|
Recently I have had the privilege of discussing with the elders of three different churches some conclusions I have come to regarding the qualifications of leaders. Based on the list of qualifications of bishops and deacons in 1 Timothy 3, I have concluded that someone whose children are educated in government (or even private) schools is scripturally unqualified to hold either of these leadership offices.
It is apparently a rather shocking notion that one of the pre-requisites of church leadership might be to be a homeschooling father. It seems quite simple and obvious to me, but most seem to have never pondered the question. Let's explore God's word together regarding this idea.
In writing to Timothy, Paul the apostle directed him to hold certain standards for elders and deacons that were apparently ideals for all God's people but are minimal pre-requisites for leaders. Some would question holding higher standards for leaders than for other Christians. But James clarified (James 3:1) "My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment." Clearly those who lead in the body of Christ through teaching are to be held to a higher standard than the rest. Actually all Christians should aspire to qualify as teachers (Heb. 5:12) but James says those who hold teaching positions will be held to "a stricter judgment."
In Titus 1:5-9 and 1 Timothy 3:1-13 Paul lists minimal qualifications of church leaders (see also 1 Peter 5:1-2). In Timothy's letter Paul is more specific in detailing minimal standards for two distinct offices: elders (note the terms "bishops" and "elders" are interchangeable in Titus 1:5 & 7) and deacons. It is rather striking to note the similarities of the pre-requisites for holding either office. It would be profitable to study the full list of criteria for leadership, but for our purposes in this article we want to focus on one particular phrase.
For both elders and deacons the apostle insists upon the requirement of ruling one's own house well. In the case of elders he says a bishop must be (1 Tim. 3:4-5) "one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?)" Likewise, he says (verse 12) "Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well." For the offices of both elder and deacon men are not qualified unless they rule their own houses well.
Technical Foundations
What does it mean to rule one's own house well? Let's take just a quick moment to consider the precise meanings of the key words, then we'll have a strong foundation for making accurate applications. The Greek word proistemi is translated "rule." It literally means "to stand over." It has the sense of presiding, managing, or directing. The term "own" is translated from the Greek word idios. It means "pertaining to one's self" as distinct from others; private and separate. This is the term used in Colossians 3:18 when Paul tells wives to submit to their "own" husbands (as distinct from just any husband). Another example of the term is John 6:38 where Jesus told His followers He did not come do his "own" will, but the Father's.
The Greek term oikos is here translated "house." While it can refer to the physical structure of a dwelling place, it is also often used in reference to one's family or household as in 16:15 where Lydia's "household" was baptized. The translators correctly concluded that it wasn't the physical edifice of her house that was immersed in water. Here in 1 Timothy 3, Paul is clearly referring ruling to one's own family household rather than simply controlling the physical building.
Finally, the word translated "well" is the Greek kalos meaning good, honestly, fully. It has the sense of something done thoroughly and with integrity. Although different terms are used, it brings to mind Colossians 3:23 where Paul says, "And whatever you do, do it heartily, as to the Lord and not to men."
Practical Application
There are several immediately obvious applications of the phrase "ruling his own house well." First, clearly an elder's or deacon's wife and children must be believers. Some have contested even this. Note that Paul clarified in verse 4 that "ruling one's own house well" included "having his children in submission with all reverence." Can one be scripturally "reverent" without being a Christian? In Titus 1:6 Paul said only those "having faithful children" were to be considered for the office of elder. It is twisting the text to deny that Paul meant for the elders' children to be examples of the spiritual fruit of a man's ministry. Their faithfulness in any other domain begins with faithfulness to God.
Similarly a leader's wife must be a believer. In verse 11, "Likewise their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things." I cannot imagine the apostle considering anyone either "reverent" or "faithful" who was not even a member of the household of God.
Frankly, leaders and their families are not to simply be adequate Christians. One who is barely saved, but lacks a passion for communion with Jesus, refusing to live a surrendered life, is not an example to the flock. I suspect this is one reason Paul insists that upon one who is "not a novice." He must have proven maturity, a track record of seeking the Lord wholeheartedly. Peter wrote (1 Peter 5:3) that elders are to be "examples to the flock." Why did Paul want leaders' families to be faithful and reverent. Apparently even the families of elders and deacons are to serve as examples, those whose lives can be appropriately emulated.
Further, it would appear that the "stricter judgment" referred to in James 3:1 may apply to the patterns of a leader's family life. For example, while it is probably ideal for all Christians to avoid partaking of alcoholic beverages, this is more specifically required of the leaders (see 1 Timothy 3:2-3, 8; Titus 1:7). Some would consider this an inconsistent double-standard. Even in the Old Testament this is the standard for the leaders. In Proverbs 31:4-7 King Lemuel's mother tells him, It is not for kings, O Lemuel, It is not for kings to drink wine, Nor for princes intoxicating drink; Lest they drink and forget the law, And pervert the justice of all the afflicted. Give strong drink to him who is perishing, And wine to those who are bitter of heart. Let him drink and forget his poverty, And remember his misery no more. The Old Testament standard for Kings was higher than that for the others. So, in the New Testament the qualifications for leaders are higher than what is minimally expected of all Christians. Yet these are the ideals all should strive to emulate, especially if they follow the encouragement at the beginning of 1 Timothy 3 to aspire to a leadership office, even in the future.
But there is one aspect of the phrase "one who rules his own house well" that I believe is being overlooked in almost all churches with which I am familiar. Let's focus for a moment on the word "own." If someone else is ruling a man's house is he "ruling his own house well?"
For example, if his wife or his children are actually the ones whose direction prevails in the household, is the man "ruling his own house well?" Now, the scriptures call for a man to lay down his life for his wife and children, following Christ's example with the church when He "gave Himself for her" (Ephesians 5:25). A man is to make decisions based on what is best for his family rather than what is most convenient and pleasurable for him. Yet he is to be the one who makes these decisions, "ruling his own house well." If a man is dominated by his wife or children, someone else is ruling his house and he is disqualified from leadership.
Ruling His Own Finances
But are there other situations in which someone else rules a man's house? What if he is in debt? Proverbs 22:7 says "The rich rules over the poor, And the borrower is servant to the lender." Does this imply that someone who is either poor or is a borrower is unable to "rule his own house?"
Nowhere does the New Testament suggest that it is wrong to be poor. In fact, James warns (James 2:1-9) against discriminating in favor of the rich. Those who are poor may, in fact, be the most worthy models of Christian virtue, according to James. But the scripture does tell us not to voluntarily become debtors. A few verses later (Proverbs 22:26-27) we are told, "Do not be one of those who shakes hands in a pledge, One of those who is surety for debts; If you have nothing with which to pay, Why should he take away your bed from under you?" Paul said (Rom 13:8) "Owe no one anything except to love one another." James later warned (James 4:13-17) against presuming on the future. Debt is never encouraged in scripture and is always portrayed as at least a curse (see Deut. 28, especially verses 43-45).
I believe it is scripturally warranted to conclude that a man who unnecessarily acquires especially collateralized loans is disqualified from church leadership because he does not "rule his own house well." If "the borrower is servant to the lender" then the borrower doesn't even rule himself.
One of the tragic consequences of disregarding this principle in the last few generations is the epidemic of church debt in this country. Not only are church leaders in debt, but the churches themselves are in debt. Is there a link between these two phenomena? Paul explained his insistence on a man "ruling his own house well" by warning (1 Timothy 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? The implication is clear! Whatever failures a leader allows in the rulership of his own house will be duplicated in his rulership of the church. If a man excuses his impatience at God's provision (see Philippians 4:19) in his own house, he will be much more inclined to excuse encumbering Christ's church as a servant to a lender. Can the church of the sovereign Lord of the universe ever be mastered by a human lender? Only if we thus enslave her who has already been bought at a price.
Ruling His Own Marriage
Let's turn to another way a man's house might be ruled by someone other than himself. If a woman is employed by someone other than her own husband, during the hours of her employment who rules her? I have concluded that while it may not always be blatant sin for a Christian wife to be employed outside her home such a situation disqualifies her husband from leadership in the church. Otherwise he is not "ruling his own house well."
God intended for women to serve as a "helper" (Genesis 2:18). But whose helper is she to be? Her husband's! If she is employed as someone else's helper she is at least limited in the help she can be to her husband.
To understand this principle we must first recognize that all employment is at best part- time, temporary slavery. Many modern believers deem the New Testament passages speaking to Christian slaves (c.f. Ephesians 6:5-8; Colossians 3:22-25) to be irrelevant to us because we thankfully no longer have the institution of racially-based slavery. However, racially-based slavery was not the only type of slavery referred to in scripture. In fact, many, if not most, of the references are to servants or slaves refer to those who sold themselves into slavery (Leviticus 25:39-40) because their poverty prevented them from supporting themselves and their families independently. These were indentured servants very similar to today's employees. In the Old Testament such servanthood was clearly temporary with slaves being released in the seventh year (Exodus 21:2).
Some may shrink at referring to employees as even temporary, part-time slaves. But we must ask, Are employees free to do what they wish on their employers' time? Clearly not. During the hours of their employment they must do what they are told within the limitations of the law and their contract. In any event they clearly do not have the right to determine how the time they are selling to the employer is used. Paul articulated an interesting principle while endeavoring to persuade the Romans that God's grace was not license to sin. He said (Romans 6:16), "Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey...?" His argument was that it is futile to deny one is a slave if his pattern is to obey another's commands.
This can clearly be applied to employment. If your relationship with another is one of obedience, you are that person's servant, no matter how benevolent they are. Now there is nothing wrong with being a Christian servant. In fact Christian servants are clearly directed to serve diligently. But, Paul commands that if a Christian servant can become free he should do so (1 Corinthians 7:21), and if a Christian is already free he must not become a servant (1 Corinthians 7:23) because he was already "bought with a price."
This brings us back to the question of the employment of Christian wives. While it may be permissible for a man to sell his time and become a part-time temporary slave, is it permissible for him to sell his wife into slavery? Paul told Titus to have the older women instruct the younger women to be home-makers (Greek oikuros, literally "workers at home"). This not only addresses the geography, but also the domain of a woman's work. A Christian leader is to "rule his own house well" and his wife is to be a "worker at home" as his "helper."
But some have countered arguments against Christian women's employment by pointing to the example of the "virtuous wife" of Proverbs 31. It is argued that she clearly conducts work outside of her home. She "seeks wool and flax" (verse 13) and "is like the merchant ships, bring[ing] her food from afar" (verse 14). "She considers a field and buys it; from her profits she plants a vineyard" (verse 16). "She makes linen garments and sells them, and supplies sashes for the merchants" (verse 24). Some consider her the epitome of the feminist career woman.
But there is one distinctive thing absent in all this. She is never employed by anyone other than her husband. Yes, she conducts business away from the literal geography of her home. She goes shopping. Does this disqualify her from being considered a home-worker? Hardly! She buys a field and invests her profits in gardening. Even this does not necessitate her being other than a home-worker as long as her schedule is not dictated by someone else, and she keeps a priority of "watch[ing] over the ways of her household" (verse 27). And the garments and sashes she makes and sells are made at home. Even the marketing of these goods indicates her caution at having her heart focused anywhere besides her home. She is a wholesaler, selling the sashes to merchants who actually deal with the public. Even the materials she does sell at retail seem to be handled by her husband since he, not she, "is known in the gates," the market place of the city (verse 23). In short, she is wholly devoted to serving her husband and family, not some other master. Thus "the heart of her husband safely trusts her" since "she does him [not someone else] good" (verses 11 and 12).
Can a man claim to "rule his own house well" if his wife is ruled by someone else for even part of her time? I ask again, Who "rules" an employee during the hours of her employment? I must conclude that a man fails to meet the scriptural qualifications of an elder or deacon if his wife is ruled by someone else through employment.
Jesus articulated a principle that is an ominous warning when applied this situation. In describing the impossibility of serving both God and money, Jesus said (Matthew 6:24), "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other." A man who deploys his wife to be the helper of some other employer, especially if the employer is a man, is placing his wife in emotional jeopardy. She will necessarily have divided loyalty. She will ultimately have to choose between the two authorities in her heart. If she chooses her husband she cannot serve her employer "heartily" as scripture commands (Colossians 3:23). If she chooses her employer her marriage is in serious trouble. We see this happening to Christian women everywhere. God's design is for us to uphold and aspire to the scriptural ideal of a women being employed only as her own husband's "helper."
Homeschooling--Ruling His Own Children
Finally, let's turn to the matter of whether a man must homeschool his children to be scripturally qualified as a church leader. Is a man who entrusts his children to a government school "ruling his own house well?"
A foundational question we must ask is, "Who owns the children?" Hopefully all true Christians would acknowledge that ultimately God owns our children. Yet in His word, God makes it clear that he has "given" children as a heritage--even as a reward. For example, in 1 Samuel 1 we have the account of how the Lord "gave" Hannah a son, whom she then "gave" back to the Lord. In Psalm 127:3 we are told, "Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD, The fruit of the womb is a reward."
The question remains, To whom has God given children? Some time ago a government school administrator was trying to persuade me to use a certain sex-education curriculum with the homeschool families I supervise. Her argument was, "Well you know, all of the children are all of ours." I had to contradict her contention. God has not given children to the community, to the society, and certainly not to the government. (By the way He also did not give children to the church.) He has given children to specific families!
Perhaps the clearer way to understand this is to consider who God has given the responsibility for children to. God makes parents (fathers specifically) responsible for the training and admonition of their children (Ephesians 6:4). Most of us have seen that when the government does for families what families are supposed to do for themselves, the government ends up weakening families. Regardless of compassionate motives when one institution excuses another from fulfilling its God-given responsibilities it fosters irresponsibility in that institution. Thus we have observed the government welfare system serving as an enabler of irresponsible family patterns. (We also see church programs weakening families by doing for families what God intended them to do themselves. Tragically many churches are thereby weakening, rather than strengthening, families.)
Who is supposed to teach children, for example. Moses' commandment from the Lord in Deuteronomy 6:6-9 rings unmistakably clear, "And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates." Deuteronomy 4:9; 11:18-21, and Ephesians 6:4 are just a few other the passages where God reinforces the mandate that parents are to teach their own children.
Perhaps the most well-known parenting passage is Proverbs 22:6: "Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is old he will not depart from it." Yet amazingly many institutional Christian schools have taken this as their own motto, as though the mandate had been given to the church, or Christian community, rather than directly to parents. The passage doesn't specifically name parents as the ones being commanded, but any honest hermeneutical study must conclude that it is they, not some other institution that God addressed here.
Let's return to the issue of the leadership qualification of "ruling one's own house well." Who "rules" children in school? If their father disagreed with the seating assignment of the classroom teacher can he insist on a change? In many cases a teacher will defer to parents' wishes, but ultimately who makes the final decision? If a father disagrees with the instructional methodology does he have the authority to demand a modification? No! In either a government school or a private school the student is placed under the authority of the school teachers and administration. The students' fathers are not able to "rule" them, at least during the hours of their enrollment. (This generally leads to a loss of "rulership" over them at other times as well.)
I recently learned of a situation in which Christian parents lost their children to the government Child Protective Services. The children were enrolled in government school and one of the teachers learned that the parents practiced scriptural chastening. Without the parents knowledge all of the children were immediately removed from the school and placed in foster homes. When the parents challenged the right of the government to act without a warrant and without their knowledge, a judge informed them that by virtue of enrolling their children in a "public" school, they became "public property." This Christian father forfeited his "rulership" over his own children by making them vulnerable to such intrusion. Is he qualified to serve as a church leader? Was he "ruling his own house well?"
Our children are not "government property." Yet when we enroll them in government schools the legal theory in loco parentis (Latin for "in place of the parent") is understood to rule. Thus the rights and responsibilities of the parents are at least temporarily passed on to the school. This legal understanding applies to private schools as well. Unless the parent is present and has an understanding that he is solely responsible for the direct supervision of his children the school has the legal right and responsibility to act in his place.
Again, we must ask, then, "Who rules children in an institutional school?" It is clearly not their father. How, then can he be scripturally qualified to serve as a church leader if he doesn't "rule his own house well?"
You and I are not called to enforce our understanding on other church leaders, but we are called to warn them. More than that, we are called to structure our own lives such that we are growing in our fulfillment of scriptural ideals by God's grace. We are to position ourselves and our children to qualify scripturally for church leadership now and in the future by "ruling our own houses well."
{mos_sb_discuss:5}
Powered by AkoComment Tweaked Special Edition v.1.4.6
AkoComment © Copyright 2004 by Arthur Konze - www.mamboportal.com
All right reserved |
Articles 
Home | About Us | Articles | Listen Online | Homeschooling | Contact Us | Online Store | 
