AN ELDER’S FAMILY
BY JONATHAN LINDVALL

EXCERPT FROM HOUSE CHURCH
CHAPTER 13: MINISTRY HOUSEHOLDS —
KEY TO HEALTHY CHURCHES, PAGES 172-174
BY STEVE ATKERSON

The explicit minimum qualifications for leadership in the body of Christ include other family matters. An elder/bishop (demonstrably the same thing as the pastor in the New Testament church — see poimaino, presbuteros, and episkopos in Ac 2:17, 28; Tit 1:5, 7; 1Pe 5:1-2) was to be “the husband of one wife” (1Ti 3:2; Tit 1:6). There is some controversy, today, over the application of this. Some simply apply this to polygamy, others suspect it precludes divorced and remarried men from being publicly recognized as exemplary, and still others take it to mean that an elder must be a “one woman type of man.”

I suspect the requirement of being “the husband of one wife” not only means a man with more than one wife is disqualified, but that a man with less than one wife also is not qualified to be recognized as a model for the church. While single men certainly have the benefit of fewer distractions and responsibilities, and thus more freedom, this very lack of responsibility is also a handicap when it comes to leading in the church. It is more likely for a single man to be (or at least be perceived as) a novice, but Paul told Timothy (1Ti 3:6) to choose as elders those who were “not a novice.” He further made it clear that the reputation, as well as the reality, of a man’s maturity, was important (1Ti 3:7; “he must have a good testimony among those who are outside”).

Some time after I married my wife, Connie, I began realizing how unprepared for marriage I had been. I was simply not mature enough for marriage. Yet as I pondered the matter, I concluded that I likely would never have been mature enough for marriage, while I was single. But it seems to me that within months of getting married, I had been stretched in wonderful ways that forced me to mature. I doubt I would ever have grown in those areas as a single man. Marriage made me something I could not have become otherwise. Truly in all but a few cases, “It is not good that man should be alone” (Ge 2:18). There are likely exceptions, but a man who is unmarried (or at least who has never been married) is not as likely in a position to be a thorough and balanced role model for the body of Christ as one who has demonstrated his capacity to “rule his own house well.”

In fact, I suspect that a man who has not experienced fatherhood will be similarly handicapped. Paul told Titus (1:6) to only recognize as elders those men who are “the husband of one wife, having faithful children.” Just as I was not ready for marriage until after I married, I was not ready for fatherhood until after Connie and I were blessed with our first child. Being a father pressed me in certain ways that I would likely never have matured in without having children. As the Lord continued blessing us with more children, and as each of them was trained through different stages of childhood and youth, I was being further prepared for eldership.

The other homeschooling fathers and I, in our local congregation, have theorized that God’s reason for leading us to disciple our own children at home rather than sending them to school is not exclusively (perhaps even primarily) for their benefit. God has called us to teach our own children at least partly because of the maturity this brings to us as fathers. Any teacher will acknowledge that the teachers learn as much or more than the students, in the process of teaching. In fact, I suspect one of God’s primary reasons for raising up the homeschool movement in this generation is to prepare truly qualified elders who have learned how to disciple others as a result of discipling their own sons and daughters.

Sadly, as noted earlier, the children of those who are devoted to ministry in the contemporary church often have the worst reputation. I’m blessed to be a PK myself (not Promise Keeper, but Preacher’s Kid). But as a child I learned that the acronym PK is often a derogatory term in the contemporary church. While this is not always deserved (many love to find fault in leaders to excuse their own failures), it is too often true that the children of those in public ministry are not examples to the rest of the body of Christ.

I imagine we have all seen men who seem to have a true call of God on their life for public ministry, yet who are so focused on that ministry that they neglect their own family. Paul included, as a qualification for local church leadership, that an elder’s children must be well trained. He defines “one who rules his own house well” (1Ti 3:4) as “having his children in submission with all reverence.” Then he reasons (1Ti 3:5), “for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God ?”

In his instructions to Titus (1:6) he is more explicit in specifying the expectations of the fruit of an elder’s fatherhood. He must have “faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination.” The children of elders must not only be in submission, but their faithfulness must be so evident that they are not even accused of excesses or disobedience.

Obviously elders’ children are going to be selfish and inclined to sin, just as all humanity is. Yet only those men who have proven their capacity to “train up a child in the way he should go” (Pr 22:6) should be publicly recognized as models for the church. The word translated faithful in regard to his children (Greek pistos) is elsewhere translated believing. (For example, Jesus used this word as a contrast to Thomas’ doubting in John 20:27. See also Ac 10:45; 16:1; 2Co 6:15; 1Ti 4:3, 10, 12; 5:16; 6:2.). It is certainly not a stretch to contend that only men who have trained believing children should be considered for eldership.

SOURCE and AVAILABLE AT:
NEW TESTAMENT REFORMED CHURCH

Pastor is Master, Isn’t He? Four Part Documentary

Part 1

Calvary Chapel Church Government from Chuck Smith’s
Calvary Chapel Distinctives
Chapter Two

Commentary by James Sundquist
Chuck Smith’s book may be accessed at the following website:

http://calvarychapel.com/hope/library/smith-chuck/books/ccd/

What follows is his entire Chapter Two from his Calvary Chapel Distinctives, followed by commentary on each passage.

CHUCK SMITH: (Opens with the following Scripture)
“And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,” * Ephesians 1:22

COMMENTARY:

I find it very ironic that Chuck Smith (founder of Calvary Chapel), who supports a single-pastor-final-authority form of leadership in the Church, would invoke the above scripture to open this Chapter on Church Government, as he spends the balance of the chapter defending a monarchical pastorship of the local church. The above passage from Ephesians makes no room for two heads in the church. Regarding more than pastor leading a church, I have heard the expression that a two-headed person is a monster. Of course, I agree that a person with two heads is contrary to nature. But if we examine the above passage as well as I Corinthians Chapter 12 we see that a pastor or pastors are not the head of the church. Paul’s description of the Body of Christ and all its parts shows that the only head is Christ himself! There is no other head!

COMMENTARY:

Pastors, Elders, Deacons, Teachers, Evangelists, Prophets, and Apostles, etc. are all parts of the Body of Christ, but none of these offices are the head except Christ alone! None of these offices in the Church or any of the parts of the body are ever described as a head…not in the Church at large for the whole world, nor the individual local church. There is nothing plural in the parts of the body until you get below the head. Paul in minute detail describes the plurality anatomy of the Body of Christ BELOW the head. So, if we are going to be Scriptural let’s keep singular things that are singular and plural things that are plural. The head of the church is singular and in any local church, the head is still singular, but it is Christ himself. Once this is established, authority then pluralizes. But singular, I repeat, singular does not begin with any man but Christ himself, so singular authority cannot remain ascribed to another single pastor, bishop, shepherd, elder, or whatever office is described. I am especially indebted to Vance (Bo) Salisbury for his in depth research in providing a comprehensive list of New Testament and Greek Scholars who unanimously concur that the office of Bishop and Elder are synonymous and plural in the local Church both in the New Testament and during the Apostolic Age. Just some of the names of scholars listed with their quotes are:

Geoffrey Bromiley of Fuller Theological Seminary
Henry De Moor of Calvin Theological Seminary
(Henry De Moor, Associate Professor of Church Polity, Calvin Theological Seminary Leon Morris
Massey Shepherd
J.B. Lightfoot,
Hermann W. Beyer
F.F. Bruce
A.T. Robertson
Philip Schaff
Kenneth Scott Latourette
John Murray
Alexander Strauch
Patrick J. Brennan

1 Tim. 3:2 and Tt. 1:7 speak of the bishop in the sing. and with the art., the reference is to the bishop as a type and not to the number of bishops in a given place. There is no reference to the monarchical episcopate. On the contrary, the evidence of the NT is clearly to the effect that originally several episkopoi took charge of the communities in brotherly comity. (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol.2, pg.617, Ed. G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, 1980, Eerdmans)

->->t even seem to clash because they (bishop and elder) are one and the same office! (Chuck Smith spells elders as “presbyteros”, but the correct Greek/English rendering or spelling is “presbuteros.”) The Bible does not clearly teach that bishops are established and elders are appointed. Titus who is alleged to be the “bishop” of Crete is appointed by Paul. But Paul himself states in Titus 1:5 that Titus was an elder “appointed” just like the exact same elders (“presbuteros” that Titus was instructed to appoint in all of the cities of Crete). In other words Paul is telling Titus to do the same thing (same verb) to secure elders in Crete, that I Paul did to you. Chuck Smith in one place states that the form of government is not clear in the NT, then he says here that the New Testament “clearly teaches” regarding church government. It isn’t the Scripture that is confusing here, it is Chuck Smith who is confusing the offices. There is no distinction in the New Testament between establishing bishops and appointing elders. There is no distinction because they are one and the same office! And even if there were two separate offices in the church as Chuck Smith suggests and that Titus is a bishop, why does Paul appoint him as the text states? He should have established him.

It stands to reason that if the office of bishop were such a superior office to elder, then Paul would have called for all of the bishops of Ephesus in the book of Acts, or only Timothy if the church could have only one bishop over the church of Ephesus. Why would Paul call for the elders (presbuteros) of Ephesus in his farewell to the Church of Ephesus in Acts 20:17?

“And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.” Acts 20:17

For an occasion this monumental (Paul’s farewell), why wouldn’t Paul send for the episkopos of Ephesus….that is if the office is distinct from “presbuteros”? This would be like the President of the United States holding a Governors convention and the Secretaries of State for each of the Fifty States show up. Paul was very concerned about the Ephesian Church and wolves coming in. So he would not bring together a group of men in that church for final instructions that had no real authority in that local congregation…except the rescindible authority that the pastor of Ephesus gave them. Paul would have sent for just this single pastor.

But there is other evidence, too, of the authority elders had in the Council of Jerusalem. In fact, it was not just the elders, but Apostles too that met at that Council. If episkopos is the sole governing authority over a local congregation vs. presbuteros, then why were presbuteros gathered in Jerusalem (twice) to rule on great matters affecting the whole church? It would have been the episkopos, i.e., the overseers that gathered…the Council of Bishops! Paul goes on further when ALL of the elders (presbuteros) from Ephesus actually show up. In addressing them he says:

“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” Acts 20:28

Wait a minute, I thought it was episkopos that are the overseers, that is if Chuck Smith is correct and they are the rulers (not “presbuteros”)? Paul could not be more clear that elders that rule the church (plural) is who he is giving final instructions to regarding the Church of Ephesus. The truth of the matter is that episkopos and presbuteros are one and the same office in the church and have identical qualifications. There are not two ruling classes.

In one of the councils in Jerusalem the apostles and elders met to decide a matter in the Book of Acts:

“And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.” Acts 15:6

Well it should not be altogether surprising to discover that the word for elders once again is presbuteros….an office that Chuck Smith insists is subordinate to episkopos. He maintains that it is episkopos is the overseer NOT the elders and that the elders are subordinate to the overseer. If this is so, and if Greek renders episkopos as a superior church government office, then why don’t we see this word used to describe this council in Jerusalem and the one in Acts 21:18 when Paul was present? If James is the Bishop, he would outrank even the Apostle Paul at this meeting. The title bishop is not a more special, more powerful title applied to James. This title of bishop assigned to James in Jerusalem as well as is to Timothy and Titus is revisionist isagesis, reading backwards into history and the Scripture something that did not exist in the first place.

Well it should not be altogether surprising to discover that the word for elders once again is presbuteros….an office that Chuck Smith insists is subordinate to episkopos. He maintains that it is episkopos is the overseer NOT the elders and that the elders are subordinate to the overseer. If this is so, and if Greek renders episkopos as a superior church government office, then why don’t we see this word used to describe this council in Jerusalem and the one in Acts 21:18 when Paul was present? If James is the Bishop, he would outrank even the Apostle Paul at this meeting. The title bishop is not a more special, more powerful title applied to James. This title of bishop assigned to James in Jerusalem as well as is to Timothy and Titus is revisionist isagesis, reading backwards into history and the Scripture something that did not exist in the first place.

“And the [day] following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.” Acts 21:18

And what do we find? The word elders is translated from the Greek word presbuteros once again. In both cases and in a formal gathering to determine policy in the Church at Jerusalem it is presbuteros (plural) who gather to rule on a matter (not episkopos). The fact is the word episkopos could have been used, since the word did not signify a different office. I only mention all of these passages to prove that elders are not some subordinate office to bishop or pastor, as Chuck Smith teaches and requires all Calvary Chapels to abide by. Chuck Smith has, in fact, diminished the role and authority of elders in the church without any Scriptural precedent or authority to do so. This is harmful to both the pastor as well as the elders and in turn is not healthy for the entire congregation.

We once attended a church that was considering becoming a Calvary Chapel, but was told they can not become one because the church had two pastors. So what is wrong with that I asked myself? Calvary Chapel insisted that they could have only one pastor, because they view pastor as equivalent to bishop, superior in rank to elder, and as Chuck Smith’s chapter on church government confirms, there can only be one bishop who presides over a local congregation. But in effect, they were saying they could only have one elder…after all, that is all a pastor is… that is according to Scripture. So this is not a Calvary Chapel “Distinctive” but rather “Directive.” The fact is, there is not a separate Biblical church office of bishop from elder. The Bible lists the word pastor only once in the New Testament in a list of teachers and evangelists. But there are NO qualifications given for pastor, or teacher or evangelist for that matter. It is true that pastors shepherd or oversee, but that is simply a verb that all that oversee do, meaning all elders are supposed to shepherd the flock. But this is not a singular role!

PART II:
http://rock-to-salt.cephasministry.com/pastor_2.html