, quick tempered, greedy. A lot of these things would have characterized me. The point is, now by the grace of God I am different. These are qualifications that are true of this man being considered now at this point of his life. Now I don't know where we get the justification to take one, a one-woman man, and that has to be true of his life even before he was saved! No matter when he was divorced, he is disqualified. If we're going to be consistent, we need to do that with all the qualifications and say they make no sense because they mean a man would have had to be godly from birth. And that would sort of wipe out the grace of God, wouldn't it? Many even try to take this qualification and say, therefore, it applies to Sunday School teachers and everybody else, and it brings havoc in the church. I believe we really have to come, and this is not a study on divorce, but I think we as believers have to come to grips with how complete the saving grace of God really is and are there any sins that may be only partially forgiven like the sin of divorce? One evangelical leader even goes so far as to talk about Christians who have been divorced, no matter when, they still live in the dark side of God's garden. So they're in the garden but you know, you can't live in the sunshine. That's different than the grace I find in the New Testament. Look to one passage. First Corinthians chapter 6, and then we have to go on.

First Corinthians chapter 6, v. 9. "Do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?" And note this list. "Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers." Note that. Starts out with sexual sins as well as idolatry. "Nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such WERE some of you; but you WERE washed, but you WERE sanctified, but you WERE justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God." No matter what you feel about divorce, that it's adultery, it's fornication, whatever. The fact is that by the grace of God you are cleansed and washed from that. Just like a person who has been covetous is cleansed. If I have been divorced four times, I would still be standing before you today as one totally cleansed and justified by God just as much as the person who is in his first marriage and has been in that marriage for 80 years. The grace of God cleanses from all sin. I am concerned that we recognize this. That is not to play down the seriousness of the sin of divorce. We sometimes feel we've got to add to the pressure of seeing how serious divorce is, but maybe we ought to do that with covetous as well. Let me tell you, covetousness pervades our society.

You ought to realize that if you've ever been a covetous person in your life, you live in the shadows of God's plans; and He'll probably never be able to use you in the spotlight, because how could He ever use a person who ever had covetousness in his life? I'll tell you how He can use them. By His marvelous grace He washes them, He sanctifies them, and He justifies them. That's the same way He uses a person who has the sin of divorce in their life or any other sin. I think we need to come to grips with this whole issue of God's forgiveness and cleansing. We're talking about where a person is today if we're considering him, and his pattern of life in the recent period evidencing a godly walk.

Alright, we have to go on. I believe what he's talking about here, is that an elder must be faithful to his wife. That's the point. Faithful to his wife. And maybe there's an emphasis on the sexual aspect of that relationship, but it does denote a faithfulness. The phrase is literally "a one-woman man" or a "man of one woman." It emphasizes the character of the man rather than his marital status. He must demonstrate faithfulness in his marriage relationship.
The two nouns, the man and a woman here, a one-woman man, the word man and a woman, those two nouns don't have the definite article in the Greek language. Now when they don't have the definite article, the words often emphasize the character and nature of a person. So you could translate "a one-woman sort of man." That doesn't prove the point but it supports the point that I am making.

This would also fit that this is the only qualification of an elder that gets into the sexual area. It touches on sexual purity, which you would expect to be a major factor in a man's godliness. I think that what he's talking about here is faithfulness in that family relationship. It does not mean that a man has to be married, but he's going to be dealing, we're going to see this with the children in a moment, that the general pattern is that men will be married.
So he's generally dealing with the qualification. He says nothing about men who are not married in this area. He simply says that you have that characteristic of faithfulness to one woman. A man cannot be a womanizer, even if I primarily have one wife. I've never been divorced, but if I'm characterized as a womanizer if there are questions about me in my relationship with other women, then I would not be qualified in light of this, even though I can say I have only one wife. I'm not a one-woman sort of man; not characterized by faithfulness in that area of life. I think that fits the rest of the qualifications that he's talking about.

He goes on to elaborate on the family here in Titus chapter 1, v. 6. "Having children who believe." Again, I do not believe this can be turned around to say that an elder must have children, or an elder must have children who are of age to have understood the gospel and then believed it. This would not rule out a man who was not married or a man who is married and does not have children. It's the normal pattern, this qualification covers the normal or general situation.

So, by implication, he's dealing with the situation whether there be an elder who has children and family who are old enough to understand and believe the gospel. If Paul wanted to say a man must be married or a man must have children, he could have said that clearly and concisely in the Greek language. Now the fact that we could make it say that, that I could get that out of this, does not mean that we're taking it in the normal way. There would be much more clear and direct ways to say it. Let me give an example. If I were to say today, "I want every man who teaches Sunday School to spend some quality time with his wife and children this week", it would be misleading for you to go out and say, Every man who teaches Sunday School must be married and have children. What I said is, I want every man who teaches Sunday School to spend some quality time with his wife and children. I didn't say anything about those who are not married or have no children, and you would understand it that way. To go out and say, Well, Gil means you can't teach Sunday School unless you're married and have children; you could make that statement say that, but it wouldn't be the normal or natural way to understand it. And we use that kind of expression and means of speaking all the time and we don't twist it or try to make it say something else. So we need to be careful in our handling of the Word of God that we have that consistency. The statement covers the general situation. What we call the normal pattern. Most men will get married. Most men will have children. And as those children mature, they are going to have to become believers. If my child is 4 months old, no one expects that that child could understand and believe the gospel. But when that child is 14, then this qualification will have an impact and effect for me. So you have to cover most of the cases with the general pattern that most of the cases wi11 be.

"Having children who believe." I take it the expression here could mean 'faithful children,'
But most understand it that he's talking about children who have come to faith. And in my home, I have 2 teenagers. One of my qualifications for elder is that those be faithful children, particularly that they have come to believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Now I can't see their hearts and you can't see their hearts, so all you can see is the external conformity that goes with that, some of the manifestations. So he gives the negative side of what these children cannot be. They are to be believing children, children who believe. Negatively, "not accused of dissipation." Dissipation, a word that means abandon, dissolute life. It means debauchery. Interestingly, it's used of the prodigal son in Luke chapter 15, v. 13. Maybe you ought to turn there. In other words, I cannot have a prodigal son and be an elder. Luke chapter 15, v. 13. "And not many days later, the younger son gathered everything together and went on a journey into a distant country, and there he squandered his estate with loose living." That word translated "loose" is the same word translated "dissipation" in Titus. It's dissipate living. A word that basically means 'not to save,' 'to squander.' Then it comes to mean a life that is squandered and thus leads to ruin. That's what the prodigal son was. He went out from his father's care and authority and squandered what he had, squandered his life. He led a dissolute life. It's used two other times in the New Testament--Ephesians 5:18, "And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit." Dissipation, being filled with wine, under the control and influence of alcohol leads to squandering my life, living a life of debauchery, ungodliness. It's also used in 1 Peter chapter 4, v. 4. Let me just read it to you. "And in all this, (referring to the unbeliever) they are surprised that you do not run with them in the same excess of dissipation." And we had mentioned in the previous verse is sensuality, lust, drunkenness, carousing, drinking parties and abominable idolatries. That kind of dissipation characterizes the unbeliever. So you see a child who is faithful or believing cannot be characterized by that kind of life. Not only can he not be accused of dissipation, he cannot be accused of rebellion in Titus chapter 1. A word that means to be undisciplined, to be disobedient, to be rebellious. It'll be used in Titus 1, v. 10--"There are many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers," characterizing unbelievers. Deceit, liars. And they are rebellious.

Over in 1 Timothy chapter 1, verse 9. The law was made for this kind of man, and some commentators noted the law needs to be applied in these kinds of situations. Verse 9, "Realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men," etc. So that's the kind of person. My children cannot be disobedient, cannot be rebellious in their character. They must be submissive to my authority.

Paul elaborates on this in 1 Timothy 3. Turn back there, if you would.
First Timothy chapter 3. He talks about the husband of one wife, or a one-woman man, in v. 2 and then down in v. 4. "He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?)" I want you to note something here, men. The man is responsible to rule his house. That word he must be one who 'manages' his household well, means 'to rule,' 'to be at the head of something.' It doesn't mean the negative aspects of a dictator and a hard boss--that would go contrary to the character that is to characterize me as a loving husband and a loving father. But I am to be in charge of my home. If my home is out of control, God holds me responsible. We have an abdicating of fatherly, husbandly responsibility in the home today, and it's a mark of ungodliness. God says you're not qualified because you're not godly to serve if you don't have your home under control. That's a hard statement. He says I must be ruling my household well, keeping his children under control. That's under subjection. It can be used of a military term of the army that is under control, subjected under the authority of someone. Are my children in my home under my authority? I can't control them when they leave my home. It doesn't talk about ruling my child's home when he's established his own home. Talking about, they're in my home, they're under my authority, and whether they're in my home at 10 or in my home at 20, I must rule my home. And that's the point here of the qualification. "Keeping your children under control with all dignity." You walk up to the door and I'm cussing and hollering and throwing things around--I'm trying to get control of my home but there's not much dignity there. There's not much that calls forth respect. That's what this word 'dignity' means--to have respect, to have honor. So you see by my character and the way that I lead my home, I am to have the respect of my children. But there is, I believe, that the father is responsible to draw the line, to enforce the discipline in the home. I have seen men who are running from it.

They are hiding at their jobs. They are hoping their children will . . .do something, and it creates conflict, then, between the wife because the husband has advocated his responsibility and he is not qualified for an elder. You say, That's alright, I didn't want to serve anyway. Wait a minute, wait a minute! Responsibility here is for me to find out where I've come short and get it corrected. No good for me to say, That's alright, Lord, I'm satisfied not to be a godly man. Then what you're saying is, Lord, you need to discipline me. I need a good hard spanking because I'm out of line. How will a man who doesn't know how to manage his own household take care of the church of God? I am to manage and to rule in this body as an elder. If I can't even take control of my own home, how am I going to do it here? Now again, this is assuming a man is married. It doesn't say a man must be managing a household and ruling children to be an elder. But when a man does have children and a household, there is certain responsibilities designated there.

The world goes contrary to this. I think we really ought to examine our homes, you men. All of us together ought to stop and think. Evaluate yourselves. Are you in control of your home? Are you in charge of the discipline of your home? Are you the enforcer of the discipline in your home? Is it enough for your wife to say, I'll speak to your father about it? It wasn't so many years ago that that was even characteristic of the unbelieving home. Even the unbeliever functioned on certain biblical principles, but now even believing fathers have abdicated this responsibility and abandoned it. Any wonder our children don't know where to go? No one to lead them if the father's not doing it.

Now, I want to note again as we draw this to a conclusion. All these qualifications deal with a man at the time he is being considered, not just today. But we've been examining his life over time. He must be proved, demonstrated these qualities over time. Now in the past they may not have been true of him; but he has demonstrated that change and maturing in Christ that now they are true of him and we can consider him as a godly man.

Also, the fact that he is qualified at the time of the appointment does not guarantee he will be qualified in the future. I have some people say, well I can't be an elder today because I have young children. If I have young children maybe they won't grow up to be believers and they'll be rebellious. If that happens, you'll be disqualified. That's true of all the qualifications. I can't guarantee. Today I am not leading a life of covetousness, pursuing greedily money. I am not a drunk. But let me tell you, I have the potential for it all.

In five years down the road, if I am a drunk, pursuing a life of greed, I will be unqualified for the position I have today. So that factor is there in all of the qualifications. I must be faithful to my wife, and I am. But God knows there are many leaders who have failed in this qualification over time and become disqualified. So that idea, oh my children are too little so I can't serve--you better not be planning to lose control over your children. You better be planning how, in light of the Word, you're going to control your family until those children leave your home. So you can't run and hide behind that any more than you can any other one. With your wretched, sinful, fallen nature you have the potential to fall into any one of these 21 disqualifying qualifications, if you don't allow the

Spirit of God to control your life. So we need to be careful. It may not have always been true of me in the past. If I don't walk under the control of the Spirit, they won't be true of me in the future. But today they are, and that's what determines my qualifications.

Remember, there are no perfect families. There are no perfect preacher's kids. They go through the same struggles, wrestle the same things. I take it that Satan will attack them even more than others, because of the impact that will make in the leaders and in the church. But there must be that evidenced control and submissiveness on their part even through their struggles.

How are you doing? Are you qualified? Are you a godly person? Are you in control of your house? That ought to be our goal. If there's a shortcoming, we ought to start to work on it by the grace of God today. Let's pray together.