Disqualifications for ministry
 

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?

Re: Disqualifications for ministry
 

(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!

Re: Disqualifications for ministry
 

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.

Re: Disqualifications for ministry
 

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!

Re: Disqualifications for ministry
 

:thumbsup

Re: Disqualifications for ministry
 

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.

Re: Disqualifications for ministry
 

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?

Re: Disqualifications for ministry
 

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.

Re: Disqualifications for ministry
 

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?

Re: Disqualifications for ministry
 

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.

Re: Disqualifications for ministry
 

Maybe the question is not whether a pastor has a pastor, rather what a true pastor is and what his responsibilities really are. A good place to start might be the base meaning of what a shepherd looks like.

Further more as this thread is disqualifications of ministry, where do we make the leap that qualifications for a Bishop point to ministry? The two words minister and Bishop are not even in the same classification in meaning.

A minster is a servant, how then does one give submission to a servant.
A Bishop is an overseer, superintendent. The word pastor comes from the word Shepherd, study the meaning of what a shepherd was in those days. It does not come close to the definition of what we term a pastor today, nor Bishop.

Ephesians 4 states God gave gifts to the body for the equipping of the body to minister. WE ARE ALL MINISTERS

Re: Disqualifications for ministry
 

According to Acts 20:17 & 28
Popes plural :D over each church assembly. Accountable to eachother.

The bible way :thumbsup

Re: Disqualifications for ministry
 

Actually, a "deacon" is a "servant" or "minister". And there is obviously a connection between "deacon" and "bishop" in Paul's instructions.

1 Timothy 3:2 says a bishop must be "apt to teach." That is, a bishop must be able to teach. Teaching is definitely a "ministry".

A shepherd (pastor) is one who "watches over" a flock of sheep and feeds them. An overseer is one who watches over an assembly and feeds (teaches) them. While not every pastor has the office of overseer, it seems every overseer has a pastoral function.

Re: Disqualifications for ministry
 

(1) Of course pastors have pastors; every office in the Ministry has the
Ministry over each other: that is called SUBMISSION!

(2) No office is locked up in a box and subject to only themselves. The
Ministry is subject one to another, and complement one another.

(3) The Lord established the Ministry: "...some, apostles; and some,
prophets;..." etc. But no, we ARE NOT all in the Ministry (as you seem to
imply), but we are ALL called to minister one to another, and to the world.

Surely the Lord has made certain distinctions between the "Ministry",
and the ability to "minister" one to another!

And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets,
thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, Are all
apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?

Re: Disqualifications for ministry
 

How about a man who's wife backslid and turned to whoredom? Is he disqualified?

Re: Disqualifications for ministry
 

I believe this has to do with children in the home. Also, keep things in perspective, in ancient times a 12 year old was essentially regarded as being a man and most were married by 15 or 16.

When it comes to the "good report", I would say that it means that there are no outstanding criminal charges or that one isn't considered suspect in any criminal activity or immoral practice. The should have a relatively clean reputation.

Re: Disqualifications for ministry
 

A pastor once told me that these were Paul's "recommendations" and that they are not to be treated as dogma. For example we read,

2A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife,

Clearly Paul felt it best that an elder should be married. However, we know that Paul wasn't married and that Paul was also an elder.

1 Peter 5:1 (KJV)
"The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:"

So, I was taught that while these are strong admonitions regarding eldership and the deaconate, they are only guidelines, not "requirements". Ultimately God calls the individual and confirms that calling through the Spirit.

Re: Disqualifications for ministry
 

Re: Disqualifications for ministry
 

THIS is one of the main problems with modern 'Christianity' today. People take clear unambiguous statements of Scripture and just decide 'these are only suggestions but do what you want'.

And so, we have masses of people who do just that, and then we wonder why there is so much spiritual anarchy in the church?

Re: Disqualifications for ministry
 

:thumbsup

Re: Disqualifications for ministry
 

There was a son of a Plymouth Brethren preacher who thought the same thing.

"Do as thou wilt is the whole of the law"
~The law of Thelema, Aleister Crowley

Re: Disqualifications for ministry
 

Very sobering and true.

Re: Disqualifications for ministry
 

In order to be a Pharisee (especially pharisee of pharisees) one had to be married at one time. Hence either Paul's wife died, or shunned him due to his leaving Judaism to become what they would of seen as gross heresy.

Paul places himself with not only unmarried but widowers 1 Corinthians 7:8

The Greek word Paul uses for unmarried is ἄγαμος which doesn't mean not married yet, but means once married. The once married part could be for different reasons. Yet, ἄγαμος doesn't mean was never married.

1 Corinthians 7:11 and 1 Corinthians 7:34 hence the reason why Paul shows the differences between unmarried, and virgin. Which virgin indicates never married before.

Paul wasn't a virgin, and was once married, although his separation or death of spouse is never explained to us. Paul was once a married Pharisee, as all Pharisees were married. Paul's admonition to Bishops and Deacons was that they had to be married with children in order to show how they would handle the church of God. Putting out fires, solving issues with others, etc, etc. Being a father, and a husband. You see the thing about a 2,000 year old document is that it must be treated as a 2,000 year old document. Paul wasn't dealing with The United States of Infidelity, or the a culture who were absorbed by "give-up-itis"

Paul was dealing with ancient Judean society which had rules far different from us. Even the Romans were expected to get married and have a family.

Trying to take the Bible and modify it to fit our wacked out culture is definitely not a good idea.

Re: Disqualifications for ministry
 

Re: Disqualifications for ministry
 

I wish it was that simple. Respectfully, sometimes pastors have a hard time discerning between God's will for a member's life and their will for a member's life. When the member follows God instead of the pastor in such cases, it can lead to division.

Re: Disqualifications for ministry
 

(1) I take it you mean that the MINISTRY must first submit to God,
and then will the congregation not find it hard to follow him;

(2) Yeah, some may want to know how close to the edge they can
possibly get . . . I suppose.

Re: Disqualifications for ministry
 

My pastor chose to take the literal meaning of the text in question without imposing any additional notions upon it. An important note is that Rome prohibited polygamy before Christ was born. However, the Jews still practiced it in an act of rebellion against Roman law. A number of first century rabbis had multiple wives. My pastor took it that Paul admonished the Christian seeking the office of elder to be married to one wife and one wife only. My pastor didn't take the position that this verse disqualified a man who had been divorced and remarried.

Re: Disqualifications for ministry
 

I understand what you're saying. However, if we take these as strict legalistic requirements for eldership.... unmarried men (such as Paul) wouldn't qualify. But since Paul was indeed an elder, we know that the admonition to have one wife wasn't a "requirement". Thus it appears to be more of an admonition than a legalistic "commandment".

Re: Disqualifications for ministry
 

Exactly!

What I'm saying is that whether Paul was a widower or divorcee.... Paul wasn't the "husband of one wife" (present tense). And if his wife was merely "estranged" and Paul lived in celibacy, one could say that Paul wasn't able to rule his house well, with his wife being in submission to him.

Either way you go, if this list of admonitions are read as legalistic requirements, Paul would have essentially disqualified himself from being an elder.

Re: Disqualifications for ministry
 

My point was that Paul had to be married at one time. The list of requirements are a criteria of Bishop and Deacon. Paul wrote them, and Paul met them. If he didn't meet those requirements then he was insane! If he didn't meet the requirements he contradicted himself to a group of people who knew who he was, and his past history well enough to call him out.

Re: Disqualifications for ministry
 

Do you ever debate in public?

Because I know that in a street Bible study altercation, you would be stomped into a greasy theological puddle. What I mean is, I have met people around this city while not Christians had an amazing knowledge of the scriptures. Yet while they have this knowledge, they don't use it to benefit themselves spiritually. They use it to stealthy rope in an unsuspecting Christian into a perplexing situation. Bro, you couldn't walk away from them making the above comments. Because they see through all that, and they would wait until a crowd formed and were listening to you intently. Once you got going on your above thoughts they would swoop in for the kill. By the time they were done with you, there would be nothing left but a greasy spot.

Paul just casually making suggestions?

Because after all, Paul would of disqualified himself?

Hey, good luck with that.

Re: Disqualifications for ministry
 

Why didn't Paul say "if a man is married, then..."?

Why would God inspire a list of requirements for eldership if they weren't binding?

Re: Disqualifications for ministry
 

What else is merely "suggestion"?

Re: Disqualifications for ministry
 

Hey, maybe that stuff about homosexuality is just "suggestion" as well?

Re: Disqualifications for ministry
 

Or maybe that stuff about adultery, maybe that's not to be taken in some legalistic fashion, either...?

Re: Disqualifications for ministry
 

Oh, the answer for that is....drum roll please...

It's not inspired?

Good God from Zion!!!!

This country is circling the drain, fast, steady, with no stopping.

Re: Disqualifications for ministry
 

Oh, but of course, that was legalistic to place such restrictions on people.

Paul was just making some light suggestions concerning effeminacy in 1st Corinthians 6:9

Lord Jesus help us!

The Internet has truly sunk two rounds in the back of the head of Churchanity. :(

Re: Disqualifications for ministry
 

Being husband of one wife does not mean one MUST be married. It just means if one IS a husband, he has to have one wife, because polygamy was an issue in those days.

Re: Disqualifications for ministry
 

So, a guy never married, never ran a household, can be an overseer of the household of God?

Doesn't that sound just a wee bit like it defeats Paul's entire statement?

Re: Disqualifications for ministry