Overseers & Deacons

[TLFisher]

I would like recieve fellowship from any saint who has something to contribute to this topic. For starters, I present these verses from 1 Timothy 3:1-13

3:1Faithful is the saying, If a man seeketh the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 3:2The bishop therefore must be without reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, orderly, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3:3no brawler, no striker; but gentle, not contentious, no lover of money; 3:4one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 3:5(but if a man knoweth not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 3:6not a novice, lest being puffed up he fall into the condemnation of the devil. 3:7Moreover he must have good testimony from them that are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. 3:8Deacons in like manner must be grave, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; 3:9holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. 3:10And let these also first be proved; then let them serve as deacons, if they be blameless. 3:11Women in like manner must be grave, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. 3:12Let deacons be husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 3:13For they that have served well as deacons gain to themselves a good standing, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

I would like receive fellowship from any saint who has something to contribute to this topic. For starters, I present these verses from 1 Timothy 3:1-13

Firstly, these verses address the legitimacy of the office of the elders and deacons in the churches. If we don't establish this, then we reduce these offices to token "rubber stamps," while the "real" leadership in the churches will be a pastor, a worker, a reverend, or the like.

What is truly unique about the elders is their plurality as a safeguard to the churches. Elders, as the verses indicate, are mature men who oversee the children of God as shepherds much like a father oversees his own family.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Firstly, these verses address the legitimacy of the office of the elders and deacons in the churches. If we don't establish this, then we reduce these offices to token "rubber stamps," while the "real" leadership in the churches will be a pastor, a worker, a reverend, or the like.

What is truly unique about the elders is their plurality as a safeguard to the churches. Elders, as the verses indicate, are mature men who oversee the children of God as shepherds much like a father oversees his own family.

I have yet to expound, churches vary in scope or responsibility for overseers and deacons. Where I'm meeting now, I have yet to learn where the scope of deacons responsibility lies.
Amen! The plurality of elders is a safeguard for the church. We as Christians who submit to elders, must guard the plurality of elders from becoming a hierarchy. In the local churches, in some places the plurality has been guarded and in other places, not.

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

...Checking with www.Biblegateway.com, I see that the term "Bishop" quoted here (from the KJV) is rendered as "Overseer" in the NIV, ASB, and ESV Bibles amongst others, and as "Elder" in the NLT. Apart from the NLT, I don't find "Elder" used (even in the RcV) - and the Amplified version translates this term as "bishop (superintendent, overseer)".

The word "overseer (or bishop or elder) is Strongs ref #1984 - and in the Greek is "episkope" - which is defined as "overseership, office, charge, the office of an elder: the overseer or presiding officers of a Christian church".

Sorry Terry - always try to dissect a verse in question to see for myself which rendering might be most correct...

My feeling is that "elder" can be an adequate translation of the term, and that the connotations we get from "bishop" - a formal office within both the Catholic as well as a number of different denominational churches - perhaps confuses the true meaning here. Bishops were given both clerical and administrative power over a larger geographical area (called a Diocese or a Bishopric). Priests would have reported to Bishops, Bishops to Arch-Bishops, and so on. However, nowhere in this verse you have quoted is there any indication that the "bishop" or "overseer" referred to would have any administrative authority - but rather that they would, I believe, exemplify the normal Christian life amongst the believers with whom they fellowshipped. This is what an elder should do.

As for Deacon, I haven't researched that one yet - and it's getting late and I took a NeoCitron, so I'm going to go to bed. I'll post more later!

Good night saints,

NeitherFirstnorLast

[OBW]

Except for taking NFNL's suggestion to eliminate the strange wording of the translation "bishop" along with a desire to read in a less contorted rendering (meaning in more modern English), it is rather straightforward. Those that oversee the church should be exemplary in their private lives and in their public lives, even among the unbelievers. Same for those who help them in carrying out the ministry.

Baggage related to these comes from somewhere else. Probably not from scripture. Same analysis applies to the RCC as to the LRC and others.

It would seem that several denominations that operate under the oversight of elders do a pretty good job in this area — probably better than the LRC. We may want to find fault in the notion that the elders are elected rather than appointed, but that does place even the elders under oversight, taking away thoughts of some kind of right or power.

[TLFisher]

I've used two online bible sites. One used the term Bishop and the other overseer. Terminology aside, can we concurr the basic function is to provide oversight?
Back to the thread, my basic concept of Overseers and Deacons are brothers with a measure of spiritual maturity, having been married to one wife, and have raised and led their children to Christ. In physical age Overseers and Deacons are in the late 40's-early 50's at least. That would explain their spiritual maturity along with an experience in life when faced with marriage or children crisis from saints whom they're shepherding.

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

I would concur with that Terry.

[ZNPaaneah]

I think the verses on the Bishop suggest how important the family is in the church. What we really need more than anything else is for our leaders to set an example on what a Godly husband and father is like. Charismatic speakers are not important and Paul doesn't give that any weight at all. You may argue that some speakers can fill a meeting hall with thousands of people. Paul would argue, if you build up strong families then the church will continue from one generation to the next, if your children are in subjection then the church will double from one generation to the next. If you try to grow through charismatic leaders while ignoring all the other criteria then you are asking for scandals, corruption, sin, and the ultimate collapse of everything you have built up.

[OBW]

Are we looking for proof of the importance of the family? Look at the list again:

1. Above reproach
2. Faithful to his wife
3. Temperate
4. Self-controlled
5. Respectable
6. Hospitable
7. Able to teach
8. Not given to drunkenness
9. Not violent but gentle
10. Not quarrelsome
11. Not a lover of money
12. Must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full respect (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?)
13. Must not be a recent convert (not a novice??) (or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil)
14. Must also have a good reputation with outsiders (so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap)

Fourteen items. One is about having one wife. One is about family/children.

How do we conclude that "more than anything else" it is about family? (Nothing specific. I used the words of one but the sentiment is not singular.)

And do we really conclude that it takes someone at least in their late 40s? What was the average lifespan when Paul was writing? Yes, we have our writings of the day from those who probably lived a bit longer than that. But it was not the norm. So many were disqualified simply because they could not live long enough.

It seems to me that the last three items on Paul's list were a little more verbose, and had a "because" attached to them so that it would be understood why they were included. Not suggesting that they were afterthoughts or also-rans. But needed a little more explanation.

Yet we jump on the two out of 11 that we think are most important, and declare it to be so.

Maybe we really do need someone outside our assembly to appoint elders for us. We would be so focused on this one area that we would ignore their reputation outside the church, or their lack of hospitality, or their self control. If Paul really thought that looking at how they dealt with their family proved the others, then why mention them. They become redundant.

And how do we really know whether a person is really dealing with the family in the manner Paul says? By observing from the outside? That can hide a lot. It takes the whole package.

And where does it state, or even suggest, that they must have raised and led their children to Christ? "Christ," or any alternate, is not mentioned in this context. Are we really reading Paul's list, or are we taking two out of 11 and expanding those two in a different way.


But I'm not so sure that an outsider can really do the job for us. I can name at least one that was sent to Dallas who was:

• Not violent, but far from gentle
• Quarrelsome
• A lover of money (scamming the offering box to avoid paying taxes — and charges concerning money was at least one reason that he was somewhat ousted from another place years later)
• Too old to know about his family (other than the fact that his only child — a daughter — was divorced and about to marry another — a fact that does not necessarily reflect on the father or even necessarily on her)

But all-in-all, not above reproach.

Do we honestly think that anyone outside a person's household can tell enough to use that as the primary criteria for inclusion or exclusion? I would suggest that failure in any is criteria for exclusion. Success in none is sufficient unless in all. Paul gave 11 windows into the character of a man. He may be successful in some, or at least appear to be. But if there is a problem, he can not hide it with respect to all. Somewhere in that list his true colors will shine through.

If the topic is how to raise your family, then there is something to learn here, along with other verses.

But the topic is overseers and deacons. It is not how to raise your family. These verses should give a little instruction toward raising our families because in mentioning it, it directs us toward a life that is observably complete in righteousness. But that is not their purpose. The purpose was/is to provide sufficient windows into a man to qualify or disqualify him for an important role in the church.

Where do we intend to take a thread with the title "Overseers and Deacons"? I'll accept either. But if we say we are going to follow the title, then I might be a thorn to a lot of discussion about family values and the ignoring of so much else.

[TLFisher]

MikeH, thorns are healthy for fellowship. It's a way of providing balance. When it comes to families, overseers/deacons (depending on the church you attend) from a practical perspective, will counsel familes they're responsble for. I'm inclined to recieve counsel from an overseer/deacon who's been married 30 years when receiving advice on marriage. I'm inclined to receive counsel from an overseer/deacon on teenagers from one who's been there, done that.
Qualifications far exceed two points based on marriage and children. That being said in this thread pf overseers and deacons I've seen inconsistincies in religion compared to Paul's letter to Timothy. Maybe I'm being legalistic and maybe I'm not willing to allow certain practices become what's expedient. Have we as Christians been muted by religion to become too accepting?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by OBW

And do we really conclude that it takes someone at least in their late 40s?

The reference for my concept is in 1 Timothy 3:10

"They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons."

What is it to be tested? Passing a class? Proving loyalty? Those who know the Greek, what did Paul mean or imply to be tested? My concept to be tested will require a number a years. You could have been a Christian for a week, a year, five years, etc. I'm not sure that's long enough to for a brother to gain spiritual maturity required for a deacon's responsibility.
If a deacon's responsibility is nothing more than administrative in nature, then maybe you don't need to be tested by time in how I read 1 Timothy 3:10.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Are we looking for proof of the importance of the family? Look at the list again:

1. Above reproach
2. Faithful to his wife
3. Temperate
4. Self-controlled
5. Respectable
6. Hospitable
7. Able to teach
8. Not given to drunkenness
9. Not violent but gentle
10. Not quarrelsome
11. Not a lover of money
12. Must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full respect (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?)
13. Must not be a recent convert (not a novice??) (or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil)
14. Must also have a good reputation with outsiders (so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap)

Fourteen items. One is about having one wife. One is about family/children.

How do we conclude that "more than anything else" it is about family?

How do I look at this list and conclude that we are missing the importance of family? Simple, many of these mega churches (and other smaller congregations) have leaders that would be disqualified based on issues with their marriage and family. These issues are ignored because of their "gift" and "charisma". Why do we have the common concept of the "pastor's son" being wild? Some of these items are not black and white (temperate, self controlled, respectable, able to teach, etc). There is a range of acceptable behavior. But clearly, if you are not "the husband of one wife" or if you do not "manage well your own household" then you are disqualified. No doubt there is a range of behavior of children, but lets be realistic, this is completely ignored in many cases.

Paul doesn't give any weight at all to charisma or "gift" in this list. Personally if someone were a drunk or violent or not above reproach we still would probably disqualify them. So most congregations do not ignore those charges. But how about "hospitable", really? For every example you can name of a Church leader being "hospitable" you can name at least two who have no clue what you are talking about.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

How do I look at this list and conclude that we are missing the importance of family? Simple, many of these mega churches (and other smaller congregations) have leaders that would be disqualified based on issues with their marriage and family. These issues are ignored because of their "gift" and "charisma". Why do we have the common concept of the "pastor's son" being wild? Some of these items are not black and white (temperate, self controlled, respectable, able to teach, etc). There is a range of acceptable behavior. But clearly, if you are not "the husband of one wife" or if you do not "manage well your own household" then you are disqualified. No doubt there is a range of behavior of children, but lets be realistic, this is completely ignored in many cases.

Paul doesn't give any weight at all to charisma or "gift" in this list. Personally if someone were a drunk or violent or not above reproach we still would probably disqualify them. So most congregations do not ignore those charges. But how about "hospitable", really? For every example you can name of a Church leader being "hospitable" you can name at least two who have no clue what you are talking about.

Excellent points ZNP.

Paul fought this same battle in the early church with the "super-apostles." They had great and gifted ministries, yet when it came to qualifications of elders, he never listed these as qualifications. Why is it that the IRS seems to have more discernment concerning who is a worthy minister, than the churches of God have? Many ministers would still be on TV if the IRS had not busted them.

It is today's "super-apostles" or Tel-Evangelists which really have brought so much shame to the Lord's name. Don't talk about home much they "do," rather let's talk about how many refuse to believe in the Savior due to their hypocrisy. Their fame and power just ruins them. Recently they caught Benny Hinn and Paula White "holding hands" in Rome. Now both of them and their supporters have to lie about that video clip in order keep their reputations "clean" and the "love" offerings flowing in.

LSM has been no better in this regard. How many godly and beloved brothers like John Ingalls et. al. were literally thrown under the bus in order to protect WL's "clean" name and the moneys flowing, lest the word get out about his sons' infidelities and corruptions at LSM?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

And do we really conclude that it takes someone at least in their late 40s? What was the average lifespan when Paul was writing? Yes, we have our writings of the day from those who probably lived a bit longer than that. But it was not the norm. So many were disqualified simply because they could not live long enough.

The average lifespan at the time of Paul is irrelevant for choosing an elder (or Bishop) today. Children were married at the age of 13 and could therefore be grandparents by 40, but that is not relevant to today.

The age is simple, how could someone be the husband of one wife unless they were married? Likewise, how can we know that they manage their family well if their children are still in elementary school? I figure that this person had to be over 18 and most likely over 20 when they married, that they have at least one child that is also 18 or older. It is very unusual in this day to do that before you are 40. If you live in a society in which men marry at age 16 then you could revise this age downward, I was speaking for the US.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The average lifespan at the time of Paul is irrelevant for choosing an elder (or Bishop) today. Children were married at the age of 13 and could therefore be grandparents by 40, but that is not relevant to today.

The age is simple, how could someone be the husband of one wife unless they were married? Likewise, how can we know that they manage their family well if their children are still in elementary school? I figure that this person had to be over 18 and most likely over 20 when they married, that they have at least one child that is also 18 or older. It is very unusual in this day to do that before you are 40. If you live in a society in which men marry at age 16 then you could revise this age downward, I was speaking for the US.

How can we know enough about the spiritual life of a family when they have only been "spiritual" for 5 years? Doesn't matter the age of the children then.

My point was not that family does not matter. It is that it is only one of the 11 that needs to be right. (And no one said "only" but the rush to focus on one ignores the rest.) Pointing to where someone ignored the family does not mean that there are not plenty where the family looked great but something else was overlooked. Turning and eleven point test into a three point test is not made good because you think you know what the best three are.

Go ahead and point at some prime example of a problem created when one of your three are missed. If they get those three right, will you ignore those who fail in one of the other eight because they got the family right? Is that any better than the one you focus on?

And for whoever made a comment about whether they can counsel on family or marriage, what about counseling on many other issues. Do you esteem certain issues as important and presume that you can handle the others on your own? Is the need in that part of the Christian family on their own because qualification of an elder in that area is not as important to you because you think another area trumps it?

All I'm saying is that putting back in balance is not the same as shifting the emphasis. A shifted emphasis just covers a different base at the expense of another. Not saying that you intend this. But that is the cost of simply changing the emphasis.

[OBW]

My real concern is not that we are talking about the family. It is that it is being done somewhat under a different topic. Qualifications for elder is one thing. Centering almost exclusively on the family is not the same thing.

And now one has suggested that someone who never has children is simply disqualified. On what basis? Just because they didn't have the opportunity to govern their children well? That kind of approach to the list smacks of legalism that does no one any real good. And it means that someone who is otherwise the most truly qualified, and willing to serve in the best way is disqualified because there are no children? I don't think so.

If they have children, the way in which they deal with them is important. But he fact that they choose, at least at the present, to rebel or even to forgo the Christian faith and way is not necessarily a mark against the father. How did they deal with their family is the question. Not how did the independent wills that he had to deal with respond.

I will agree that a young unmarried man who still has human challenges ahead of him in terms of even worldly maturity is probably not a good choice. But that is not simply because he is not faithful to one wife or hasn't led a household in an exemplary manner. It is because he is a novice. He has not really faced the world — at least not all of it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Yet we jump on the two out of 11 that we think are most important, and declare it to be so.

Maybe we really do need someone outside our assembly to appoint elders for us. We would be so focused on this one area that we would ignore their reputation outside the church, or their lack of hospitality, or their self control. If Paul really thought that looking at how they dealt with their family proved the others, then why mention them. They become redundant.

You are correct and I apologize if I gave this impression. My point was that from my own observation we currently do look at things like "above reproach", "apt to teach", "respectable" etc. Yet, often people are selected who should clearly be disqualified based on "being the husband of one wife" or based on "managing their family well".

For example, I saw many elders appointed who either did not have children or whose children were not even in elementary school. How on earth do you know that this person manages his own household well? Clearly he is a novice. Why do we accept these choices? Because we do not appreciate how important the family is in the choice of being an elder. It is not simply being a respectable brother who is above reproach and is apt to teach.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

I would suggest that failure in any is criteria for exclusion. Success in none is sufficient unless in all. Paul gave 11 windows into the character of a man. He may be successful in some, or at least appear to be. But if there is a problem, he can not hide it with respect to all. Somewhere in that list his true colors will shine through.

My point was exactly this. My experience is that all elders that I have seen have to some degree, at least as far as I was aware met these criteria, except there were cases where they clearly had not managed their own family well or were not the husband of one wife. So my question was why? Why do we ignore the fact that they should be disqualified? My feeling is that we over value "gift" and undervalue the importance of setting an example to the congregation on having a solid family life.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Terry

I would like recieve fellowship from any saint who has something to contribute to this topic. For starters, I present these verses from 1 Timothy 3:1-13

3:1Faithful is the saying, If a man seeketh the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 3:2The bishop therefore must be without reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, orderly, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3:3no brawler, no striker; but gentle, not contentious, no lover of money; 3:4one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 3:5(but if a man knoweth not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 3:6not a novice, lest being puffed up he fall into the condemnation of the devil. 3:7Moreover he must have good testimony from them that are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. 3:8Deacons in like manner must be grave, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; 3:9holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. 3:10And let these also first be proved; then let them serve as deacons, if they be blameless. 3:11Women in like manner must be grave, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. 3:12Let deacons be husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 3:13For they that have served well as deacons gain to themselves a good standing, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

I would point out that it is essential for a church to have strong leadership. Without getting nutty a healthy church will be riding the waves of a stormy sea and dealing with spiritual warfare. Your leaders need to be able to stand strong, they need to stand on their own feet without being beholden to someone at headquarters, they need to counsel saints in many crazy situations including run ins with the law and lots of bankruptcies.

You want elders that can provide fellowship concerning finances, legal issues, raising kids, and a host of other situations without them being consumed trying to raise their own family, or take care of their own problems at home.

Is it possible to find one person that can do it all, probably not. But a group of elders could do it all and that would be a huge blessing to the church. In addition, it is not necessary that they share all the messages, having elders that select young brothers to train can be a healthy way for a church to move forward.