Podcast: Download (24.6MB)
The Character of Elders
A Look at the Qualifications
Introduction: In our first of three lessons we will look at the qualifications as revealed by Paul in both 1 Timothy and Titus. As soon as I say that, many of us immediately think of how many times we have heard that, and may even be weary of it. But instead of looking at every single quality and defining, let’s approach this in a more contextual way. In other words, please consider that all of us could think of more qualities than just the specific ones Paul mentioned. The list could be much longer (where’s the “not stubborn” qualification?). What Paul did was, give us enough so that we have the overall picture of what an elder/overseer/shepherd should be.
Common Errors in Appointing Elders
Immediately go to the lists of qualifications in 1 Timothy and Titus and evaluate a man almost exclusively on these lists. This misses the point that these texts deal with the character of a man, but not the work. We need to go to other texts to consider whether a man is equipped to be a shepherd. Illustration: Owner of a sheep ranch asking his foreman to find a quality person he could hire as a shepherd. Interview: “How long have you been a shepherd?” Never. “What do you know about sheep?” Nothing. “Do you like sheep?” I think they stink. “Great! You’re hired!”
Another error is to take the two lists and add them up and present it to the church. I’ve even seen a little box out to the side for a check mark. Problem:
This assumes that the two lists are different and that Timothy had Titus’ list and Titus had Timothy’s list. Why wouldn’t we understand that even if Titus and Timothy had their lists swapped, they would still have chosen the same man?
This treats these qualifications as a “disqualification” list. In other words, we are just going down the list to see if we can find a qualification that a prospective elder has messed up. Under those conditions, just about anyone will be disqualified. “I remember 10 years ago when that fellow lost his temper.” Anyone want to disqualify Peter?
Concentrate on the commands that seem to be easiest to define and judge, such as whether he is married and whether his children have been baptized and whether he teaches the truth on certain hot button subjects. We tend to exalt these traits. But how much emphasis do we give to whether a man is covetous, contentious, or sober minded, humble, loving, sacrificial?
It is interesting that in Paul’s first journey through southern Galatia, after establishing churches in mostly pagan regions, he traveled back through these churches within just a few months and “appointed elders in every church” (Acts 14:23). There is nothing worse for a church than appointing an unqualified man, but we can also become so picky we reject men who clearly have the character and ability to shepherd – on the basis of past mistakes not on what they are and have become.
Seeing the Purpose of the Qualifications
When we look at the two lists it is evident that Paul is talking about finding a man who is “blameless” or “above reproach,” as some translate.
Both texts are similar in this regard. Each has two sentences and each starts with “above reproach” or “blameless.” 1 Timothy has verses 2-6 describing what it means to be above reproach and verse 7 is a brief summary of what he just described.
In Titus, this is even more evident. 1:6 starts with “above reproach” and then verse 7 states it again. Paul is not being redundant by saying the same qualification twice. He is emphasizing what it means to be above reproach.
The qualifications in each letter are not identical. 15 traits in both. Five are identical. Five that are synonymous. Five that are different. But in character they are the same because they define “above reproach.”
Therefore, an elder is a man who has a proven character and all specifics Paul mentions are examples of what he means by “above reproach.” In other words, no cause for blame can be found that would indicate a future sinful behavior in regard to leading the church.
“Above reproach” is a relative term. “Tall” is a relative term. Thus, compared to what? Deacons are also to be above reproach. By the standards of some, no one would be above reproach. Therefore the Lord has defined this for us in the examples of this text. There is actually only one qualification: above reproach, then here are the areas to specifically consider what it means to be above reproach in regard to being an elder.
Now, let’s talk about what “above reproach” means.
How is this list different from what is required of all Christians? Other than marriage and family, it isn’t. Paul was not giving an obstacle course. The question is, what do these traits have to do with his ability to do the work. The focus is on his character.
It is not a question of whether someone can come up with an accusation – create enough “smoke” so that people think there might be a “fire.” Some think “blameless” means that if anyone ever tries to cast some blame, he is disqualified. If that is true, the weakest or crankiest or a person who just doesn’t like the potential elder can ruin the whole process and run the church. Instead, the idea is, is he “above” any reproach that is hurled at him. Is their reproach that is provable and truly fits who he is at present?
Further, that the intent is for us to find someone with a proven character who is above reproach is evident by the fact that the lists that are given do not cover some sins. Where is the sin of dishonesty or murder? Paul is not being all-inclusive, but giving us critical areas of character that we need to consider when finding a man who is above reproach. The idea is equivalent to the later statement: “a good reputation with outsiders.”
Consider also that Paul’s intent was not for us “check-list” these specifics to see if a man has violated one or more of these. The idea isn’t has he perfectly met this standard, because no one has. We can pick out events in any person’s life where there were failures. Instead, we need to ask, “Is this in-character or out-of-character?” Peter was an elder and he removed himself from the Gentiles and even denied the Lord. But he was appointed because it was determined those incidents were out of character for Peter.
Consider also 1 Tim. 3:10 where Paul says for them to first be “tested.” This does not mean that we put a guy to the test when we are considering him. It means that he has lived in such a way that he has a tested, proven character. He has experienced all kinds of things in his life and come through them in such a way that he has grown from it and is an experienced man with wisdom. See Rom. 5:3-5.
Wife, Children, and “Above Reproach”
Probably some of our most intense discussions and differences fall in the category of “husband of one wife” and the number of children a man must have to be qualified. Does the man have to be currently married? What if he has been remarried as a result of a death or scriptural divorce? Can he remain an elder if his wife dies? These questions are all answered when we consider how any of these scenarios change the qualification of being above reproach.
First, note that “husband of one wife” is literally “a one woman man.” 1 Tim. 5:9 refers to the qualifications of a widow to be a “one man woman.” The question is that of devotion to his wife. How does her death change whether he is above reproach or that he was devoted to her?
Further, if he has been scripturally divorced and remarried, that does not change whether he has had complete devotion to his wife. He is still a one woman man.
Similarly, what if a man’s children died later in his life? He would no longer have children, but no one would claim he couldn’t be an elder assuming he ruled his house well – or that he would need to resign because his children died. None of these things have anything to do with him being above reproach. (If he had all daughters and they were married, he would not longer have his children in subjection.)
The same is true with the number of children.
The biggest issue is not whether more than one is necessary, but how this affects him being above reproach. “Children” doesn’t mean more than one either in Greek or English. “Teach your children.” Well I don’t have to because I only have one! Gen. 21:7 has Sarah speaking of Isaac’s birth as having “children” – same word in the Greek.
What if a child fell away at age 40 after his father had been an elder for 20 years? How would that change the fact that he is above reproach? What if he maintained his devotion to Christ, but later in adult life disagreed with his father on certain issues? It would not change the father’s work in raising his children.
The question would be much different if we were talking about a child who fell away right out of his father’s house, especially becoming “insubordinate and deceivers.” We could rightly argue that this would reflect on “ruling his house well with his children in subjection will all reverence” or the “faithfulness” of his children.
Some argue, “It’s better to have more than one child because that gives the father more experience. The only problem with that is the Bible! Don’t make up a new qualification. A man could have 4 children with all the same temperament and be “easy” to raise. Or he could have one child and have the challenge of not raising a spoiled child.
Therefore, the critical issue is whether this man is above reproach in raising his family to be spiritual children? Consider that a man could have five children and all of them faithful Christians. But it may be well-known that he had little to do with their success and that the wife was the spiritual one in the family who really made the difference. Is he qualified?
How is his marriage?
Much can be learned just on the basis of how much a wife adores and looks up to her husband. That doesn’t happen without a man who has truly devoted himself to her.
They may have been married for 30 years, but that may only be because he has such a persevering wife with a domineering man! Further, he may not be really devoted to her (a one woman man), but instead is a disengaged husband. In other words, what the Lord is looking for is a man who fits the above reproach, blameless category and not simply whether he meets up to some Pharisaical way of parsing the qualifications.
Berry Kercheville