Marriage, Faithful Kids, and Elder Qualifications

[00:00:09] Speaker A: Welcome in to think deeper presented by Focus Press. I'm one of your co hosts, Joe Wilkie, joined as always by Jack Wilke and Will Harab. And we have a very, very good episode today, an outline that will put together that we're pretty excited to get to. But before we do, just a couple quick words. We have consistently pushed our patreon on here. We're going to push one more time because we have an exciting new offering that is coming. It is Brad's brains and brew and that's three b. Is the alliteration there? I like it. But yeah, Brad Hare, Dr. Brad Hareb is going to be doing a video series where he's just going to be discussing biblical things, he's going to be discussing apologetics, things, just a lot of different things. And his thoughts on such, on stuff. And he's going to be doing it from, I believe cabin coffee, his coffee company, and shooting it from there, which is part the brew brewing coffee. And we're really excited about that. So that's going to be coming. Stay tuned for that. He is in the process. He's got things going. We're in the process of getting everything set up and ready to roll on that and start rolling them out. So yeah, stay tuned for that. The second thing is, we've talked a lot about our seminars. We do offer the think deeper seminar. We each offer our own seminars. We talked about this a week or two ago. Will and I are coming to and I always space the name, but northern Tennessee basically. So yeah, we're going to be doing that at the end or right at the beginning of March rather March 2. And we're pretty excited about offering our first gym seminar, Leoma Church of Christ. [00:01:35] Speaker B: If you're in the area, there you go. [00:01:36] Speaker A: Saturday, March 2 shout out to Leoma. And we appreciate you guys having us out. And so we're pretty excited about that. But if that is something you're interested in. Yes, we do a gym podcast seminar. We do the Think Deeper podcast seminar. We have our own course. Dr. Brad has fantastic seminars and tons of them, probably a dozen different ones that he does. And so yeah, if you're looking for that, especially as you're planning for summer, just keep us in mind. Be thinking about that. And if you want something having to do with teens, we are more than happy to come and provide a gym seminar for the teens. So just a quick word on that, but will you put together this outline and so go ahead and get us into it. [00:02:12] Speaker B: Yeah, so I think it was several months ago we discussed elders in the church. We discussed kind of the leadership angle and why we believe it's incredibly important that we make sure the church has strong leaders. And that's really been a big emphasis for us on this podcast in general, that our homes need strong male leadership, husbands, fathers. And so, of course we're going to make the argument that churches do as well. It's funny, when we had the question and answer episode recently, one of the questions that was asked is, what do you think is the biggest problem kind of facing congregations moving forward? And the way I answered it was that kind of the way that churches are being led by elders right now is to me, one of the biggest crisis in the church. And when you look at the congregational failings that are going on, just the evidence behind this. We've got a lot of worldly families, as we have bemoaned before, got a lot of people who are just content to kind of make God a two to three hour part of their life. Maybe on Sunday morning, maybe if they're lucky, Wednesday night. And the rest of it, they are just absolutely wrapped up in the world. Worldly pursuits, worldly media, just worldly everything. But they give God his token two to 3 hours a week. We got a lot of that in a lot of congregations. We've talked before that. We've got young people leaving the church at huge rates. They go off to college, basically don't see them again, with the reality being most of them were already pretty worldly before they left. And so that's just kind of the final piece of it, is that they officially physically leave, that they mentally leave the church at 1415. They physically leave the church at 18 and never come back. And then in general, I would say there's just kind of people are spiritually floundering, don't know which way to turn, they don't know who to go to for answers. There's so many things that we're dealing with in our society right now, political unrest, economic unrest, new technological advances. We talked about AI last week and the transgenderism movement. Just so many different things that christians have questions about. And to be honest, they're just kind of floundering right now, spiritually floundering. And there's a lot of things that you could point to and say, well, maybe it's this, maybe it's that. But one has to ask the question, what is the root of all this? Why is it that I just listed all these things that we believe that congregations are struggling with? Again, worldliness, young people leaving just general, not knowing where to turn to for answers. Where can we trace all this back to? What is the root of this? And it is my position. I think it's our position. You can trace almost all of this back to spiritually weak and unqualified leadership. This is something that we are passionate about. This is something a lot of people are probably going to push back on. No, my elders are great. My elders. There's a ton of great elders out there. There are a ton of qualified elders that are out there. And for those people, we are so extremely grateful. I have interacted and met with quite a few of those guys. They're doing a great work. But if we can't say out of one side of our mouth that the church is struggling again, that we're losing members, that churches are shrinking, that things are not going great, but then out of the other side of our mouth say, oh, but there's no problem at all with the leadership. Our current structure is exactly the way it should be. No, that's not the way it works. You look at any corporation, any sports team, whatever, the person that's at the top, the owner, the operator, whatever. If things are going poorly, who do we need to turn to? The leadership? And so again, guys, I'm going to let you jump in here, but it's our position that you look at everything the church is struggling with right now. Worldliness, youth, leaving, everything we talked about. I think a lot of it can be traced back to the fact that we have spiritually weak and unqualified leadership in a lot of our congregations. Speaking generally speaking. Obviously we're making kind of broad points here, but I think this point stands for the most part in a lot of congregations, a lot of spiritually weak men, a lot of unqualified men. And so we're going to talk about that with today's episode and why these qualifications matter and why it matters that we determine. What does it mean for them to have faithful kids? Why is that important? What does it mean that they're the husband of one wife? What does it mean that they're able to teach all these things? We're not going to cover every single qualification, but these things matter and they matter for a reason and we need to address them. Guys, what would you add to the kind of the introduction for this episode? [00:06:35] Speaker C: Well, if that sounds negative, I would say if you have good elders, be very thankful for them. This is not a hit against good elders. If you're an elder doing the job, keep it up. Amen. That's wonderful. On the other hand, we go over this a lot. I don't think anybody can look around and go, man, things are going great. And the people that do that are selling you something. Honestly, I mean, like the people who do the, well, I think the church is in good hand. Travel to all of these churches that we go to, small churches that don't have elders, don't have anybody in the pipeline to be elders anytime soon. There's a problem. It's not good. Churches are shrinking. Churches are closing. The minister crisis. I mean, all of this stuff that you read about and, you know, it's out there. It's a real issue. And you kind of go, well, who's responsible for this? And we can just blame the people in general. And there's a lot of blame to go around. But God's going to start at the top. God's going to start at the people who were given account for it. And so if the church is in decline, the people under whose watch it has been in decline are the people that we got to start with. And so that's why we're doing this. Yeah, that might come off negative. I always think. And I've brought this up on the podcast before, about know, well, all the prophets say, go ahead, do. It's a great idea. Well, what about a prophet who's actually speaking for God? And Ahab just says, well, yeah, there's this one guy, but I hate him because he always tells me bad stuff. He's saying, makaya, you're too negative. Like, well, ahab, you needed some negativity. You're not doing right. And so to Will's point about there being this leadership vacuum, I agree. And I think getting the qualifications back right, figuring out who's going to lead this in the future and getting qualified people is really important. Yeah. [00:08:25] Speaker A: I don't have too much more to add. I would just say Will and I recently did a gym podcast on this of, we need to start at a young age genuinely taking these qualifications seriously and looking as to how we're going to raise up godly young men to meet these qualifications. I think we look at it, we don't ever talk about these qualifications to the youth. We get them till they're like 40, 45, 50 years old. They got old enough kids maybe to be baptized. And then we start looking around going, okay, who kind of resembles, like, who maybe looks like this? Well, yeah, we're going to throw away a lot of the other stuff of the peaceful and gentle and things like that because, look, we're just mainly looking for the main ones. Has he had faithful kids? Has he been married once? Whatever it is, okay, let's throw him in there. Instead of being very intentional, looking at these qualifications, we're about to get into and discuss and saying, how can we make sure we're raising up godly young men so we don't have this leadership crisis, so we don't have all these small congregations that literally have no one. They are years and years away from ever getting elders, and a lot of them are just hoping, I think, that they get some transplants that come in where the guy's elder material and give them a year or two to get to know everybody and then make them elder. No, we need to be doing better at that. But it starts with us really digging into the qualifications and know going. And on that note, let's jump in, fellas, unless there's anything else you want to add, let's jump into the two different passages where we're going to see this. And the first, of course, is going to be first Timothy three, the pastoral epistles, which is Paul helping the Timothy and Titus set up, pastors set up elders in these congregations in Ephesus and in Crete. And so the first one is in one Timothy three, the second one is in Titus one. And so, guys, I don't know if we want to just read these through. I don't think it's too much. Maybe I'll just read first Timothy three, one through seven. And then will or Jack, if you guys want to take Titus one. We'll read these fast and then kind of jump into some of these. And as Will said, I don't think we need to take, we're not going to take every single one of them. I think we know what peaceable means. We know what temperate means, things like that. So we're going to hit the high points. We're going to hit some of these. We're going to discuss as a whole what the elder Shabbat to look like, and then we're going to discuss of the more controversial ones. But let's jump into first Timothy three. It is a trustworthy statement. If any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. An overseer, then must be above reproach. The husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control. With all dignity. But if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God and not a new convert? So that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. Somebody got Titus one. [00:11:06] Speaker B: Titus one. Verse five, starting in verse five. For this reason I left you in Crete that you should set in order the things that are lacking and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you. If a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of dissipation or insubordination for a bishop must be blameless as a steward of God. Not self willed, not quick tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober minded, just, holy, self controlled, holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict. One of the things that I was actually going to ask Jack to bring up, because he taught a class on this recently, and I think he made a great point as to. I think we've kind of started to undervalue or maybe understate the reason why God set it up this way, why he established elders as a form of leadership, as a hierarchical structure to begin with. As Joe said, there's a lot of congregations don't have elders. There's a lot of congregations. I mean, the one that we attend right now is one of them. There's a leadership vacuum. And I think we need to. If we're going to answer the question of why do these qualifications matter, why is this something worth talking about? Because to the point that was just brought up, these qualifications are not usually brought up until somebody's like 45 or 50 versus. We teach these to the young men at age 15 and say, this is what you need to aim for. This is what you need to be striving for. You look at a 24 year old that just got married, you pull him aside, you take him out to coffee, out to eat or whatever, and point to this and say, this is what you need to be in 30 years. This is what you need to be aimed towards. If we don't understand why these things matter or why God set it up this way, those things are not going to seem useful. And I think that's where a lot of congregations are at to your point, Joe, is it's like, okay, we should probably put in some new elders. Let's just kind of look around and see who's close enough. And it's very reactive instead of being proactive, which is the biggest part here. So, Jack, I didn't know if you wanted to get into kind of what you got into when you talked last a few nights ago of why did God set it up this way? Why is it important that churches have elders and that you do things the way that he set it up? [00:13:18] Speaker C: Yeah, I mean, hierarchy is so baked into creation, into the Bible, into everything else of people taking responsibility. We've talked so much about masculinity and femininity and husbands, head of the home and parents and children and all the things like that. And this is just another one of those things. If somebody's got to be responsible, somebody's got to answer for it, somebody's got to just take the burden on their own shoulders. And if they don't, when something goes wrong, when somebody has to step up and take care of a messy situation, nobody has any incentive to, nobody has any reason to. Everybody just kind of points fingers, runs away, whatever it may be. And we live in this kind of democracy brained society where, well, we all get to vote, everybody gets a say. And a lot of churches operate that way. Well, let's see how the people feel. You need to know your people. You need to know kind of where they stand on certain things. On the other hand, you're not asking their permission. It's not take the straw pole and see what everybody thinks. There's right and wrong and somebody's got to be the person where the buck stops and says, this is the right thing or a group of people. And if you don't have that, the church is just going to slide into false doctrine, into inactivity, into wasting time and resources or whatever it may be. You need decision makers. That's the way God set this up. And one of the things I talked about in that class is you go from great commission evangelistic, make disciples and the go go mindset. And that's led to Paul, led to Timothy, and now Timothy is in this church. But now you've got to think it's not going, it's staying. We've got to establish a structure that can perpetuate itself in the same place, that can maintain generation, right, that can maintain, like this church has been planted. Their job is to support the gospel being spread, for sure, but more than anything to keep a presence there in that town. In that area of the gospel being there. And those are different strategies. As I use the illustration in the class, storming the beach with your army and the navy and all that is one thing. Holding the occupy or occupying the territory is another one. And I think the church we've talked a lot about is very evangelistic. We push. We really need to evangelize. Yeah, we do. But we also need strategy to hold what we have. And we're doing that part very poorly. And that's what elders are for, is to hold the ground that has been gained. [00:15:44] Speaker A: We've talked about the importance of elderships being basically the marines of the church. Right. There's a reason these exist and there's a reason you call somebody that highest standard, because to your point, Jack, responsibility is kind of a big thing. Like the buck has to stop with someone. We've talked about the baseball illustration. Pot fly. You got it, you got it, you got it. Most of the time we tell every pot fly whether the preacher is in left field, right field, catcher. Well, he's got to get it. The pop fly is for the preacher to go get because that's what we pay him for. Well, we see how that's worked out in our congregations. We got a bunch of spiritually weak people and the elders who basically are glorified deacons who worry more about what thermostat says than about the people itself. We have to get away from that thinking. We have to start thinking about the buck stops with the person who's been put in charge of these people, which is the elders. This is why they have to be elite, because they are going to answer to God on judgment day for the people in their church and go, hey, what happened with this person? They were there. They stopped coming to church. And you never went after them. You were never the shepherd you were supposed to be. So do you really want, this is why the new convert, things like that. Do you really want a guy who's brand new or a guy who is just morally reprehensible or a guy who everybody looks at and goes, that guy? Really? There's a reason these things exist. And it does go back to the responsibility of like, if you're going to be responsible for everybody, you better be the upper echelon, you better be the top of the top, the best of the best, the marines of the church that are going to go out there and get things done and are going to call people to a higher standard. And how can you call people to a higher standard if you don't hold yourself to one. Now what we're going to hear right off the bat is, whoa, whoa, whoa, you guys are talking about every guy train up young men. What if they don't aspire to the eldership? It's not fair to train up young men just to be elders, because not everybody wants to aspire to the eldership. Not everybody wants that authority. And to that I would say, and I've said this before, I think we've talked about it. But first, Timothy two is to all women, is it not nine through 15? I don't think you can look at that go, well, that doesn't really apply to me because XYZ. No, that's to all women. Women are remained silent, things like that. So what is to all men? I would say chapter three is for all men, the elders and the deacons is what every man should be looking like. Basically, you want to have such a store of men in the congregation that look like this, that it's like, okay, let's talk about the ones that really do desire to lead, but we've got 15 guys we can choose from that really meet these qualifications. So yes, we should be raising every man to try to meet these. [00:18:08] Speaker B: Because the other thing is, look at it from the perspective of, oh, well, I don't desire it, so I don't really have to meet those. Look at all. Are any of those things that we shouldn't want our young men to like the not quarrelsome, not covetous? No, it's fine if they're quarrelsome. It's fine if they're covetous or, right. Husband of one wife that one doesn't really know. All of these things matter. Like, all of these things are good to push young men to. And to Joe, I think you just said it. The ideal is you look around, maybe you feel as though elders need to be appointed. You've got a pool of 20 guys that are like, man, these guys all fit the qualifications. Let's pick from those instead. That, as we've said, is not the way it is in most congregations today. Most of the time it's like we have a pool of zero. So let's figure out who's kind of closest to it. And again, just reactants at a proactive. So we're going to get to the two big ones, the controversial ones, the husband of one wife, what all does that entail? And then, of course, the faithful kids. Jack's done a ton of writing on that recently. Really good stuff, so probably know where he stands on it. But I think it's going to be some good discussion to discuss where all of us stand on it. And again, those are the ones that people want to know about. But there's two that we want to hit first that we do think kind of get overlooked, I guess you might say. Two that again, as Joe said, as you look around, as you read first Timothy three of good behavior, pretty self explanatory, sober minded, pretty self explanatory, not addicted to wine, pretty, not violent like not covetous. These are things that you can look at. And if we had 3 hours, sure, we could go into all those, but we don't. So we're going to hit again the two big ones. But then also Joe, one that I think you wanted to cover. And so I'm going to hand it back to you. Able to teach. Why was that one something that you thought, hey, we needed? Devote two or three minutes to this, because I agree. But what is the significance of this as far as an eldership qualification? [00:19:59] Speaker A: I just think we get it wrong in the fact that we trot the elder out for a Bible class here, there, maybe even an entire quarter, and then we never hear from them again. Basically we never see them in a leadership teaching role. It's kind of like there in the background. Well, they proved that they could teach. They are able to teach, not that they're going to, but they are able to do. So if we absolutely need them in. [00:20:19] Speaker B: A place like they pass the test. I really don't think they never have to study again. [00:20:22] Speaker A: Right. I really don't think that's what's being talked about here. I do think that able to teach is one of the more important things because we're talking about bringing people to spiritual maturity. I think the elders bear the biggest role and you can say it's the preacher's job. I really think it's the elder's job to try to bring people to spiritual maturity here. You have to know that they can teach on an individual level and on a congregational level. And I know that's not explicitly said in the text, but I find it so funny that again, we trot them out for a class or two and go see they're able to teach. That doesn't mean that they always have to teach. No, I think we need them teaching as much as possible. We need them taking that role because they could let somebody like me and eel bozo up there right to speak. Like at the end of the day, the buck does not stop with me, it stops with them. So I just wanted to highlight that of, like, let's make sure we're getting that one right as well, that this is somebody who's not afraid to get up in the pulpit and say something. It's somebody who's not afraid to take somebody aside and teach them the way of God more closely, because that's the hardest thing to do, is it's easy to go. Well, I know they're living in sin. They're living with a girlfriend. What are you going to do? No, you have to be able to go into that person's home and teach them, starting from the beginning, hold them to that standard of, this is what scripture says on this. If you don't go along with this one, corinthians five rather kind of comes into play here as we talk about disfellowship. You have to have elders who have the guts to do that, but who are also able to teach people in a way that is respectable, is loving, is peaceable and gentle and things like that. But I think those kind of support. Can he teach people from a to z, teach them the gospel, teach them what they need to know? [00:21:54] Speaker B: Jack, I'll let you jump in here in a second, but I would appeal to Titus one, nine and ten. I stopped at verse nine, but listen to verse nine, holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict. For there are many insubordinate, both idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole households, teaching things which they ought not for the sake of dishonest gain. I agree. Paul is not saying, hey, make sure that your elder teaches on the fruit of the spirit every now and then. Make sure that your know does a Wednesday night Devo. Every now and then he's saying, make sure these are biblically knowledgeable men who can point out and stop false doctrine, who can truly shepherd and protect a flock from these people who are going to be teaching things they ought not for the sake of dishonest gain. To me, that's the spirit of it. Again, it's not, can he do a Wednesday night Devo? Can he get up and talk in front of people? It is more so. Can he shepherd the flock spiritually through his Bible knowledge, through what he knows about God's word, to again, hold fast the faithful word, to convict, to exhort? I think that we have to make sure that that is communicated when we're talking about able to teach when we're talking about why this is important for an elder. [00:23:04] Speaker A: Yeah. [00:23:05] Speaker C: I want to add, we kind of breezed over this one, too. I think it's connected to. It is the one where it says peaceable. Yeah. Okay, peaceable. He needs to get along with people. Yeah, but I think a lot of people would look at somebody who is confrontational in that way and go, well, that's not a peaceable man. He's kind of quarrelsome. Well, in a lot of ways, Elijah wasn't a peaceable man and John the Baptist wasn't a peaceable man. And good men of God, you could construe them as not being peaceable. Peaceable means being reasonable in his personal relationships. He's not somebody who has it out for everybody or things like that. Maybe he can be a peacemaker. He can help bring people together, things like that. But there's going to be times where he has to tell people, no, he has to tell people, get out. He has to tell people, you're not allowed to teach again. And the first thing people are going to do is go, well, that's not a peaceable man right there. No, he can be peaceable. And confrontational when necessary is a really important quality that goes along with that, able to teach. [00:23:59] Speaker A: I would say on the flip side of that, you could see a guy who never ever has a problem with anybody. He doesn't really ever call anything out, but he's super peaceable. He's super nice, gets along with everybody. So to the flip side of your point, maybe that's because he's not pushing on people hard enough. You know what I mean? A guy who keeps the peace, but that's all he ever does, is like, well, and this is where you get the democracy of, well, why don't we ask everybody else? And that's keeping the peace. Sometimes your congregation is not going to be at peace. When you say we're not allowing this, we're not doing that, we're calling this person out. Well, that's not keeping the peace. Like, no, that is keeping what God wants. And so I think that's a great point to make, Jack, of just make sure that peaceable doesn't mean he's a pushover who gets run over by every other person in the congregation. [00:24:39] Speaker B: Yeah, that's a really important distinction. Let's move on to another one that maybe gets a little overlooked or maybe a little misunderstood. Hospitable is found in one timothy three. And I think this one is important for a number of reasons. I don't think necessarily we need to devote five minutes to this. But, guys, I'm going to ask the question, first of all, what does this mean? And then secondly, how necessary is this? Essentially, what should we be looking for in men who maybe we want to appoint as elders? I think it can be very similar to the able to teach thing of like, well, has he taught a Wednesday night Devo? Has he maybe taught a class here and there? I think we can view this in the very same way of like, does he go out to the mexican restaurant with people, or has he had somebody over maybe in the last six months? Oh, cool. He has. Awesome. I do think there's a little bit more to this, but I don't want to dominate here. Joe, Jack, why is this one that Paul included in the. [00:25:38] Speaker A: I would say as far as hospitable goes, I think it goes hand in hand. The reason why able to teach is right next to it. I think in the text is you want to have people over where you can help people understand something. You can engage with them across the dinner table. And, Jack, you made this point a lot. You made it the other night in class. What's the best place to teach somebody something? What's the best place to get to know somebody? Is it sitting across the pew and go, hey, brother, how's the week going? Oh, it's going all right. Good. See you next week. You don't get to know people that way. You have them over at your house, you're sharing a meal together. This is where the breakdowns happen, where the guy just start. A woman starts bawling because she's having such a tough time with her kids, or the guy's having a really difficult time with his work, or he's struggling with alcoholism or whatever else. You start to know people across the dinner table. So when a shepherd, the whole job is to get to know the sheep. And if you think about a shepherd, where it's like, so where are your sheep? They're in that field over there. [00:26:35] Speaker B: Around here. [00:26:36] Speaker A: They're somewhere around here. If I need to check in, I can always walk up and just make sure they're doing okay. No, you want them close by. You want to be able to have that headcount of like, I know what every one of them is doing. I know where they are. The 99 talks about that with the one that goes astray. How does he know the one went astray? Because he knows his sheep. Because he knows he's there. And so he goes, whoa, hey, hold on. The count's off. This last one is gone. I need to go find that one. That's a shepherd who's plugged in. And one of the best ways to be plugged in, I think, is to have them over in your home and again, to get to know people across the dinner table. So an elder who is kind of just. And this is one of the reasons why I think we'll get to that husband and one wife. I think this is one of the reasons why it's important to have a wife. It's difficult for guys to have them over to the bachelor pad. This is part a woman makes the home. Kind of talks about that in chapter two. [00:27:24] Speaker B: I was just going to say this is one that I feel like a lot of people are still kind of using the COVID excuse. Remember during COVID you couldn't really have people over, and it became very easy to kind of back out of social things. Covid don't really want to get anybody sick and all these things. Listen, a lot of people don't like the idea of somebody coming over to their house. Maybe they're not super close to them. And so, man, the conversation, what we can talk about, it's going to be awkward. And I think Covid gave a lot of people, again, just kind of an excuse of like, yeah, I would invite them over, but the COVID thing and all this. Listen, hopefully people are not still kind of writing that excuse, but I do think it got people very comfortable with not being hospitable. This goes for everybody, but this would be one that I would certainly say somebody who is up for Eldership needs to be setting the example with this. Obviously, this is a train that we have been on with this podcast of get in people's homes, get around the dinner table, have these real conversations. If your eldership is not setting that example, if your eldership is not kind of creating that culture, fostering that environment, however you want to put it of. We're a group of people who care about each other, who love each other enough that, yeah, we're not just going to do the, hey, how you doing in the hallway? How was the weather? Did you catch the Alabama football game? And that be as deep as we ever go. Your eldership has to set that culture, has to set that example to where, again, you're a hospitable congregation. You're a congregation that cares for people, that loves each other to the point that you want to be together outside of the four walls of the church building. You want to be across the dinner table. That you don't care how messy your house is. All these things kind of beating a dead horse here. But the point is, your eldership, I truly believe, needs to set that environment, kind of set that culture. And this is purely anecdotal, I get it. I've been a member of the church. I've been a baptized Christian for 13 or 14 years now. You know how many times I've been in one of my elders homes? One hand for sure, and probably two or three fingers. It just doesn't happen a lot. And I'm not trying to bash anybody. I'm not trying know, call anybody out, but at the same time, I don't think this is normal in a lot of places. And so this one really, I would say, is just crucially important. Jack, what are your thoughts? [00:29:41] Speaker C: Yeah, the culture point is one of the places I was going to go with it, because if they're not doing it, churches always wonder, and obviously I wrote a whole book on this, why are we not closer? Why are we not together Monday through Saturday? It's only in the building on Sundays and Wednesdays. If the elders have established that's how it does, that's the level of which they're going to be engaged with their people, the people are going to reflect that. I mean, churches take on the characteristics and personality of their eldership, and if they're not tight with their people, the people aren't going to be tight together either. And so there's that issue. The other thing is, this is really kind of the ideology of the leadership of the purpose of a shepherd to know their people is the authority. The role itself is God giving them permission to be in your life, to be even what some people would call nosy. And obviously they don't need to be like in your finances. There's levels that there's been spiritual abuse cases, certain movements where they just went way too far of knowing everything about somebody's life. But on the other hand, they need to know how's your marriage doing, they need to know how's work, how are the kids, things like that. And that takes a certain level of pushing themselves into your life, inviting themselves in, because you know what God gave them that permission to do. So we really view it this whole, I think most elders start with this approach because of the democracy thing. Again, everybody has a vote, everybody is kind of doing their own thing, and you just kind of let them go. The default position of elders is we're here if you need us. [00:31:11] Speaker B: Yes, that's exactly, that's not how shepherds work, way to put it. [00:31:14] Speaker C: That's not what shepherds do. Shepherds have to go to the sheep. Shepherds have to be within a rod's length of the sheep to direct them where to go, to keep them out of trouble, to protect them, to get them fed, to get them what they need. If you're at a distance and, well, I'm here if you need you. People don't respond to that. People don't come to you. In fact, I've heard elders and preachers, and I'm in the same boat, have often lamented, you'll see a couple of members of your congregation, like, start filing for divorce or separating or something, and it's like, oh, wow, I wish only if they had said something. It doesn't work that way. You've got to be involved enough and to the point which they know, I can talk to this guy about this, I can go to them with my problems because he's right there. He's constantly asking. I mean, how many times you mentioned of the hospitality of them being inviting you into their house, how many times has an elder asked you, how's your spiritual life? How's your walk with God going? That's a question they need to be asking. And again, why hospitality is connected to this. That's not something they're going to ask you in passing in the fire. They're not going to ask you in a ten second conversation on Sunday. It's across the table. It is in that intimate setting. [00:32:22] Speaker B: And again, I'm going to give the qualifier here. We know there are elders out there who do this. Our argument is they are unfortunately the exception. They are in the minority. The majority do not. And so, Joe, I don't know if you have something to add there. We kind of got a roll to get to some of the other stuff. I want to rope that into the next question that we have because I think Jack kind of described it well. This is a big job. This is not just. You stay an extra hour on Sunday night to do an elders meeting. Maybe you come 30 minutes before service so you can greet people and that be the extent of your job. Being a shepherd is a big job. There's a lot of involvement that needs to be done, especially if you're in a bigger congregation. If you're going to get to know your sheep, if you're going to really be invested and involved in everybody's lives in the way that Jack just described, that takes hours. You have a limited amount of hours in a day. So this is a question. I think people want to know. I think it's a good question. Should we pay elders? And maybe can we pay elders? And then I guess, should we pay elders? Just kind of common sense wise. I have always been of the position. I would not have a problem at all if elders were paid for the simple reason of, especially for the ones that aren't retired. So you got to work 40 hours a week, you got to make sure your wife and family is taken care of. A lot of guys have other responsibilities. And then we're going to add being an elder on top of that, guy's going to have no time left. And so, yeah, it does make sense that I shouldn't say it makes sense. It's somewhat understandable that the job gets the first priority, wife and kids maybe get the second priority, church duties. Being an elder kind of gets bumped down the priority list. And so my answer would be, elders that are paid, theoretically, you do that so that they can free up more of their time to do more of the shepherding work and duties. And obviously there's a lot of complications you get into with that, but that would be my position. Joe, I don't know what you think. [00:34:20] Speaker A: Yeah, absolutely. I think in the context of first Timothy five, where it talks about do not muzle the ox, and we use that for preachers. Saying a worker is worthy of its wages is what he says. Well, look at verse 17, right? It's talking about, yeah. The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. Laborers worthy of his wages do not receive an accusation against an elder. So hold on, 17 and 19 are about elders. So who's 18 about? It's about elders. We ought to be paying them, because to me, this is a very full time job. What Jack's talking about having people know and really being in their lives and making sure they're okay. And if we stopped looking at elders again as glorified deacons, and we started looking at them as like, their role is to know everybody's life very, very well, to be the counselor, that's why they need to be wise, right? All the qualifications are there so that they can go out and help every member come to spiritual maturity. That is quite the task. The other thing that I would say, so should we pay elders? Yeah, actually I think we should. But the other thing I would say is people may not. This may not be like ultra comfortable for people. This is why 200 plus member congregations, I don't think it works. And really, I would say 100 plus member congregation. I don't think it works. Elders need to know every member on a very spiritual level. And once you get to that point of like, okay, I'm over this group, okay, there's like 30, 40 people underneath me. It's the same thing as a school teacher. There's a reason they cap off. How many kids can be in a class is because at some point you lose control of them. It's the same concept here. You got a bunch of sheep, like, at some point you're going to be able to lose control of that. It's not just knowing whether they've gone astray. It's how are you doing? Really? Exactly as Jack said, how are you doing? And how's your marriage and the ability to go out and get a cup of coffee with any one of your members and to know where they're at in life, it takes time. So, yes, we should pay them, but it also means you need to have a small enough group where you actually can engage with that. So I'm not as big a fan of big congregations for that reason. Jack, what are your thoughts? [00:36:22] Speaker C: It's hard, you know, obviously a lot of churches are having a hard time paying a full time preacher. And so when you talk about, all right, now, we're going to add more to the payroll here. I think we've said this comment on the show before. I think a lot of congregations would do better with a few elders, whether they're paid part time or full or whatever, than a preacher. Like if you had to choose one elders that can really do the work. Because one of the other things is, as we talked about, the I'm here if you need me kind of thing. You can't take that approach if you're being paid to do the job. Well, I'll just sit back here in case monitor. No, you got to go right? You got to go and put that time in. And so I think it's the kind of thing where it would feed itself of like, all right, we're paying you. There's expectations that come with this, and you're supposed to do this job and you're monitoring it. I think that's part of what's in that first Timothy, five of those who rule, well, double honor and all that is you're looking going, all right, man, that guy's really putting in the work. [00:37:17] Speaker B: Yeah. I mean, obviously there's potential for abuse, of just wanting to get paid more and all these things, or just won the position because of pay. And you could say well, maybe that's the reason why we shouldn't. I think we get a lot wrong with the current system of like the elders pay the preacher salary, so basically we own you essentially, and kind of the employee employer mentality that I don't think is very healthy. So I think there's problems with the current system, I guess is my point. There's going to be problems about any system. But let's move on to the next question before we really get into kind of the two big controversial qualifications here. Joe, you had this question actually, should there be three or more elders? Everybody obviously knows you can't just have one elder because then you're a eldership of one, right. You get to make all the decisions. I actually had not heard this position before that two is actually not an option that some people believe that you have to have three or more. And so, Joe, I don't know if you want to get into why people believe that should be the case. I'm guessing because of a voting mentality. I've always said minimum of two. I don't have a problem if two guys are elders because you're splitting the quote unquote power, the authority, so to speak, and you can still keep each other in check. That would be my answer, is that two is fine. [00:38:32] Speaker A: Yeah. Jack, what are your thoughts actually before. [00:38:34] Speaker C: I get into my, the tiebreaker thing? I can't find that in the text at know I can find a plurality, like you gotta have more than one, having three. I just don't see that. [00:38:45] Speaker A: I agree with you. I think two, there's so many congregations hurting for elders too. It's not like we just stick anybody in there. But at the same time, two sometimes can be difficult to manage. If we have two, man, let them serve, they'll rule well, hopefully, Lord willing. So I'm okay with two. I have heard again the three of like, well, you just need somebody in there because what if those two elders disagree? Well, I would say let's draw back on every other qualification they have. They'll figure it out. Let wisdom and God and everything else, a lot of prayer decide if we have to have somebody come in and strong arm or be the majority. We're back to democracy here within the eldership, which is just not what we see. So let's get into the controversies because looking at all of these, I don't think there's any other thing that we have not covered that really kind of presents challenges the way that these two do. And so first, Timothy has it, as he must be the husband of one wife. Do you have a different. You're NKJV. That's NASB. [00:39:41] Speaker B: I think it's the same, the husband of one wife. [00:39:44] Speaker A: So, fellas, let's jump into this. I think it reads the same way in first Timothy as it does in Titus. [00:39:52] Speaker B: Let me set it up here, and then there's a few questions that I think are going to be the most interesting content here. But essentially you can read this two ways. One, you can read it in the literal way, which is this is a man who needs to be currently married to one woman. The other way you can read it, though, is the kind of more of the principal approach, which is this is a one woman kind of man. This is a man who is faithful to his wife. This is a man who doesn't carouse. He's not flirtatious, he's not somebody who is just going around, again, just kind of a womanizer, that kind of thing. And so it's a bit more of a principle, and I would say not a greek scholar, but the guys that I know that have studied the Greek in depth say that the Greek does seem to indicate more so that it is a one woman kind of man as opposed to the literal thing. So that's kind of the two ways of reading it. Like if a guy's up for elder, and obviously this is only going to matter in certain circumstances, which we have questions about those circumstances that we'll get to here in a second. But Jack, you taught on this, so I don't know if you have anything to add to the kind of the literal versus principal way of reading this, but that's kind of where all the controversy stems from, is do you read this in a very literal married to one woman currently way, or do you read this more as a is he a faithful, is he faithful to his wife, principal type of way? [00:41:16] Speaker C: Yeah. The Greek really isn't helpful on it because it just says man of one woman, but that's what it would say if it means husband of one wife. And so it's essentially you're going to read the thing you want to read into it. I would say to that basically all of the literal leaning Bible translations chose husband of one wife. I don't think that's a mistake. I think that is significant that we're talking, hundreds of greek scholars chose that. Interestingly, the NIv, which we are not the biggest fans of, went with the more characteristic faithful to one wife or faithful to one woman or something like that. So more of the characteristic than the I don't know, state of being kind of thing. However, the argument is made that he needs to, or that these are all character things rather than just qualifications, characteristics rather than qualifications. Therefore it would mean man of one woman rather than a husband of one wife. I don't know. Having children is a qualification, not a characteristic. Now are they believing children and managing his household? Well, yes, but he still has to have multiple children. If you're reading that literally, in the same sense, if you're reading this literally, he needs to be married. Needs to be a husband of one wife. And then of course you can get into like is it has been a husband, currently a husband. Well, she passed away. We'll get to that in a minute. But I think just reading it as straightforward as you can. I don't think it's about his disposition toward women, because I think that's covered by some of the other things as well. [00:42:50] Speaker B: Let's talk about what this certainly disqualifies, and then we can get to kind of this question, because I'm going to be honest, I see the case for the other side here. So it obviously to me disqualifies somebody who's never been married. You cannot have a bachelor, be an elder because of the kids thing as well. I think it disqualifies somebody who has been married and divorced and is currently unmarried for obviously, depending on your view of marriage, divorce and remarriage. We don't have time to get into that. But where this really boils down to kind of controversy is let's say an elder has faithfully married to his wife. His wife dies. Does he need to step down? The literal reading of it would be he is no longer currently the husband of one wife. Therefore, yes, he needs to step down. The principled reading of it is he was faithful to his wife, his wife passed away. Doesn't mean he's no longer faithful to his wife. Therefore he would still be qualified to be an elder. Again, kind of going with the more characteristic principled approach. That's where this controversy kind of stems from. And so, Jack, you made it pretty clear, I think, that you're kind of more on the literal end. So I guess your answer would be guy's wife dies, he should probably step down from being an elder. Is that a fair characterization of your. [00:44:09] Speaker C: Mean? It's a difficult thing, but I think that is the most literal reading. [00:44:13] Speaker A: Yeah. [00:44:14] Speaker B: Joe, I don't know if you want to give yours. I think I differ slightly, actually. [00:44:18] Speaker A: I bounce back and. [00:44:20] Speaker B: Go ahead. [00:44:20] Speaker A: Yeah, I bounce back and forth because I do think from a principal perspective, I do understand, man, the guy's been, I would say, if that's right off the bat. No, if the guy's been serving as an elder for the last 30 years and everybody knows him and he's met all the qualifications, happily married to one woman, faithful kids, things like that, and then she passes. If the congregation is going to get up in arms about it's going to be a problem, I think he needs to step down through that. If the congregation decides and the other elders decide and they study it, and they come to the conclusion that, hey, I think you can still be an elder, that's completely their prerogative. I certainly wouldn't condemn them for it. I do think Jack's right in the fact that that does not make him a husband of one wife anymore. He's, well, it still is just one wife. But I think the math, and Jack did this. The math checks out. If he's the husband of one wife when she's dead, then what happens if he goes into remarries again? Is he the husband of two wives? Or did he just go from a husband of one wife who's passed to a husband of one wife who's living? I don't think it works out that way. So either you are the husband of one wife and then the husband of two wives, or you're the husband of no wives and the husband of one wife if you do get remarried. So the math again, I think, checks out on he's no longer married, therefore. But at the same time again, will, I think, where you are, I fully understand the principle behind it, which is, again, was he faithful to his wife and in his serving abilities? For 30 years, he's been doing it with his wife by his side. Does he still carry the same clout, respect everything else? Do they still look to him to teach? Yes. Therefore, maybe it's tough. [00:45:48] Speaker C: Let me ask a question. So we're talking about the guy who's an elder and then his wife passes away. Can he remain one? Would you put a man in who is already widowed? [00:45:57] Speaker A: No, because I personally don't think. I think it is. [00:46:01] Speaker C: I think for consistency's sake, I see that that's kind of the issue, is if he's not qualified to go in, he's not qualified to stay in. [00:46:08] Speaker A: But I would say one was. He was in that state of being, like he went in fully qualified and everything else, which means he does have a wife and proved that he could do the job over the time. Now, am I reading into the text. Yeah, I think from your point. [00:46:21] Speaker C: But did the widowed man not prove that? I mean, if she died a year ago and there was a faithful couple. [00:46:26] Speaker B: Well, what he didn't prove is how that would contribute to his eldership, is what I would say. Did he shepherd? Well, to be clear, if it was me and my wife died, I would step down just to kind of avoid the controversy. I would probably step down, however, if I was at a congregation where a guy had been married 50 years, served as an elder for 20 of them, did it really well. His wife dies, I'm not going to go knocking on the elder's door saying, all right, when's he retiring? Or when's he stepping back? He's got to resign. Got to resign. Got to resign for that reason of, it seems as though, I think his wife passing away, it's not make him unqualified. He has demonstrated that he was faithful to his wife. He was demonstrated that he aligns with God's view of what marriage should be. I get your point, though. I understand the point behind that. I just think a lot of this is. Do you read it literally? Do you read it principally, for instance, as we're going to get to the faithful kids thing, since it says children, can a guy who only has one kid be an elder? Well, the literal reading of that would say, no, got to be multiple. The principal reading of that would be, he has a child. Can he bring that child to faithfulness? And so, again, I understand that, I guess for kind of consistency's sake and to be safe than sorry, essentially, you probably want to go the literal reading of it. I struggle, though, with a guy, been married 50 years, wife dies, serves as an elder for 20, done it very well. All of a sudden he's unqualified. [00:47:53] Speaker A: The issue, I would say, is where does the principal end? To Jack's point, I think the literal is. What kind of is. Yes, it's more black and white, but. Okay, so he's been serving for five years, did it pretty well. What about five years? What about ten years? How long does he have to be married in the eldership before. You know what I mean? Is it too. [00:48:12] Speaker C: It's very subjective. My problem when you get away from the literal is it just starts to become, well, my opinion is, whereas, like, well, we don't have to do that wrangling if we just stick with the basic reading. Let me ask you, that's why I asked the question about, would you put him in? Is I feel you're being literal on the front end. But as soon as he gets in, it switches from literal to principal. [00:48:32] Speaker A: I would say it's not as soon as he gets in, it's more of a, did he prove over a consistent period of time that he was able to do the job? He was faithful to his wife, he did raise the kids. Okay, so let's take, while we're talking about the kids one, we're getting into the hypotheticals, okay, so he raises faithful kids, but he's, let's say, tragically, his kids, like a job situation. His kids are all over at the house. The house collapses, they pass, he no longer has children. They all died. Now they were all faithful. Now they all die. He's no longer. [00:49:01] Speaker B: Is he unqualified? [00:49:02] Speaker A: Unqualified. At that point, I mean, literally no, my answer would be no, he's not literally literally. The answer would be he's not qualified because he no longer has the children. But I would say principally. [00:49:14] Speaker B: But the literal reading of it would be, yeah, let me ask you this. Yeah, that's a very good point, Joe. Let me ask you this, Jack. [00:49:20] Speaker C: Well, I think there's a difference in having one wife and having children who believe. It's believing children is the emphasis there, whereas this is just having the wife is the emphasis. [00:49:32] Speaker B: Let me ask you that. [00:49:32] Speaker C: Not even the emphasis, just the literal point. [00:49:35] Speaker B: We got to be careful reading into things. I fully understand why, in your opinion, is this qualification in there? [00:49:44] Speaker C: Married people have a different outlook on the world. And Paul gets into this in one corinthians seven of your commitments and all that. And I think, again, this is conjecture, this is not part of the qualification. This is me trying to parse out why I think it is part in the qualifications. You guys both got married young. We've talked about this before. I lived alone for a number of years. It's different. Your priorities are different. The way you go about your life, the thinking of other people is different when you're by yourself versus when you've got to share a life with somebody else. And so again, none of that is in the text. This is just me extrapolating. [00:50:22] Speaker B: Well, Andy, because I think what my response answers to that would be that I don't think that goes away if a guy's been faithfully married for 50 years and his wife dies, I think he still, and I understand the subjectivity of it as well, like, well, what about 49 years? What about 45 years? I get that. You could just walk the line back to where then it's all subjective. However, I think a lot of people say, well, he's got to have a wife because of hospitality. I think every other qualification that you see is his children don't help him with the eldership. His children are demonstrating that he is qualified. And I think the fact that he is faithful to his wife helps demonstrate that he is a man that is qualified. So I understand your position, and I think to be safe, we should probably go that route. However, again, I would have no problem with a guy who had been faithfully married, his wife died. If he decided to stay in the eldership. That would not bother me a bit because to me he's demonstrated, he has shown he meets the principle of the quality. He meets the principle of the qualification. And yes, literal versus principal, I get it. [00:51:21] Speaker A: But I think it would go to. [00:51:22] Speaker B: Me because I agree. [00:51:23] Speaker A: I think it'd go to the eldership, what the eldership believes about it, the rest of his elders, and to his conscience. If it goes against his conscience, step down. If the other elders are okay with it and it's not against his conscience. Again, we could go back and forth on it, the more literal and to be better safe than sorry, but you could look at it and say, okay, there's only two elders at this congregation. I mean, you start to again the numbers, and this is what we're going to get into with the kids here in just a second. The numbers game gets a little more difficult at some point where it's like, okay, numbers wise, how many elders do we have to have? If it's two, and then he's going to have to step down. Do we just kind of let him go past that? If there's a plurality, if there's five or six elders at the church, he can step down. It doesn't really matter that much. Yeah, you start to get into some of those games. It is very difficult. So, yeah, I would say leave it up to con. [00:52:05] Speaker B: Let me ask this one. Here's an interesting one. What if a potential elder has been scripturally divorced and remarried, scripturally in quotes. [00:52:14] Speaker A: I wish you hadn't put this one in. [00:52:17] Speaker B: Wife cheats on him, they get a divorce, he remarries another woman. I have been at a church where that was the case. [00:52:26] Speaker C: If that's your interpretation of it, it is no different scripturally from that interpretation than his wife dying and remarrying because you would say the first one dissolved, and so he's on to a second one. Obviously, it is very different in the circumstances. [00:52:45] Speaker A: I'm going to get in some trouble here. I don't think he's qualified. And the reason why, look, I've been in counseling enough to know in no way am I blaming the spouse for the person cheating. Let me just get that out the way. I am not blaming the innocent spouse in this situation. However, there are two sides to every single story. So he gets cheated on. How do we know he wasn't abusive? How do we know that he wasn't emotionally neglectful? Why did his wife look to step out on him? Well, that's all on her. Pump the brakes for a second. Most people who are happily married are not stepping out on their spouses. So does it happen? Sure, I work with sex addicts all the time. Does it happen? Yes. But when a woman steps out on her husband, most of the time the reason she's doing so, and yes, this is painting with a broad brush and we're going to get all the comments. [00:53:36] Speaker B: Wow. [00:53:36] Speaker A: That's not what happened to me. Look, I get that there are exceptions, but most of the time, and in my experience, having worked with this a lot, there are two sides to every story. Story. And I would want to know exactly what her side was as to why she left, why she cheated. So it could be, yes, he's the husband of one wife. From an MDR perspective, we could squabble over that. We won't depend. Correct. Depending on that we won't get into. But the rest of the qualifications I am very curious about, does he meet those and would his ex wife say that he meets those? What skeletons does he have in his closet? Did he have a major porn addiction and she just had enough and ran after some questions. Man questions. Have to. [00:54:15] Speaker B: I think to sum it up, it could disqualify him, but maybe does not automatically, necessarily, unless you're saying it automatically does. I think everything you're saying is leading me to the position of it potentially could disqualify him. I suppose necessarily. [00:54:30] Speaker A: I'd want to do a lot of research before I go to install him as an elder. And it would have to truly be like she just genuinely. But even at that, then I'd question his judgment as to why did you marry somebody who had such poor judgment? She cheated on you. That sounds really harsh. I realize that, but there's a lot of questions that come into play that if your wife cheats on you, all of a sudden this is 10,000 questions start being asked of this. [00:54:54] Speaker B: Right. All right, Jack, I'm going to let you introduce the next one, mainly because you did a lot of writing on this. This is kind of something that we're all passionate about for sure. So I definitely want us all to get our thoughts in here. But why don't you introduce this one as far as why maybe this is the most controversial one and why this also, you could argue, might be the most important one. [00:55:15] Speaker C: Yeah. So the two sections read on it a little bit differently. Titus says having children who believe, and Timothy says manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity. But if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God? And so they'll say different things, but similar thrusts. Children who believe and then managing his own household well. And so the question comes, do his children have to be christians currently christians? Do they have to be baptized christians? There's a lot in there. And so will mentioned, I've written on this, it's on the site. I've church reset substac, you can google it. We've talked about it a million times and people had a lot of interest. I got a lot of comments on that. And the question of do they all have to be saved? Man has three children, has four children. Do they all have to be christians? And do they all have to currently. [00:56:10] Speaker B: Be christians even if they're adulthood, right? [00:56:12] Speaker A: Yeah. [00:56:13] Speaker C: Even if they're 35, 40 years old, do they still have to be christians? I took the line of similar to the last one. The literal reading is, yes, they do. And why? Because it is being held as part of his qualification of it's his ability to train someone in the faith. What is an elder going to do? They're all his children in a sense, at that point that he's taken on their spiritual responsibility. If he couldn't do it at home, he's not going to be able to do it for the church. And so I get that there were again, a lot of pushback on the interpretation. Well, what if he has three out of four that demonstrates he could do a good job well, what if they were faithful when they were at home, but they're adults now? I don't buy that at all. The ability to keep somebody in the church while you can force them to go to church every Sunday is not what's being talked about here. And again, that's not the literal reading of having believing children not well. They believed for the four year window between when they became the age of accountability and they left home. [00:57:14] Speaker B: That to me is the biggest piece of this here because again, kind of the standard view in the church of Christ. I feel very confident in saying this, the standard view is if they were faithful when they were in his home, doesn't really matter what they do after that. He is qualified. Again, that might be kind of watering it down, but I very much, just, based on my experience, the congregations I've worshipped at, we've had elders who had kids that were not faithful. And so that you have to go with the well, I kept them faithful when they were in my home. The problem with that is, as Jack just brought up, if a kid gets baptized at 13 or 14, then leaves the home at 18, you're essentially saying all that a guy needs to do to meet the qualification to show that he is qualified to be an elder is keep his kids and basically force his kids. Because I mean, how many 15 year olds are going to say, no, dad, I'm not really going to go to church. So essentially they have to do it. Bring them to church for four years and you're qualified. Bring them to church till they go off to college, and if they lose their faith, go off the deep end, whatever, doesn't matter. You're still qualified. I'm sorry, to me that's just ridiculous. That to me totally ignores common sense. It totally ignores. I always go to first, Timothy 35. If a man doesn't know how to rule his own. If a man doesn't know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God? Man, apply that to if a guy has four kids and two of them go off the deep end and go live, however they want to apply that. If a guy does not know how to take a very small flock, four children, people that he spent every day with, hopefully, if he doesn't know how to take them and pass the faith on to them, do what we read about in the Old Testament, passing on the belief and the faith in God, passing it on to the next generation. If he can't do that with four kids and he bats 50% on that, why in the world would we expect him or even want him to give it a try for the congregation? And as Joe brought up, most of these congregations, 200 plus, it just makes no sense to me. And the fact that this is even a debate, honestly, is always kind of shocking to me. But I think it is because a lot of guys would not be qualified if we stuck to the literal reading of this. [00:59:16] Speaker A: So here's the alternate view that I am wrestling with. I've studied, thought about it a lot. I've always come down where you guys are, which is he needs to have faithful kids, he needs to have kept them faithful and have basically, if they are adults, they are faithful. However, something that has hit me that I think is very interesting and in studying this and such, the point that some people make is that the word faithful, the word believing is faithful, pastuo in the Greek. I'm probably butchering that, but again, I'm not a greek scholar, but it is the same word. So faith and belief are same greek word believing children, faithful children. Okay, so you say, well, why is that a big difference? The question arises, is it about faithful to God, faithfulness to God, they believe in God, or is it that they are faithful to him? And I'm starting to think about and wonder, is this about faithfulness to him? And the reason why? I'd say that is twofold. First off, first, Timothy does not carry this qualification. If it was that important to have kids that were faithful to God, well, I'd say threefold. That's the first one. If it was that important, why not put it in both? Why not give Timothy what Ephesus doesn't need, people that have faithful kids. What does Timothy say? Keeping his children under control with all dignity, which perfectly dovetails with faithfulness. So that would be the second thing I'd say is, first, Timothy seems to indicate that it's about, does he have his kids under control? Are they dignified or are they wild banshees? Are they the town mess ups that are going around and everybody knows his kids are terrible? Or at church his kids are bouncing off the walls and running old people down and things like that. That is not somebody who's faithful. Do his kids listen to him? Do his kids respect him? Do his kids when he lays down the lots? Yes, sir, I understand that. That to me makes a lot more sense. The third thing that I would say pushes me toward that is, okay, this book is written Ad 62 to 64, somewhere around there. How long has Ephesus been established as a church? I mean, we're assuming maybe in the 50s, maybe 40s if we're stretching it, but probably somewhere in the 50s. Okay, so you've been a church for a decade max, probably 14 years. How many kids were raised within that church faithful and now are faithful outside the church, especially when the average age for death at that time was 50, 60 years old. How many older people do you have that have faithful children into their adulthood that they raised all the way through? It would make more sense that, are his kids faithful to him? Are his kids the type that are, again, listening to him, that respect him because what's the whole purpose of this? Why have this as a qualification? Do your kids respect you? Because will the sheep respect you? So I've always believed the way you guys have believed, but I don't know. [01:01:59] Speaker B: I'm going to ask you the million dollar question before we give our rebuttals. I guess so. Your position. Can a man serve as an elder if he has unfaithful adult children, is your answer? It would depend on how they were in his home. That's what it seems like. [01:02:16] Speaker A: I think honoring goes throughout life. I think honoring goes throughout life. And I think if he raised them up throughout the church, and this is where you get real sticky of, okay, what if he comes to Christ later in life? He didn't have an opportunity. I would still say part of the honoring actually is them staying faithful to God. They do honor their parents, but they also honor God. They have an appropriate understanding of authority. And anybody who walks away from God does not have an appropriate understanding of authority. Well, they're adults. They can make their own decision. Like, I don't see honoring your parents stopping at 18 years old if the concept here is to respect and to honor and to be faithful to their parents. [01:02:50] Speaker B: Well, but Timothy three, when it says he rules his own house, well, if they're adults, they're not going to be in his house. [01:02:57] Speaker A: Back then they would have all, they're. [01:02:59] Speaker B: Going to be their own household. [01:03:00] Speaker A: Though back then I think they all would have been underneath a similar household. I think they all lived in communes, basically in households like that. And I agree. But then we're back to the okay at 18. Well, 18 is arbitrary. When did they leave? Back then. I mean, you had kids at twelve years old that are doing amazing things. You had kids at 16, getting married back then. So are we. [01:03:22] Speaker B: No, I fully agree with your point of like, guys got three kids and they're 15 and under. Does he rule them well, are they respectful to him? Are they obedient to him? Do they submit to him? I could buy into that. The problem is, what I would get from your answer would be, let's say they do all that. One of them hits 27 and leaves the faith, maybe starts cheats on his wife, goes off the deep end. What I would get from what you just said is that the man is still qualified. [01:03:53] Speaker A: No, actually I'm saying, which I don't. Yeah, no, actually I'm saying I don't think his kids would do that if they were fully honoring their parents and honoring God the way they're supposed to theoretically. Well, not theoretically. If you go out and cheat on your wife or go out and be a bozo at 27 years old, clearly. [01:04:08] Speaker C: Let'S remove cheat on your wife or be a criminal, just leave the faith. I would say that's not they faithfully their parents. [01:04:13] Speaker A: No, because the shama closely ties your relationship with your parents to your relationship with God in that way. [01:04:18] Speaker C: So how is this different? [01:04:20] Speaker A: It's not all that different other than I think it opens the door for younger elders, I guess is what I'm saying. Okay. [01:04:26] Speaker B: I could get behind. [01:04:27] Speaker A: I think it opens the door for younger elders. [01:04:28] Speaker C: I mean, that statement in itself is kind of oxymoronic. Younger elders, I know it's not a term strictly about age, but in a sense it is. [01:04:37] Speaker A: But we're waiting for guys until every single person is baptized in their home. And man, you really hope that every kid at some point before they move out, like we start playing the numbers game. And I would say, are his kids faithful to him? But again, yes, I would say to be consistent, I'm sure people would look at that and go, no, that means that they don't have to be faithful later into life. But I would say in tying those two together, being faithful unto God is similar to being faithful unto your parents. It is an authority structure. And if you're willing to go outside the authority structure, how well did you raise them? So, yeah, I mean, it may be. [01:05:10] Speaker B: Squabble that I agree with. I think your children's adult life and the way they live their life once they leave your home is purely evidence and fruit of what you did when they were in your home. I get that, but I guess my retort to that would be, think about all the, and I'm going to say it, the home school kids who grew up respectful, obedient, submissive, got a little taste of freedom and off the deep end in his home, they were obedient, they were respectful, they were submissive. [01:05:40] Speaker A: How long out of the home do they have to be, though, in order for the guy to be qualified? I mean, this is the problem with having a young church, is how far out of the home do they have to be faithful in the home and then out of the home, how far out do they have to be before we realize, did it actually stick? What if they stay home during college? It's like, yeah, but we still haven't had them leave the home because they're still going to college at home. We really need them to leave the home and start their own families before we know it's. Stuck with them again. [01:06:07] Speaker B: This is why my belief is again more so principled. Did he pass on the faith to the next generation? Has he successfully shown that he can shepherd a small flock by passing the faith on to the next generation? And I would agree that you could probably start that examination process at a whole lot earlier of an age than we have now. I mean, guys, got an eleven year old daughter. You can probably already get a really good indication of what you're saying. Joe, are they submissive and faithful to him? [01:06:34] Speaker A: Well, that's my point. To him, you've got a 17 year old, a 15 year old and a nine year old, the 17 and 15 year old to come to the faith. All three kids are super well behaved. Nope. Gotta wait for the nine year old to get baptized. [01:06:45] Speaker B: Yeah, I don't agree. [01:06:47] Speaker A: That's what I'm saying is I think he's proven at that point he is bringing kids to the faith. The other ones are respectable, they are leading dignified lives, they are under control. So I don't know. [01:07:01] Speaker C: Okay, I'm going to remain Mr. Literal. That term is used in reference to people a few different times here in 1st, 2nd Timothy and Titus, the so called pastorals, it's always about christians. When it talks about widow qualifications. In 516, if any woman who is a believer, first Timothy 412, of course he tells Timothy, show yourself an example of those who believe a couple of verses before that. Jesus is the savior of all men, especially of believers. In one Timothy six two, those who have believers as their masters. He's talking about christians every single time. He uses that in regard to people. There are other things where he says trustworthy statement. It's the same term, it's a faithful statement. But when he talks about people in these, and these are qualifications, when he's talking about putting widows on the list, they're a believer. Well, okay, so I think to be consistent, you need to translate this as his children need to be. [01:07:53] Speaker A: But who would the widows be faithful? [01:07:57] Speaker C: No, you're the one that's taking it as faithful. [01:08:01] Speaker A: Yes, it's used in the widows context, being believers. Yes, but it could not literally be faithful to somewhere else, whereas for this one it literally could be faithful to the parents, children who believe. [01:08:10] Speaker B: Believers as in baptized or believers as in believer, like the nine year old could believe in God. Doesn't necessarily. [01:08:17] Speaker C: That's what I'm saying is every single one of these are talking about baptized christians. And so to go, well, baptize Christian. Baptize Christian. Baptize Christian. Obeys his parents. I think you're kind of playing. [01:08:27] Speaker A: Yeah. But I would say it also goes in line with first Timothy three, because first timothy three, why would he not put it in, why would he not put it in there? And why would he. But that's specifically talk about having them under control with all dignity, knowing how to rule. [01:08:37] Speaker C: That's a different word. Oh, yeah. I mean, that's great, but that is a different word. And so when we're talking about using this, he doesn't use the word faithful there. [01:08:45] Speaker A: He uses under control, which is to my point. Right. [01:08:49] Speaker C: I'm saying those are two different qualifications. [01:08:51] Speaker A: Why would he not? [01:08:52] Speaker B: And Joe's point is, what in the world? [01:08:56] Speaker C: Zoom is weird. I don't know what I just did to trigger balloons, but I think it. [01:08:59] Speaker B: Was agreeing with our deep thinker, Patreon. [01:09:02] Speaker C: People will get to see what that's that gestures thing. I'll turn that off. [01:09:07] Speaker B: I think Joe's point is, why would there be two different qualifications? Why would, to Titus, he say, okay, we got to be christians. And to Timothy, he would just say, well, he's got to rule his house well, and they be obedient to it. [01:09:19] Speaker C: That's the benefit of us having both in that we don't know what Paul told Timothy in person, what he told Titus in person. And so these lists that they have, I mean, they do differ a little bit. And so some things Joe could argue. [01:09:31] Speaker B: He'S being exactly the same. [01:09:33] Speaker A: He's putting, while you're using literal titus, I'm using literal Timothy. We don't want to. [01:09:40] Speaker C: No, I'm just saying the word. If you're going to be consistent with word translation, which I just think it would be very weird for him to consistently talk about qualifications for things within the church to use a word over and over and over every single time. It's like if you were looking at a contract and it just used the same term for, this person needs to be x. This person needs to be x. This person needs to be x. And, like, the fifth time he uses it. Oh, I mean it totally differently. We don't work that way. [01:10:07] Speaker A: Sure. [01:10:07] Speaker C: And so I don't think it's wise to substitute that here. [01:10:11] Speaker B: Your position would be, every kid has to be baptized then. [01:10:14] Speaker C: Yes, because I think there's also an age aspect of that, because then you're opening the door to 37 year old elders. I'm sorry, I'm 34. I'm not anywhere near, I mean, like. [01:10:25] Speaker A: I think you can't have a nine year old who obeyed it has to be somebody who has the ability to make up their own mind and choose not to obey you and is still choosing to obey you, which would come later in teens, maybe even into the 20s where they are. [01:10:37] Speaker C: This is the problem that I have with that is, well, are they old enough to obey? I don't know if we just keep it really simple. There's not really question. [01:10:43] Speaker A: Yeah, but if a kid gets. [01:10:44] Speaker B: There's also a lot of people that get baptized. [01:10:46] Speaker A: That's what I was going to say. Ten year old. I was baptized at ten. Was I legitimately, I mean, yeah, I guess that made dad qualify. [01:10:52] Speaker C: Well, this goes to the age of accountability episode. We need to have, which we do need. We do need to have that great suggestion. [01:10:57] Speaker B: I think we're all closer on our version of this than we are probably admitting here. Again, I think the most controversial part within this qualification, do his kids need to be a lot of congregations? We got a lot of congregations in our view, don't have qualified elders because they're batting 50%. Two of their four kids are unfaithful or two out of their three kids. [01:11:17] Speaker A: Imagine if that was the church serving in a church you got 100 members of the church and 75 you keep faithful. But 25, it's like, whoops, sorry, three out of four, you're going to answer for all 25 of those. Well, it's the same thing as a parent, you're going to answer for your kids. I think the more we play the numbers game, it gets scary. And I'm sorry if that sounds mean, and if that disqualifies 70% of our elders out there, there's a reason disqualification to that point of like making sure your kids are failed. This is the shama. I think it goes all the way back. Can you keep your kids, the recabites we referenced a few episodes ago, can you pass them on? And if you can't successfully pass it on, and if your kids are not honoring you and not honoring God later on in life, then what you're telling me is you're an elder, that can be great for five years. And then after that, who knows? Yeah, I think the numbers game makes this very difficult. [01:12:05] Speaker C: That was the point I made in the article, is just go to deuteronomy. Clearly God expected generational faithfulness. And when somebody wasn't, if you had a kid that didn't celebrate the passover, they're kicked out of the country, they're deported. There were things that if your kid does, they're stoned to death. Things that it is a shame on your family if they're not faithful. And so, yeah, God expected that. And the number one thing I got over and over, free will. You know what? When they leave the house, they got free will. Yeah. The point is you want somebody that can train somebody's free will to make. [01:12:33] Speaker A: The right choice, not hold their hand. [01:12:35] Speaker C: Because the funny thing is, to me, it's like, well, when a kid goes astray, well, they're not robots. Like, are you saying that the kid who stayed faithful was, they had free will to choose again, when you have people who did this, people who raised fully faithful families, that is the biggest condemnation against people who raised three out of four in this role to say it could have been done. It has been done. And so when you go, oh, well, let's be realistic, maybe we should just raise our standards back to where it's supposed to be. [01:13:03] Speaker A: You start stepping on people's toes and people start getting real squirrely of like, I did everything right. It's not a checklist of boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. We did all this. It's a mindset of that. And the reason this is important, going back to the elder side of it, is you need to train people to think for themselves. You need to train critical thinkers. You need to train christians that, look, I can't be with you in the marketplace. I can't be with you in the checkout aisle where there's these people magazines and half naked people on the front. I can't be there to hold your hand and push you away. I need to help you learn ways to control that and to look the other way. That's the point of an elder. That's the point of a parent. It's the point of an elder. [01:13:37] Speaker B: That's the point of a leader in general. Just the whole idea of, well, what, are you going to take their free will away? No, your job is to shape and mold their free will to the point where they're going to make the right decisions, to the point where they're going to follow God. It's the same thing. I'm a director at our chick fil a here in Spring Hill, Tennessee. There's certain standards and requirements and numbers that we have to hit and things that we have to work for. Sure, I could be there from open to close every single day and make sure that stuff gets done, or I could lead in such a way and kind of lead the other people that work there in such a way that they're going to do it even when I'm not there. I'm not taking their free will away. I'm leading them and shaping them in such a way where this is the way that they're going to do things. It's the exact same thing with parents. You could make this. Oh, well, what are you going to do? It's their own free will. No, your job is to shape their free will and to mold their free will to where they're going to choose God. They're not going to choose themselves. They're not going to choose the world. And man, we have so many, I'm just going to say it. We have so many men in who are in eldership positions who brought their kids to church till they were 18. Their kids leave and they're worldly instantly. They go off to college and I'm not even talking about maybe go off the deep end. I'm just saying they're really worldly, come back as maybe lukewarm apathetic christians. I'm sorry, that man did not show that he could faithfully lead a small flock. That man did not show that he ruled his own house. Well, all it showed was, yeah, he could force his kids to come to church because what are they going to do? That's not the spirit of the qualification at all, in my opinion. [01:15:06] Speaker A: So quick question, just as we're discussing this. I know we got to wrap up here. You got a guy who, okay, let's say he comes to Christ later in life. I could think of one guy right now. So his kids really didn't get him as a Christian up until I think they were maybe twelve or 15 somewhere later in life. And then he was new in the faith and so they aren't faithful. But he also wasn't a Christian for a lot of it. And now he's a very strong man of God, strong in the faith. Read his Bible, husband, one wife kind of meets the other ones, but his adult children are not faithful. What would you do in that situation knowing he was not a Christian all the way up? [01:15:43] Speaker B: My answer would, I mean, it sounds bad, kind of tough luck. He hasn't demonstrated that he can do that. And so I don't think you could overlook and say, well, new Christian. So, no, I think the reason that that's in there, in first Timothy and Titus is because the guy's got to have a track record. He's got to have a, people have to be able, right? You got to be able to have shown and proven that you can do that because you could make the same argument. What if a guy marries a woman who already has kids. And the kids, you get them at 1012 years old, they growth me not faithful. What is the guy going to say? Well, I didn't have them for the first half of their life, so what can I do? That's just kind of the way it goes when you put yourself in those situations. The church needs guys who, in my opinion, have shown that they can do it because as Jack said, there are a lot of men out there who have raised faithful families, raised faithful kids. Those are the ones we need leading our congregations, not the ones who, in my opinion, again, even if it was later in life, have not shown it. That would be my. [01:16:42] Speaker C: I mean, you can get into the. What about, what about, what about. And again, I know I've been playing the literal drum the whole time here. This is why is when you get into the well, if he had two kids out of seven, if he had three, I don't know, maybe we just stick to what it says. And same thing of, I think the problem differently. Yeah, well, it's like he didn't have a chance to raise faithful kids. Like, well, so was the guy who never found a wife or he and his wife were not able to have children or whatever. Well, is he unqualified? Yeah, right. You can say that's harsh. [01:17:19] Speaker A: It is. [01:17:19] Speaker C: I mean, there's no part in the Bible. I make this point a lot about the old Testament. Only the Levites got to be priests. We can say all day long, that's not fair. Okay. It just is what it is. And so that's a difficult thing, but I just don't see any way to read otherwise. [01:17:37] Speaker B: Nothing to add, guys, we've gone a long time on this one. This is one of our longer episodes. I'm really looking forward to the deep end segment. There were a lot of other questions we could have asked. Maybe we'll get into this on the extended deep end segment of let's say you're in a congregation and you believe the guy's unqualified. Should you leave? Is that on you or is that more so on the eldership for putting him in there? Don't have time to hit that today, but I think a lot of questions are going to surface surrounding this. But guys, anything else to add? I mean, obviously we firmly believe that these things are important because I don't think it's a coincidence that we have young people leaving the church, churches, shrinking worldly christians, and we also have a lot of men who are in eldership positions whose children walked away from the faith I do not think that's a coincidence. I most certainly see a correlation there between guys who were spiritually weak, leaders at home, kids left the faith two out of four, whatever. Oh, and also now they're in an eldership position and our congregations are struggling. I think there's an obvious correlation there. And so that's why we are so passionate about this. I would say that's why somebody, three young guys saying this about elders, we're simply asking for the standard to be raised. We're simply asking for the bar to be raised. And we're asking for congregations to look to their guys that are our age, guys that are maybe even younger than us, and say, and point to first Timothy three and Titus and say, aim for this. Aim to be the husband of one wife, however you'd interpret it, but aim to have faithful kids. Aim to where nobody's going to have anything to say bad about you. That's kind of the above reproach point that the whole thing starts with in one Timothy three. Aim for that. And I think in a lot of places we're not aiming our young men toward that. So, guys, any kind of closing statements as we wrap this episode has gone long, but I think it's important stuff. Anything to add? Okay, we will wrap right there. Again, we welcome any and all comments, whether that be Facebook, YouTube, whatever, especially those of you who are subscribed to our patreon. Let us know your thoughts. Let us know maybe additional questions you have under the video here. And we will answer those on Friday's deep end segment. Last one, I guess the women's roles one went like 45, 50 minutes. This one might go 30 40 as well. There's a lot, there are a lot here, but we enjoy talking about this stuff. We appreciate everybody who has been with us for this whole episode and has listened along. We are going to wrap right there and we'll be back next week with another episode of the Think Deeper podcast. Thanks for listening.