Introduction
In very recent
years, a new position regarding ministers has arisen in some circles due to the
West’s cultural changes. If the changes
fifty years or more ago had to do with whether a divorced person may serve in
ministry, today the issue is whether a same sex attracted person might serve in
ministry. This article will not consider
the view in mainline denominations that a homosexual or transsexual or a person
in a same sex relationship of any sort might be ordained. The answer to that ought to be perfectly
obvious to those following Biblical teaching and the Church’s historic teaching
on such matters. What is in view here is
whether someone who says he (or she) is same sex attracted and is celibate might
be ordained. Is there any Scriptural
guidance in this regard? There is, even
though the precise question is not addressed directly. The discussion can proceed with a particular
focus on qualifications for ministry set out in 1 Timothy 3.1-13 and Titus
1.5-9, and then additional comments might be added. The view argued here is that celibate persons
who are same sex attracted should be disqualified from ministry. The reasoning for this will be made clear,
and the case seems strong in support of such a stance.
Qualifications for ministry
In 1 Timothy
3.1-13, qualification for those seeking to be overseers and deacons are set
out.[1] The qualifications for deacons may include
both male and female deacons, if ‘gynaikas’
(v. 11) refers to female deacons and not ‘wives’, as the ESV translates the
word. Titus 1.5-9 gives similar
regulations for ‘elders’ (cf. Acts 14.23) as 1 Timothy 3.1-7 does for
‘overseers’, and these may be two terms for the same role. In this essay, I will simply refer to
‘ministers’ for those serving as overseers, deacons, or as elders.
The
qualifications for ministry in 1 Timothy 3.1-13 and Titus 1.5-9 might be set
out in the following comparison:
|
Characteristics |
Overseers (1 Tim. 3.1-7) |
Elders (Titus 1.5-6) |
Overseer (Titus 1.7-9) |
Deacons (1 Tim. 3.8-10, 12-13) |
‘Women’ (1 Tim. 3.11)[2] |
|
above reproach |
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
the husband of one wife |
√ |
√ |
|
√ |
|
|
sober-minded |
√ |
|
|
|
√ |
|
self-controlled |
√ |
|
√ |
|
|
|
respectable |
√ |
|
|
Has ‘a good standing’ |
|
|
hospitable |
√ |
|
√ |
|
|
|
able to teach |
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
not a drunkard |
√ |
|
√ |
Not addicted to much wine |
|
|
not violent but gentle |
√ |
|
not violent |
|
|
|
not quarrelsome |
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
not a lover of money |
√ |
|
not greedy for gain |
not greedy for dishonest
gain |
|
|
managing his own household
well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive |
√ |
‘His children are
believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination’ |
|
√ |
|
|
not a recent convert |
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
not puffed up with conceit |
√ |
|
Not arrogant |
|
|
|
well thought of by
outsiders |
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
not quick-tempered |
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
A lover of good |
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
upright |
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
holy |
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
disciplined |
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
one who ‘holds firm to the
trustworthy word as taught so that he may be able to give instruction in
sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.’ |
|
|
√ |
Holds the mystery of the
faith with a clear conscience
Has a ‘great confidence in
the faith that is in Christ Jesus’
|
|
|
dignified |
|
|
|
√ |
√ |
|
not double-tongued |
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
tested |
|
|
|
‘let them also be tested
first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless’ |
|
|
not slanderers |
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
faithful in all things |
|
|
|
|
√ |
In addition to
these passages, 2 Timothy 2 also lists characteristics Paul holds up for
Timothy in his role as a minister:
So flee youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and
peace, along with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart. 23 Have nothing
to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels.
24 And the Lord’s servant [‘slave’] must not be quarrelsome but kind to
everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, 25 correcting his opponents
with gentleness (2.22-25a).
The following
discussion will organize some (not all) of these characteristics of ministers
into the topics of (1) Holiness and Marital Purity; (2) Self-Control; (3) Sound
Doctrine; and (4) Ordination and the Exemplary
Life. A fifth topic mentioned here will
be (5) Service. While characteristics of ministers overlap between what is said
about overseers, elders, and deacons and between the three epistles of the
Pastoral Epistles, the flexibility of what Paul says shows that he intends to
provide some key examples and not an exhaustive list. Also, the organization of characteristics for
ministers and ministry under these topics also covers only some of what needs
to be said both in Paul’s context and in ours.[3]
1. Holiness and Marital
Purity
Appointment to
ministries in the church is related to proof of purity in marriage. A minister should be the husband of one wife
(not divorced). This means that he
should not be divorced. While often read
as a statement against polygamy, this would not be a relevant imperative in the
Roman world, where divorce was prevalent and polygamy not practiced. The reason that this is implausible as an
interpretation is that widows are only to be enrolled on the order of widows if
they were the wife of one husband (1 Timothy 5.9).
Two other
interpretations that are at times suggested for ‘husband of one wife’ are also
very likely wrong. One interpretation is
that Paul is saying that a minister should not remarry after the death of his
wife (so J. N. D. Kelly). This
interpretation is put forward because several authors in the early Church
argued that Christians should not remarry after the death of a spouse. Yet this
does not seem to be plausible in the case of 1 Timothy. Paul (or the Pauline school, if one insists
on the idea that someone else wrote the Pastoral epistles) encourages young
widows to remarry (1 Timothy 5.14). Paul
also understands a woman to be bound to her husband as long as he is
alive. She may, therefore, remarry after
his death (Romans 7.1-4; 1 Corinthians 7.39-40). He suggests she may be ‘happier’ or more
blessed (makariōtera)
if she does not remarry, but there he has no ethical objection to one
remarrying after a spouse’s death.
The other
interpretation that I believe should be rejected is the interpretation of ‘husband
of one wife’ to mean something like a ‘one woman man’. On this view, Paul is saying that a minister
should not be flirtatious with other woman but devoted to his wife. Such an interpretation would be relevant in
the Graeco-Roman context, where men often had sexual relations outside of
marriage, although, once again, it is more difficult to apply this to 1 Timothy
5.9 (a widow having been the wife of one husband).
What makes this
and the other views unlikely, however, is that the Old Testament regulations
for priests seem to be the basis for these statements in 1 Timothy. Paul is not coming up with regulations out of
his own musings but applying Old Testament precedent to the situation. Ezekiel’s description of a new temple
includes the comment that no priest should marry a widow or divorced woman,
‘but only virgins of the offspring of the house of Israel, or a widow who is
the widow of a priest’ (44.22). This
would not disallow marrying a second time on the death of a wife, as long as
the woman was a virgin or the widow of another priest. This verse comes in the midst of a section
calling for priests to distinguish the holy from the unclean and common. They are not to wear garments than cause
sweat (44.18). They must remove garments
worn in holy chambers when they emerge to the people ‘lest they transmit
holiness to the people with their garments (44.19). They must trim the hair of their heads
(44.20), which likely has to do with avoiding the practices of priests in other
religions and therefore defiling themselves with syncretistic religious
practices (cf. Leviticus 21.5). They
must not have wine when serving in the inner court (44.21). The next verse addresses the priests’
marriages, and then Ezekiel states that the priests ‘shall teach my people the
difference between the holy and the common, and show them how to distinguish
between the unclean and the clean’ (44.23). Also, priests are to judge cases brought to
them, keeping God’s laws, feasts, and the Sabbaths holy (44.24). Finally, they are instructed not to go near a
dead body, unless the deceased is a family member, and then he must become
clean again and offer a sin offering (44.25-27). Thus, Ezekiel’s comments on marriage are
given with regard to the holiness of the priest and his exemplary life that
gives him legitimacy to judge and teach the people.
The basis for
Ezekiel’s comments on the holiness of priests is the Old Testament law
regarding priests found in Leviticus 21.
The exhortation on marriage states that the ‘priest shall not marry a
prostitute or a woman who has been defiled, neither shall they marry a woman
divorced from her husband, for the priest is holy to his God’ (Leviticus 21.7). The ground for regulations on marriage is the
requirement of a priest’s holiness. This
was a very serious matter: a priest’s daughter who profaned herself with
prostitution was to burned to death (21.9).
From verse 10,
the regulations are slightly more strict because they apply to the chief
priest. The chief priest must not go
near dead bodies even if they are his parents (21.11). They may not marry the surviving wife of a
deceased priest but must only marry a virgin (21.13). Also,
‘A widow, or a divorced woman, or a woman who has been defiled, or a
prostitute, these he shall not marry. But he shall take as his wife a virgin of
his own people, 15 that he may not profane his offspring among his
people, for I am the LORD who sanctifies him’ (Leviticus 21.14-15).
Holiness, then,
is surely the basis for Paul’s insistence that a minister must be ‘the husband
of one wife’. Relatedly, Paul tells
Timothy to train himself for godliness (1 Timothy 4.7). Ministry is not to be reduced to service in a
position or even office; it is a calling to training in godliness. Several factors work against considering
ministers as a holy order, so to speak.
First, the fact of the matter is that many ministers have not
demonstrated holy lives. Second, the
Donatist Controversy in the early Church led to the distinction between the
effective function of a minister in serving the Eucharist or baptism from the
minister’s own faithfulness to God.
Third, the Reformation emphasis on the priesthood of all believers
diminished the distinction between clergy and laity. The result of this trajectory shows up today when
people argue for ordaining same sex attracted, celibate persons to ministry on
the grounds that everyone struggles with sinfulness—whether desires or acts—to
some degree. The ‘priesthood of all
believers’ is thereby turned into the ‘sinfulness of all believers’. The Biblical correction to this line of
thinking is that, while all have sinned and may still struggle with sin, those
admitted to ministry are called to a higher standard. That standard is holiness, which is not
simply attained but is a training in godliness that continues as part of the
calling in ministry. This training is
not an excuse for failure but is a devotion to the exercises that will develop
character. In this regard, one does not
qualify for the ‘bootcamp’ to train for godliness, so to speak, by asserting
that one has a condition that will keep one from ever reaching that goal. Nor is one accepted to the training who wants
examiners to accept his weaknesses instead of expecting that God can and does
bring transformation and righteousness.
The present thinking of many about ministry is rather that recruitment
is open to all (and diversity is even promoted), weaknesses (even sinfulness)
should be accepted rather than transformed by training in godliness, and
holiness is suspect as a prideful virtue because of the ‘sinfulness of all
believers’.
2. Self-Control
Some persons are
not fit for ministry because the responsibilities of ministry could put them in
a situation whereby they face greater temptation in their own weaknesses. ‘Self-control’ is one of the virtues of
character that Paul lists for overseers, but related words also listed are:
‘sober-minded’, ‘not a drunkard’, ‘not violent but gentle’, ‘not quarrelsome’, ‘not
quick-tempered’, ‘disciplined’, and ‘not a lover of money’. A priest prone to drunkenness should not be
put in charge of the wine cellar! A
pastor involved in many and various human relationships should not be violent
but gentle. A minister dealing with the
various arguments that arise, from theological debates to building projects,
should not be a quarrelsome personality.
Since money is involved, a minister should not be a lover of money.
We might say
that these are examples pertaining to the strength of character needed in
ministry situations, and so we could expand the list. So, for example, being the husband of one
wife is more about purity but also about sexual fulfillment in marriage. Paul counsels men and women in marriage not to
deprive themselves of sexual relations lest Satan tempt them due to a lack of
self-control (1 Corinthians 7.5). He
says, ‘because
of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and
each woman her own husband’ (7.2). The
language of ‘husband of one wife’ in the Pastoral Epistles is similar to the
language of a man having his own wife and a woman having her own husband here
in 1 Corinthians. Thus, marriage is the
place for the fulfilment of natural, sexual desire. Paul does not say that heterosexual desire is
wrong but that it can become wrong if one is tempted to fulfil it in
relationships outside of marriage. For
the same reason, he counsels the young couple not yet married to get married if
one’s desires are strong and one’s behaviour is improper towards the other
(7.35).
A person experiencing same sex attraction, however,
cannot fulfil this desire in marital relationships. The person is not saying, as Paul does in 1
Corinthians 7, that he has mastered desire but that he has refrained from sexual
relations. From this discussion, Paul’s
advice seems clear: such a person is tempted by Satan in his internally
disordered desire and should certainly not be put in a position of ministerial
oversight.
3. Sound Doctrine
An important
characteristic for both overseers and deacons is that they hold fast to the trustworthy
Word, the mystery of faith. This
characteristic requires an intellectual virtue of knowing the Word. This ‘Word’ is both the Gospel—the faith
proclaimed—and the written Word—the Scriptures.
The relationship between the two is that the Church knew and affirmed
that the the Scriptures, the Old Testament, proclaimed the Gospel
beforehand. To proclaim the Gospel of
Jesus Christ was to proclaim how Jesus’ incarnation, death, resurrection,
ascension, and future coming (the narrative of the Gospel) was a fulfillment of
the Old Testament Scriptures. Thus, an
overseer and deacon was expected to know the Gospel and the Scriptures. This allowed him to be in a position to teach,
a significant concern throughout the Pastoral Epistles as there was false teaching
that needed to be countered.
The message
proclaimed was not something new even if it was something newly revealed. In the introduction to the letter to Titus,
Paul emphasises this point by saying that (1) God never lies, (2) the hope of
eternal life was promised before the ages, (3) the proclamation is not his own
but something with which he was entrusted as a slave is commanded with a task,
and (4) it is manifested (not invented) now at the proper time (Titus
1.1-3). Paul is united to Titus ‘in a common
faith’ (1.4). The eternity of the
message contrasts with the innovative teachings of the false teachers. Titus is to appoint elders in Crete who ‘hold
firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give
instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it’
(1.9). Thus, he is told to teach sound
doctrine (2.1). This teaching is not
outlined in some creedal statement in Titus, but we can say that it is both
doctrinal and ethical, and the emphasis falls on the latter in this
epistle.
This point is
important, since some in our day have attempted to locate orthodoxy in doctrine
while considering ethics to be secondary or even a matter of indifference. Thus, Paul’s connecting of the two is clear
in these verses in Titus:
For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all
people, 12 training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to
live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, 13 waiting
for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior
Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and
to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good
works (2.11-14).
Timothy is an
exemplary minister in this regard because he has a knowledge of the ‘sacred
writings’. He was taught in them by his
mother and grandmother from childhood (2 Timothy 3.15). This verse—and the next—also makes the
connection between the Word as Scripture and the Word as the Gospel, for
knowing the ‘sacred writings’ means being ‘wise for salvation through faith in
Christ Jesus’. Thus, ‘All Scripture is
breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction,
and for training in righteousness’ (v. 16).
So equipped, Timothy is to ‘proclaim the Word’, reprove, rebuke, and
exhort in his teaching (v. 17). As much
more might be said about ministry as pastoral care, and in this regard the
pastoral care of sinners, I will refer the reader to further writing beyond
this essay on the topic.[4]
The second
virtue involved in teaching sound doctrine, which has already been introduced, is
a sort of courage, as in standing up for the truth, opposing false teaching and
false teachers, defending the faith.[5] The confidence needed for this role comes, in
part, from the intellectual virtue of knowing the Word. It also comes from a steadfast character, not
being swayed by the things that pressure a person to go soft on the truth, such
as placing relationships over truth or the desire to meet other goals (e.g.,
church growth, financial gain, applause from others).
The virtue of standing
firm in the truth is a conservative virtue: it preserves the faith rather than
transforms it into something else under these other pressures. Thus, the language used is to ‘hold firm’,
‘rebuke’, ‘clear conscience’, and ‘great confidence in the faith’. Jude exhorts those to whom he writes ‘to contend for the faith that was once
for all delivered to the saints’ (v. 3).
Paul commends the Roman believers because they
have ‘become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you
were committed’ (Romans 6.17). In 2
Timothy, he says to Timothy, ‘Follow the pattern
of the sound [ὑποτύπωσιν ἔχε ὑγιαινόντων λόγων] words that you have
heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus’ (1.13). Timothy is also told that, what he has heard
from Paul ‘in the presence of many witnesses’ he must entrust to faithful men,
who will then be able to teach others (2 Timothy 2.2). Receiving and entrusting—receiving from
someone trustworthy like Paul and affirmed through many witnesses, and
entrusting to faithful and capable persons that they might also teach—are
essential to maintaining the faith.
At the time of
writing, Paul was concerned about people who received teaching that pleased
them. They would receive false teachers
who told them what their itching words wanted to hear so that they could be
affirmed in own desires (2 Timothy 4.3).
Paul was well aware of how an audience can determine the message; they
were not passive participants in the teaching situation. He says that a bad audience will be
characteristic of the ‘last days’—which, it seems, he believed to be the period
that he was already living in:
But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of
difficulty. 2 For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money,
proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful,
unholy, 3 heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control,
brutal, not loving good, 4 treacherous, reckless, swollen with
conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 having the
appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people (2 Timothy
3.1-5).
This is the
problem with an audience selecting its own teachers not on the grounds of their
capability to expound the Word of God but on the grounds of telling them what
they want to hear. We might further ask
what characterises the teachers who depart from the faith once for all
delivered to the saints. Those teaching
such audiences
creep into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and
led astray by various passions, 7 always learning and never able to
arrive at a knowledge of the truth. 8 Just as Jannes and Jambres
opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men corrupted in mind and
disqualified regarding the faith (2 Timothy 3.6-9).
The list of
characteristics in 2 Timothy 3.1-5 must also apply to these teachers. Also, 4.3 would include the willingness of
teachers to give an audience what their itching ears want to hear. This relationship between false teachers and
their audiences is what fosters the error—they are mutually affirming. What has led mainline denominations in the
West into error after error is this very symbiotic relationship between false
teachers and their audiences. Because
ministers are servants of the message, they must not alter it. Moreover, they do not have personal authority
located in an office but an authority that derives from the message. Paul tells Titus, ‘Declare these things;
exhort and rebuke with all authority.
Let no one disregard you’ (2.15). Timothy was not to allow people to
disregard his youth (1 Timothy 4.12) because the message, not his personal
authority, was the basis of his ministry.
However, he did bear the challenge to set believers an example (4.12),
and Paul tells him to take care himself, watching his own life and teaching (1
Timothy 4.16).
Last Days/Present-Day False Teaching
The development
of false teaching in our day are, in part, due to postmodernity’s values of
diversity, equity, and inclusion. Heresies
are typically distortions of the truth and these are distortions of
universality of the Church, unity in Christ, and conversion. Three further effects of this postmodern turn
are an opposition to truth, an opposition to creation, and a wandering away
from the essential Christian doctrine and ethics.
1. An Opposition to Truth
The postmodern
values soften or eliminate Christian convictions and tradition in the interest
of prioritising relationships over truth.
Time and again, some scholar or pastor or anyone has changed his or her
view on homosexuality or gender because of some relationship (a son or
daughter, a sister, a friend, etc.).
Convictions and what Scripture says or what the Church has said are set
aside. The evolution of error begins
with this inclusion of diverse lifestyles and welcoming of differences as a
major value, continues with a rejection of those not affirming the new
convictions as though they are intolerant and unwelcoming, and then declares
that what was at first welcomed is now the definitive view. The call to be a lover of the good, to be
upright, holy, and disciplined, and to hold firm the trustworthy Word melts
away in the face of relational priorities and the affirmation of diversity,
equity, and inclusion on sexuality.
Paul ran into
some level of this even his day with certain people from the church at Corinth.[6] A group within the church affirmed a member
having relations with his father’s wife (1 Corinthians 5). Those opposing this, like Paul, would have
Leviticus 18.8 to cite as a rule pertaining to God’s people, but those
affirming the inclusion of this person—being a welcoming church!—seem to have
argued for freedom in all sexual relations (cf. 6.12-20). A Scriptural rule is hardly something a
person arguing for his own authority—his freedom—would accept.[7] The ‘freedom’ group also claimed freedom or
authority to eat any foods (8.9; 9.4, 12).
Women ignoring distinctions between men and women in regard to the
symbol of hair and head coverings also claimed a freedom that Paul challenges
(11.10). This Corinthian position shares
much in common with today’s postmodern view in the relationship between
welcoming diverse views and practices and affirming freedom and authority to do
as one pleases.
2.
An Opposition to Creation
Paul warns that,
in the last days, there would be an opposition to God’s created purposes. By ‘the last days’, he likely has in mind the
period beginning with the coming of Christ and lasting until His return. In his time, this turning away from creation
manifested itself in an opposition to marriage and an abstinence from foods God
created (1 Timothy 4.1-5).[8]
False teaching
about God can especially relate to God as Creator or God as Redeemer. The narratives of God’s judgement in the Old
Testament relate to the theological and ethical rejection of God in these two
roles. Idolatry and immorality led to
God’s cleansing Canaan twice, first of the Canaanites, second of the Israelites
(both the northern and southern kingdoms).
God’s judgement on people in the days of Noah and on Sodom and Gomorrah
in the days of Lot involved a rejection of God as Creator and the consequences
of this rejection in their immoral practices.
A core characteristic of today’s postmodern worldview is a rejection of
the natural, created order along with a rejection of God. Mainline denominations in the West have
adopted this worldview in their promotion of abortion, assisted suicide,
homosexuality, and gender theories opposed to God’s creation of male and female
and marriage as between a man and a woman.
3. Wandering
from Essential Christian Doctrine and Ethics
One of the
problems facing the churches in Ephesus and Crete that Paul addresses to
Timothy and Titus is what Paul calls myths and endless genealogies. The content of this teaching remains somewhat
obscure to us, but the main point is that there are teachings that take our eyes
off of the sound doctrine that we are to teach.
An important role for ministers is to keep what is essential before
people and not let them make minor issues major, let alone false issues the
focus of teaching. In our day, the
challenge to the very notion of orthodoxy and orthopraxy has the effect of
detracting from the truth and privileging other, even erroneous matters. So much of the content of the Pastoral
Epistles is calling attention to what is central to Christian teaching.
4.
Ordination and the Exemplary Life
Paul says that
he is someone to be imitated (1 Corinthians 4.16; 11.1; Philippians 3.17; 4.9;
1 Thessalonians 1.6; 2 Thessalonians 3.9; 1 Timothy 1.16; 2 Timothy 1.13; 2.2). Paul instructs Timothy to be an example to
believers in Ephesus in his speech, conduct, love, faith, and purity (1 Timothy
4.12). Timothy is told to practice the
gift he received when ordained, to devote himself to the public
reading Scripture, exhortation, and teaching, and then Paul says, ‘Practice these things, immerse yourself in them, so
that all may see your progress’ (1 Timothy 4.15).
A person living
an exemplary life would not be a person whose acquaintance was recently made by
the church—a newcomer or a new believer. The congregation must know the person’s life
over time, and one might say the longer the better. Thus, Paul says, one characteristic for an
overseer in the list is that he must not be a recent convert. He also advises Timothy that he should not
lay hands on a person quickly for ministry as an elder (1 Timothy 5.22).
Ordination: The Laying on of Hands for Separating
Someone to the Lord for Service
‘Laying hands’
on a person seems already to have been a practice of consecrating or ordaining
a person for ministry in the early Church, as this was done to Timothy (1
Timothy 4.14; 2 Timothy 1.6). The
Hellenistic ministers selected by the Jerusalem church to serve the people were
commissioned to service with prayer and the laying on of hands (Acts 6.6). We might note that the Spirit was given to
believers through the apostles’ laying hands on them (Acts 8.17; 9.17; 19.6;
cf. Hebrews 6.2). When the church at
Antioch sent Paul and Barnabas out on ministry, they laid hands on them after a
time of fasting and praying (Acts 13.3).
The practice of laying hands on someone to give a blessing is mentioned
in Genesis 48.14, 17—it is an ancient custom.
It was also a practice in the ordination of the Levites for
ministry. They were to be cleansed for
service by having water sprinkled on them, being shaved, having their clothes
washed, and washing themselves.
Cleansing from sin was also part of the ordination service. One bull was offered for a burnt offering
along with a grain offering. Another
bull was offered for a sin offering.
Then the people laid their hands on the Levites while Aaron offered them
before the Lord as a wave offering from the people to do the service of the
Lord (Leviticus 8.5-13). This offering
of the Levites for ministry meant that they belonged to God (v. 14). They were to do the service for the people
and to make atonement for them (v. 19).
Relatedly, when Joshua was commissioned to take Moses’ place, Moses laid
hands on him (Numbers 27.18, 23; Deuteronomy 34.9).
‘Laying hands
on’ (manum conserere) something was a
term in Roman law having to do with making a legal claim (vindicia) against someone also making a claim of ownership, as
Aelius Gellius notes (Attic Nights
XX.X). This was done in the
presence of the magistrate as it was a legal matter. In a similar way, one can see that laying
hands on someone for ministry is a claiming of the person for ministry. The church’s practice of ordination was
directly drawn from the Jewish practice of ordaining Levites for ministry, but
it would have been understood in the Roman world as well.
The Exemplary Life
The exemplary
life is not a life of ministers ordained because their sins are evident to all
so that everyone can celebrate God’s incredible grace. Nor is it the life of someone with a
besetting sin or public struggle with desires. Rather, the exemplary life is a
demonstration of godliness, good ministerial practices, and progress in the
faith. The minister has been cleansed,
received the Spirit, and set apart and offered to God. This is what makes him an example to the
people.
Paul understands
that Christians (cf. Galatians 6.1) and ministers are not perfect and may
fail. Elders may fail, though charges
against them require two or three witnesses and not the accusation of one
person. Should he prove to have failed,
he may retain his role if he does not persist in his sin. If he persists, he is to be rebuked publicly
so that the other believers may stand in fear (1 Timothy 5.19-20). Even the judgement of an elder provides an
example to the congregation of how they should live.
Marriage is
Paul’s solution in 1 Cor. 7 for releasing sexual desire. This applies to married couples who must not
deprive spouses of sex except by mutual agreement for a limited time. It also applies to those struggling with
sexual desire who need to get married.
It should go without saying that the Scriptures do not contemplate
sexual relationships outside of marriage between a man and a woman. Same sex attracted, single people are persons
frustrated in this solution to their sexual desires. This is not an exemplary minister for the
church, and he is not a person one would put in situations that only play
toward his weaknesses. Instead, pastoral
care calls for helping the person struggling with temptation and sin to avoid
such situations and impossible challenges in serving as an example of godliness
and purity.
Such an example
is similar to others that Paul identifies.
No person with a weakness or need of money should be accepted into
ministry since it would involve handling church funds. Another example is not to put a new convert
into a situation of ministry as it might be assumed that he is growing in and
learning the faith. A young and eager
convert desiring to become a minister is too young a believer to be put into
situations of great testing. A further
example of a qualification that requires time and testing before ordination is
that a person should be one who has ruled his household well. The church is an extended family, and a man
who has does not have control over his children should not be given the
weightier responsibility of a whole church.
All such examples point to the need for a minister to be above
reproach, respectable, and even thought well of by outsiders. People may wish to be recognised by the
congregation for ministry, but the good will of a congregation towards such
people must not override the tests of character and abilities necessary for
both the congregation and those seeking positions of ministry.
5. Service
Throughout this
discussion, as also throughout the Pastoral Epistles, the words ‘leader’ and
‘leadership’ have been avoided. Instead,
the words ‘minister’ and ‘ministry’ have been used to cover the roles of
overseers, elders, and deacons. The
language of leadership emerged in recent decades as business leadership literature
was first used to guide persons leading Christian educational institutions,
denominations, and ministry organisations.
It quickly came to be applied to pastors and others in Christian
ministry. People use the language of
leadership without thought now, but it is noticeably almost wholly absent from
the New Testament. The reason for this
is that it is such a poor term to describe ministry. Jesus Himself is not presented as a ‘leader’
of some institution but as a servant.
Paul identifies himself as a ‘slave’ in his ministry (Titus 1.1). While he identifies himself in 1 Timothy as
an ‘apostle’ (1.1), remember that an ‘apostle’ is someone who has been sent (ἀποστέλλω), as
slaves regularly were by their masters to deliver messages.
The difference
between a leader and a minister is the difference between someone in authority
because of an office held in an institution and someone with a responsibility
because of a function in an operation (mission, ministry) or intentional community (like a family or church). The former operates out of authority in the
office he holds; the latter out of the authority of the message he delivers or
service he provides. The dominance of
the leadership paradigm in discussions of ministry today is so widespread, and
so much can be said to challenge it from the New Testament understanding of
ministry that I need to refer readers to further reading on the subject rather
than expound further on the subject here.[9]
The three terms
that Paul uses for ministry in the Church are ‘overseers’, ‘elders’, and
‘deacons’. Most likely, overseers and
elders are the same group, since in 1 Timothy 3 elders are not mentions, In Titus
1, overseers and elders are both mentioned, but possibly as alternative terms
for the same group. The similarity of
characteristics in these two passages also suggests the terms refer to the same
group. ‘Elders’ is a continuation of the
Jewish group of elders in the synagogue, and the title appears to indicate a
familial authority and responsibility due to age and respect. Homes and estates had overseers, who were often
slaves. ‘Deacons’ is a technical term, but
the Greek word is the word for ‘servants’. The terminology, then, is not that of an institution
with offices exercising power but that of a home with roles of oversight responsibilities,
elders with domestic and communal seniority, and servants. The extended household of the church requires persons
to run it just as a household does.
The familial role is explicitly stated in regard to overseers in 1 Timothy 3 and elders in Titus 1. The former passage says that overseers must have managed their own households well, with children in submission with all dignity (3.4). In Titus, the parallel thought is stated differently. Elders appointed in the church are to have believing children and not open to a charge of debauchery or insubordination (1.6).
This requirement was, no doubt, standard in the thinking and literature of the day about what is required in one who is responsible for harmony in civil society. Plutarch says, ‘A man therefore ought to have his household well harmonized who is going to harmonize State, Forum, and friends’ (Plutarch, Conjungalia Praecepta 43).[10] Much earlier than Plutarch, Hesiod noted the correlation between a person’s maintenance of domestic order and an upright life. He wrote that ‘men who neglect their households are the very ones to live by injustice’ (Works and Days 309, as quoted by Plutarch, Comparison of Aristides with Marcus Cato 3.4).[11]
While having some amount of authority is part of the thought, we must rule out any notion of dictatorial power. The concern is one who has a well-ordered home, with obedient and Christian children. We may object that some children simply rebel, no matter how good the parents are and how well they have raised their children. Such contingencies may well go into decisions made in specific church appointments to service, but the general point is well stated: proof of a good home is supportive of one being considered to the similar responsibilities to keep harmony in a church.
Applied to the question of ordaining someone with same sex attraction, though celibate, one might state the obvious. Such a person is hardly one for the role of oversight in a home or an extended home situation like a church. A home might have such a person associated with it, but the person should be under pastoral care rather than aspire to the role of an overseer or elder. Everyone in the home is involved in contributing gifts and in service, but only a few are selected to the roles of responsibility and oversight or to special roles of service, and, Paul insists, such people must be persons of tested and exemplary virtue. They are not show-cased for how they bear up under their internal disorder but for the virtues they possess.
Conclusion
Many particular
thoughts about the character and practices of ministers in the Church have been
identified in this essay, with special focus on the Pastoral Epistles. This essay has organised thoughts on ministry
under five headings: (1) Holiness and Marital Purity; (2) Self-Control; (3) Sound
Doctrine; (4) Ordination and the Exemplary
Life; and (5) Service. Paul did not
intend what he wrote to be a complete discussion of the characteristics of
ministry, and what is discussed here is also not a complete discussion of the
topic. Some application to contemporary
matters has also been presented, but this discussion is, of course, also not
exhaustive. Some further thought might
be given not only to the characteristics of ministers but also to the types of
ministries in the Church and how they are differently understood in different
traditions. What Paul discusses about
ministry covers calling, theological competence, ministerial ethics, and
ministry practices, and in this he presents much that is worthy of further
reflection in our own contexts. This
essay is intended to further that reflection.
[1] Cf. Philippians 1.1.
[2] This verse is in reference either to female deacons or to the wives
of deacons. The Greek simply says
‘women’, and the virtues of the ‘women’ appear in the middle of virtues for the
deacons (masculine noun) in 1 Timothy 3.8-10 and 3.12-13. We know that persons designated ‘deaconesses’
existed in the early Church, we just do not have clarity on which understanding
of 3.11 Paul had in mind.
[3] One subject that I have avoided here is whether women might assume
a teaching role in the Church (let alone the larger subject of women’s
ordination). See further, Rollin G.
Grams, ‘1 Tomthy 2.12-14: What We Can Learn from Paul’s Chiasm,’ Bible and Mission blog (26 February,
2017); https://bibleandmission.blogspot.com/2017/02/1-timothy-28-15-problem-of-disruption.html.
[4] See Rollin G. Grams, The
Pastoral Care of Sinners, available at Bible
and Mission bookshop; https://www.blogger.com/blog/page/edit/6624706296388983899/1088130052748490023. Individual chapters of this booklet are
available on the blog itself: see, ‘The Church 18’ titles.
[5] See Rollin G. Grams, ‘Toward a Biblical Theology of Division from
False Teachers, Theological Errors, and Immoral Persons in the Church,’ Bible and Mission blog (15 July, 2023); https://bibleandmission.blogspot.com/2023/07/toward-biblical-theology-of-division.html.
[6] Cf. Stephen M. Pogoloff, Logos
and Sophia: The Rhetorical Situation of 1 Corinthians (SBL Dissertation
Series, 134; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1992).
[7] To have authority is to have license to do something—the Greek word
‘ἐξουσία’ means both authority and freedom.
When Paul argues in Galatians for Christian freedom over against submission
to the Law, he is not arguing against the laws as rules of righteousness but
against a view that accounts the work of Jesus and the Spirit as of no
avail. Paul’s point is that the power of
Christ and the Spirit makes the slave obedience to the Law unnecessary—even a
backward movement that undermines the Gospel.
Clarification comes later in the chapter when Paul declares that one
will not gratify the desires of the flesh if one walks by the Spirit (Galatians
5.16). The restraint of the Law in
regard to the flesh is not necessary for one led by the Spirit (5.18).
[8] Cf. Rollin G. Grams, ‘False Teaching in the “Later Times”: A Look
at 1 Timothy 4.1-5,’ Bible and Mission
blog (26 October, 2023); https://bibleandmission.blogspot.com/2023/10/false-teaching-in-later-times-look-at-1.html.
[9] See Rollin G. Grams, Ministry or Leadership?
Challenging the Leadership Paradigm for Christian Ministry (2024); available online at
‘Bible and Mission’ blog bookstore
(https://www.blogger.com/blog/page/edit/6624706296388983899/1088130052748490023).
[10] Plutarch, Moralia,
trans. Frank Cole Babbitt (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1928).
[11] Plutarch, Plutarch's Lives, trans. Bernadotte
Perrin (Cambridge, MA. Harvard University Press., 1914).
Comments