Right now we’re in the middle of a presidential election in which all the candidates are attempting to convince the American people that they are the best qualified person to serve in that office. But it’s interesting that our Constitution actually establishes only very minimal qualifications for anyone who wants to hold that office. Anyone who is 35 years old, a natural born citizen and who has been a permanent resident of the Unites States for 14 years is eligible to be President.
But when it comes to church leaders, God has established a much higher standard – one that we’ll look at together as we wrap up our series on Biblical church leadership.
We began this series by looking at the Biblical model of shared leadership that Jesus has established for His church. We’ve also spent some time reviewing the role of the elders within the body and the responsibility of the local church body toward the elders. I pray that as a body we’ll take very seriously the principles we’ve drawn out of the Bible over the last three weeks and that we will commit to following those principles here at TFC. But without godly men who meet the Biblical qualifications we’ll examine beginning today, these principles won’t work like God intends for them to operate.
We’re going to read the two primary passages that set forth the qualifications for elders and then we’ll see if we can’t summarize the qualifications we find there in a manner that will help us to remember them and, even more importantly, to apply them.
The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.
1 Timothy 3:1-7 (ESV)
This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you - if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.
Titus 1:5-9 (ESV)
There are obviously several approaches that we could take as we look at these passages. One would be to go through the list of qualifications one by one and study each one in some detail. And there is no doubt that it would be profitable for us to do. But I think one of the potential dangers of that approach is that we can begin to look at these passages as merely a checklist of qualifications that we go through and check them off one by one as we evaluate potential church leaders. But taken in context, Paul seems much more concerned with the overall character and lifestyle of these men.
In both passages, Paul writes that an elder must be “above reproach”. This is the overall description of the character of a man who is qualified to be an elder in the church. Everything else after that in both passages is merely an embellishment of what it means to be “above reproach”. The adjective that Paul uses there literally means “not able to be held”. The idea is that the elder has nothing in his life that anyone could use as a basis for accusation.
It is also important to note that the verbs here are in the present tense. Paul is primarily concerned here with the present character and lifestyle of the elder rather than what sins a person has committed in the past. I think Paul would be the first to admit that even he would not be qualified to be an elder if one based the evaluation on what his life was like before he became a Christ follower.
Paul is also not saying that an elder never sins. Again, even Paul wouldn’t meet that standard. If you doubt that, just read Romans 7. The picture that Paul is painting in both these passages is of a man who has a lifestyle in which these character traits are consistently demonstrated, albeit not perfectly.
So what I’ve done is to summarize Paul’s teaching in these two passages into seven marks of a Biblical elder. My original goal was to address all seven marks this morning, but after our Monday morning Bible study and working on this message in the early part of the week, it became evident to me that we need to spend some extended time on the first of the seven marks. So this week I’ll focus on that first mark and then next week, we’ll wrap up with the last six.
SEVEN MARKS OF A BIBLICAL ELDER
1. Male
Okay, now you see why we need to spend our time on this first mark this morning don’t you?
There is no doubt that this is the most controversial qualification for an elder. In our culture today, it is quite common to have female pastors and church leaders. And in many cases those women have been very effective in their ministries. But if we’re going to hold fast to the Word of God, then we must evaluate those ministries based on only one standard – are they consistent with the teaching of Scripture? And what we’ll find as we examine what the Bible teaches in this area is that there is overwhelming evidence to support the principle of exclusively male leadership in the body of Christ. So let’s look at some of that evidence together this morning.
The text supports the principle of male leadership
In both passages that we looked at earlier, all the nouns, pronouns and adjectives are masculine. “He” means “he” – it can’t possibly mean “her”. The word translated “husband” literally means “man” – it cannot ever refer to a female. The words “overseer” and “elders” are in the masculine form.
If Paul had wanted to even leave open the possibility of women elders, he could have used feminine or neuter forms of all of those words or used other words that could be either masculine or feminine. In fact, a little later we’ll see an instance where Paul uses the feminine form of “elder”. So even if we didn’t have all the other evidence we’ll look at this morning, we could still make a good case that church leaders are to be male.
The example of Jesus supports the principle of male leadership
We know that Jesus has absolutely no problems going against either the cultural norms of the day or the human traditions of the religious leaders. We certainly see that when Jesus reveals for the first time that He is the Messiah to a Samaritan woman, which clearly violated both cultural practices and Jewish religious traditions. We also know from Scripture that there were a number of women who were deeply supportive of Jesus’ ministry. And when Jesus rose from the grave, he first revealed Himself to a woman.
And yet, even though he certainly could have done so if He wanted, Jesus did not choose even one woman to be an apostle.
The example of Paul and the other apostles supports the principle of male leadership
As we’ve progressed through this series we’ve seen that Paul and the other apostles appointed elders in the local churches that they helped to establish. And we know that there were several women like Lydia and Priscilla that played important roles in the establishment of those churches. But again we find that there is not even one Biblical example of a woman being appointed as an elder in any of those churches.
The evidence that we’ve looked at so far – the text itself and the examples of Jesus, Paul and the other apostles - give us incontrovertible evidence that there were no female elders in the early church. But we still have several questions we need to address:
• Is this a universal principle to be applied by all believers in all cultures or was this just unique to the first century?
• Were Jesus, Paul and the other apostles male chauvinists?
• Should I quit while I’m ahead?
Let’s begin with the first question. The Biblical answer to that question is:
The principle of male leadership is not merely cultural
In order to get a good understanding of this principle we need to go back to what Paul wrote earlier in his letter to Timothy:
I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness - with good works. Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
1 Timothy 2:8-14 (ESV)
There are certainly some instructions here in this passage that are merely cultural and we would certainly err if we attempted to apply them literally in our culture today. In verse 9, Paul begins with a timeless principle that still applies today. In worship women should dress modestly and conduct themselves with self-control.
But in the last part of that verse that deals with braided hair, gold, pearls and costly apparel, Paul is dealing with some specifics that were unique to that particular cultural setting. In Ephesus at that time the temple prostitutes often attired themselves like that and Paul wanted to make sure that no one would associate the women in the worship service with them. The other problem is that some women were coming to church dressed quite lavishly in order to call attention to themselves and that detracted from the worship.
Today, the principle that women should not come to church dressed in a manner that is designed to call attention to themselves still applies. But in our culture, merely braiding the hair or wearing gold or pearls does not cause a distraction or in any way cause others to associate the one wearing them with some pagan religion. So there is no need for us to continue to hold to those specific instructions.
But in the second part of this passage, Paul makes it quite clear that his instructions regarding teaching and exercising authority are not merely cultural because they are based on God’s created order. And since that is the part of the passage that deals more directly with church leadership, we’ll focus a bit more of our time here.
First, let me just point out that when Paul writes that women are to learn quietly with all submissiveness, Paul is actually elevating, not diminishing the role of women in the church. In the prevailing Jewish culture of the day, women were forbidden to learn the Law. In the synagogue, they were seated in a separate section or in a gallery and could not take part in the service. Women held such a low position in that culture that the Jewish men would pray and thank God that he had not made them a Gentile, a slave, or a woman.
But Paul makes it explicitly clear here that women are permitted to learn in the church and to have a role in the worship of the church. But at the same time, there are also limits placed on that role. In particular women are not to teach or to exercise authority over men. But is this a blanket prohibition against women ever teaching within the body in any capacity? To answer that question, we must begin with the purpose of Paul’s letter to Timothy:
I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these things to you so that, if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth.
1 Timothy 3:14-15 (ESV)
We find that the purpose of Paul’s letter is to establish some guidelines to govern the conduct of the church when they gather to worship. We need to keep that in mind as we evaluate Paul’s instruction to the women in the previous chapter.
We also find that there are at least a few examples of women in a teaching role in the New Testament:
He [Apollos] began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.
Acts 18:26 (ESV)
Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.
Titus 2:3-5 (ESV)
So certainly Paul is not issuing a blanket prohibition against any teaching at all by women in the body. But there is no doubt that he is limiting what a women is to do within the worship life of the body.
In the Greek, there is a parallel construction that connects the two actions of teaching and exercising authority. So what Paul is prohibiting here is a woman fulfilling the role of the authoritative teacher within the local body, a role that is reserved for the male elders.
Clearly that does not prohibit a woman from teaching other women. In fact the older women – here is where Paul uses the feminine form of the Greek word for elder – are commanded to teach the younger women how to be godly wives and mothers.
And, as in the case of Priscilla and Aquila, it may be appropriate for a woman to accompany her husband and to assist him in teaching the word of God to another man in a private setting. But clearly women are not to take on the authoritative teaching role within the public worship of the local body.
Paul goes on to make it clear that this is not merely some cultural principle that only applies to the church in Ephesus at that time. It is based on the divine order that God established at creation.
The word “first” in verse 13 is a word that conveys the idea that not only was Adam created first in time, but also conveys the idea of first in rank or chief. In other words God designed Adam to take a leadership role in the marriage relationship. We find Paul confirming that principle in 1 Corinthians as well:
But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God…For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
1 Corinthians 11:3, 8-9 (ESV)
Before the fall, Adam and Eve had a perfect marriage. Adam didn’t have to hear about all the men that Eve could have married and Eve didn’t have to hear about how Adam’s mother cooked. Adam fulfilled his role as head in the marriage relationship and Eve submitted to his leadership and received the protection of being under Adam’s authority.
But as Paul points out, when Eve decided to move outside the protection afforded her by her God-given role, she became deceived and ultimately gave into temptation. But before we’re too hard on Eve, the implication is that for some reason, which the Bible doesn’t reveal, Adam abdicated his leadership position in that marriage relationship and therefore exposed the vulnerability of his wife.
Unfortunately, one of the long lasting consequences of the fall is that Eve’s desire to usurp her husband’s leadership responsibility has been passed down to every generation of women that followed. So Paul had to deal with a situation in the church at Ephesus where the women were still desiring to usurp the leadership role of the men – but this time it had spilled over into the church.
So this is not merely something that was limited to the culture of the church in Ephesus in the mid first century. It is a problem that stems from violating God’s divine design for men and women. That leads us to this important principle:
The principle of male leadership demonstrates the value of women in the body
Men and women have equal standing before God and are equally valuable to Him:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Galatians 3:28 (ESV)
However the fact that we are all equal does not preclude us from having different roles within the body. As we’ve already seen, men and women are divinely designed by God with built in differences. One of those differences is that women are designed by God to function best when they are under the headship of a man. And when Eve, or any other woman, steps out from under that headship, she becomes vulnerable.
So by limiting leadership in the church to men, God is actually doing what is the very best for both the body of Christ and for the women who He has not equipped to function in the role of leadership. Because God values women, He protects them from being put in a position where they are likely to fail and to cause problems for themselves and for others.
We’ve already seen that God has tasked women with important roles in the body – like teaching younger women to be godly wives and mothers – and when they fulfill those God-given roles both the body and the women are blessed.
Before we finish, we need to address one last issue regarding male leadership in the church. We must acknowledge that there are local churches that have female pastors or leaders that seem to be effective in ministering for Christ. Doesn’t that fly in the face of what we’ve learned this morning?
Sometimes women are forced into leadership because men abdicate their responsibility but that is never God’s best
In our Monday morning Bible study someone brought up some of the examples of female leadership that we see in the Bible. In particular the example of Deborah was raised. So I spent some time this week going back to the accounts of Deborah and some of the other judges who led Israel as they entered into the Promised Land to see if there is anything we could learn from those accounts.
Since we don’t really have time to go through those accounts in detail right now, we’ll explore that some more during our “Connections” Bible study time this morning. But the conclusion that I drew from the text is that it appears that Deborah was placed into that position of leadership because the men in the community had abdicated their God-given leadership role.
And Deborah was at least somewhat effective in that role, at least for a period of time. But there were some long-lasting consequences that occurred as a result of Israel’s failure to obey the God-given principle of male leadership.
The same is still true today. When men abdicate their leadership responsibilities, whether that be in the home or in the church, women are often forced to step into those leadership roles and at times can be quite effective in those roles. But we can be sure, based on the clear teaching of Scripture that is never God’s best and there will always be consequences of our failure to obey God’s Word.
That puts a lot of pressure on us as men to make sure that we are fulfilling our God-given leadership roles in the family and the church. Because when we abdicate those responsibilities we not only open up ourselves to the consequences of our disobedience, we also subject our families and our churches to harm as well.
Even though this principle of male leadership is not real popular in many parts of our culture today, it is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence of Scripture.
Next week, we’ll wrap up our study of Biblical church leadership with a look at the remaining six marks of a Biblical elder.
