Disqualifications for ministry

[aegsm76]

1This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 4One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 6Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

8Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; 9Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. 10And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. 11Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. 12Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 13For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Am I right in reading this that if your children are not living right, then you are disqualified?
Or if you do not have a good report of those not in the church you are disqualified?

[thephnxman]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

1This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 4One that, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 6Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
8Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; 9Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. 10And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. 11Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. 12Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 13For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
Am I right in reading this that if your (1) children are not living right, then you are disqualified?
Or if you do not have a good report of those (2) not in the church you are disqualified?

(1) If the children are not living right IN YOUR HOME (be willing to
"show them the door");

(2) Those OUTSIDE know one is living an honest life (not contradicting
verses 2-4), and a decent credit rating might be in order!

[bishoph]

First, your question is to broad/far reaching. To say disqualification of ministry in general would i believe would be incorrect. The office of a bishop referred to pastoral ministry and the deacons were ministers in training.

Secondly, if you were to say that because a minister's children were not living right he is disqualified, to follow that logically to its conclusion would mean that God would have to be disqualified because his children are often not living right. God was the best parent possible and Adam & Eve chose to sin. If a man raises his children in the fear and admonition of the Lord, and his children refuse to live right, he should not be judged by the choices of his children. However, if they are living in his home, he must present to them the hard choice of following his example or moving out.

Lastly, of good report can be seen more clearly IMO in Paul's letter to Titus where he uses the word "blameless." One cannot always be free of negative reports about their character, but the word blameless here means where nothing can be proven, or lacks evidence or proof of. Someone may accuse a minister of many things, especially in our day, but that does not mean it is factual/true.

I am skeptical and careful when it comes to these kinds of threads, because so many (not saying this is true of the original poster) use these things to try to justify their lack of submission to the man of God in their life.

[aegsm76]

This thread was thought of by me when reading the "women ministers" thread.
I do believe the verse would refer to children living at home, as opposed to those who were now adults.
But, I have not studied this out enough to say for sure.
I do not follow your logic relating to God and his children. It sounds like you are trying to say that we should discount this scripture and I am sure that is not your intention.
And no, I am not trying to undermine a pastors role in my life or the life of any one else!

[n david]

Originally Posted by bishoph

First, your question is to broad/far reaching. To say disqualification of ministry in general would i believe would be incorrect. The office of a bishop referred to pastoral ministry and the deacons were ministers in training.

Secondly, if you were to say that because a minister's children were not living right he is disqualified, to follow that logically to its conclusion would mean that God would have to be disqualified because his children are often not living right. God was the best parent possible and Adam & Eve chose to sin. If a man raises his children in the fear and admonition of the Lord, and his children refuse to live right, he should not be judged by the choices of his children. However, if they are living in his home, he must present to them the hard choice of following his example or moving out.

Lastly, of good report can be seen more clearly IMO in Paul's letter to Titus where he uses the word "blameless." One cannot always be free of negative reports about their character, but the word blameless here means where nothing can be proven, or lacks evidence or proof of. Someone may accuse a minister of many things, especially in our day, but that does not mean it is factual/true.

I am skeptical and careful when it comes to these kinds of threads, because so many (not saying this is true of the original poster) use these things to try to justify their lack of submission to the man of God in their life.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

1This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 4One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 6Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

8Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; 9Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. 10And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. 11Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. 12Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 13For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Am I right in reading this that if your children are not living right, then you are disqualified?
Or if you do not have a good report of those not in the church you are disqualified?

It means an overseer or deacon must have children who are not disobedient and unruly, the man must be in charge of his household and not have out of control children.

It also means they must not be in a scandal or have a bad reputation in town (this doesn't mean they can't be despised by the townsfolk for being a Christian, of course). If a guy is known for being a philanderer, a money grubber, profligate, drunkard, lazy do-nothing bum or a flatterer, suck-up, ostentatious, arrogant, untrustworthy, dishonest, etc etc then they should NOT be ordained as an overseer or servant of the assembly, because nobody in town will want to hear anything they have to say and will despise anything they are "leading" as a joke or a scam.

It's actually pretty common sense, when you think about it.

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by bishoph

First, your question is to broad/far reaching. To say disqualification of ministry in general would i believe would be incorrect. The office of a bishop referred to pastoral ministry and the deacons were ministers in training.

Secondly, if you were to say that because a minister's children were not living right he is disqualified, to follow that logically to its conclusion would mean that God would have to be disqualified because his children are often not living right. God was the best parent possible and Adam & Eve chose to sin. If a man raises his children in the fear and admonition of the Lord, and his children refuse to live right, he should not be judged by the choices of his children. However, if they are living in his home, he must present to them the hard choice of following his example or moving out.

Lastly, of good report can be seen more clearly IMO in Paul's letter to Titus where he uses the word "blameless." One cannot always be free of negative reports about their character, but the word blameless here means where nothing can be proven, or lacks evidence or proof of. Someone may accuse a minister of many things, especially in our day, but that does not mean it is factual/true.

I am skeptical and careful when it comes to these kinds of threads, because so many (not saying this is true of the original poster) use these things to try to justify their lack of submission to the man of God in their life.

I am just curious, what does submission to the man of God look like to you?
Say how does one that attends your church regularly gives in the offering, participates in functions when possible, show lack of submission?

Oh and one other question, who is the man of God to you in your life?

[bishoph]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

I am just curious, what does submission to the man of God look like to you?
Say how does one that attends your church regularly gives in the offering, participates in functions when possible, show lack of submission?

Oh and one other question, who is the man of God to you in your life?

Actually, submission must first be to God, and when one is fully submitted to God there will be no problems between them and their pastor. Incidentally the "submission to the man of God" was such a small part of my post that it amuses me that you would pull that out to question. However, I stand by my original intent for the comment. In my experience, (over 25+ years of pastoral experience) I have found that most of the time when people are seeking to find out how to define the disqualifications of ministry, they are trying to justify their own disobedience and wrong spirit with regard to ministry.

Are there legitimate occasions where it can be discussed and should be....absolutely. But the spirit and intent should be checked to make sure it is pure and right. (This is why I prefaced my statement by saying "not saying this is true of the original poster" as I do not know them or their spirit/intent.)

As far as my "man of God" I believe that I must set an example of being submitted (practice what I preach) so I have a pastor and I have a couple of Elders who can and do speak into my life. Our church members know who these men are and have access to their phone numbers and know they can call them if needed.

[Whoop Harted]

So is it Biblical for a Pastor to have a Pastor?

What happens when that Pastor's pastor dies? Does he get new pastor?

Who is the Pastor' Pastor's Pastor?

Does this sound like a pyramid scheme? Who gets to be the Pope?

[Godsdrummer]

You missed my question, What does it look like in your definition, when someone is being disobedient to the pastor? I must disagree with the statement in bold, I find most pastors are on the defense, because a saint disagrees with a teaching of a pastor. Hence the pastor brings into play Hebrews 13:17 and says they are in rebellion to his authority.

And to set the record strait I do not believe Hebrews 13:17 means what most make it to mean, as the word "obey" in this passage means "to be persuaded" not to blindly follow the person just because of his/her position. After all are we not all instructed to "study to show ourselves approved", and " to seek out our own salvation with fear and trembling". How then can one be in rebellion if they simply understand scripture different than said pastor?

I do not actually accept this, as most of the time those regarded as "your pastor" are those that are in total agreement with the teachings of said pastor. So there is no check nor balance, it still comes down to "what the pastor teaches or else.
And by the way, your 25+ years, does not make one an authority on the spirit of others.