It seems to me that there are, basically, three basic
interpretations of the marriage qualifications of elders extant right now, and
I thought it would be useful to list them.
First of all, here is the text, relevant bits particularly selected
(taken from I Tim 3):
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, One
that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all
gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take
care of the church of God?)
This is what I think the text means, given the linguistics
of the entire passage:
An elder must be an older, married man, not a young virgin
man. He must have children, hopefully grandchildren. These children and his whole house must be
under control, Godly children, a good witness to his ability to lead a family in
Godliness. Because, if a man has not shown that he is capable of raising a
family in Godliness, then what on Earth are you doing considering having him
lead the church?!
This is what the Catholics seem to think it means:
A bishop may not be the husband of one wife and, hopefully
has no children, for a leader of the church should not be involved in anything
so degrading as sex. Having raised a family is no qualification for leadership
in the church, quite the reverse.
This is what protestants seem to think it means:
It doesn’t matter if the elder/pastor is married or has children.
If he has children we hope that they are under control, but we certainly don’t
make that a qualification; being much more concerned about his seminary
qualifications and preaching style.
2 comments:
I have done a little research into the Roman Catholic requirement of being unmarried (celibate), and I'm not entirely sure "should not be involved in anything so degrading as sex" is accurate. They might reference Paul's "I wish everyone to be as I am" (unmarried) or they might reference Jesus's "everyone who has given up houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands for the sake of my name will receive a hundred times more". They say it leaves the priest free to be fully committed to the service of the Lord, to be able to lay his life down for the flock, to be a stanchion against sexual immorality. Oh, and it saves the Roman Catholic church millions of dollars in pay because priests don't have to support anyone. They list a lot of reasons. I'm not sure "sex is dirty" is the best choice.
On the other hand, trying to correlate Paul's command "the husband of one wife" with "no husband with any wife" is clearly impossible.
(I'm not at all sure about your "Protestant" version, however. None of the churches I've been a part of even had elders who had been in seminaries.)
Stan,
Feel free to read more in the 'Tony discussion' thread and you will find Catholic document after Catholic document stating that sex is dirty... including calling it 'vomit'.
As for the protestants, I was exaggerating, and there are exceptions. But certainly even very conservative churches manage to ignore the 'husband of one wife' qualification.
Post a Comment