Dear Christian Exile readers,

Please pray for the young congregations of New Zealand who are studying and working hard to  appoint their first elderships! The congregation at South Auckland appointed their first elders last month and the following correspondence is from another great congregation in New Zealand who is studying the topic. One thing is for certain, congregations with hard-working, servant-leaders who serve as elders are incredibly blessed! Thank God daily and pray for these men and their families! Don’t take them for granted!

My good friend asked me:

“We have been looking at eldership lately and looking at what ‘faithful’ means in Titus 1:6; whether it means ‘Christian’ or ‘faithful forwards parents. Just want to know your thoughts…”

My response:

I’m really glad to see that your congregation is continuing to study eldership. I was excited to see the new eldership at South Auckland and hope that the congregations of New Zealand will follow their footsteps. I also really appreciate the carefulness that everyone is taking in wanting to properly understand 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. That concern for scriptural authority is commendable. It would be impossible for anyone familiar with the situation to conclude that anyone there is ‘playing fast and loose’ with the Scriptures. You all clearly want to honor the Lord both in the desire to have scriptural leadership but also the desire to make sure that any man appointed meets the biblical qualifications. Amen to both of those desires!

I have seen some congregations, in their desire to honor God’s criteria for elders, impose the strictest possible (but not necessarily accurate) interpretation on Titus 1:6. By doing so, I think they miss the overarching point of the criteria.

Each of these standards mentioned for eldership are meant to be evaluated in view of the final goal: the task of faithfully shepherding a congregation of the Lord’s people. 

The first criteria in Titus 1:6 provides a helpful illustration of this. What does “the husband of one wife” mean? Consider this situation: Imagine a scenario where a faithful Christian man, already an elder, was married to a faithful Christian woman and she died. At some point later, this same faithful man remarried a widow in the Church who had been faithful for her whole life. Would he now be unqualified to serve as an elder? I have met some who would say that the fact that he has now remarried means that he is no longer “the husband of one wife.” He’s technically had two women in his life. Holding that strictest possible (but incorrect, in my opinion) interpretation, he would not be qualified for eldership, despite being qualified by every other criterion. But does that strict interpretation honor the purpose of the criteria? Is a widower who scripturally married a widow somehow less fit to shepherd the flock of God because, technically, he has had two wives over the span of his whole life? No, a better interpretation of the phrase “husband of one wife,” given the end goal of the criteria is whether or not a man has followed the Lord’s instructions concerning marriage.

If we apply this same standard to the question of “pistos” in 1:6, it might shed some light on the highly debated question. It’s important to recognise that the fact that many have debated it means that we are all very concerned with faithfulness to God in our interpretation. 

In Scripture, “Pistos” is sometimes interpreted “trustworthy” or “faithful” in reference to a responsibility or to a superior like it is in Matt. 25:21, 23, 1 Cor. 4:2, and likely in 1 Tim. 1:12. In this case, it could be understand in Titus 1:6 to mean “faithful” to the father or the family in their particular role as children. Elsewhere it is synonymous with “believing” or being a Christian (1 Tim. 4:3, 10; 6:2; Acts 10:45. If this is the meaning of Titus 1:6, it would mean that the man’s children are Christians who are living faithful lives. In each of the above scriptures referenced, only the context of the passage provides us any insight into which interpretation is to be preferred.

So what is the answer in Titus 1:6? 

I’m not sure I know definitively. There’s a strong case that could be made either way. But in my opinion (and that’s all it is), the overarching, final goal of these criteria is to find men who are capable of shepherding the congregation, proven by their track record as fathers. One question that could be asked of a particular candidate is: Did this individual provide the expected physical and spiritual nourishment, protection, and care for their children? 

It’s true that all children have free will and can decide whether or not to obey their father’s instructions, but the question before us is whether the father provided the things for their own children that an elder ought to be able to provide to the congregation: diligent instruction in truth, protection from falsehood, and care for physical and spiritual wellbeing. If the potential candidate’s deficiencies in one or more of these areas may have potentially led to his child’s unfaithfulness to the Lord, then he likely needs to humbly remove himself from consideration for eldership. If, however, these shepherding characteristics were seen by others in the upbringing of the candidates’ children, I wouldn’t necessarily consider the individual unqualified if one or more of his children rebelled against their father’s upbringing of instruction/protection/care.

If the interpretation of “pistos” to the father/family is taken, the congregation and candidate needs to be incredibly clear on the spiritual status of the potential elder’s children. There can’t be any doubt in the minds of the congregation on what the candidate thinks concerning his wayward children’s souls. Is he clearly grieved by their forsaking of the Lord, despite the good instruction received at home? Obviously, this is an incredibly difficult conversation, but despite the difficulty, passages such as 1 Corinthians 5:9-10 and 2 John 9-11 need to be considered in how they apply to the particular situation.

In whatever the situation, we have to recognise the nature of congregational autonomy. It is one of the beautiful elements of God’s design in His Church.

No congregation can scripturally legislate or adjudicate the decisions of another flock. Peter tells his fellow elders to “shepherd the flock that is among you” (1 Peter 5:2). We may teach and admonish others, but not make their decisions for them. The decision made in your congregation is specific to your situation. No other congregation will know the details behind your decision, nor can they make it for you. Therefore, decisions made (or not made) ought not to prioritise a concern for what a congregation two hours away might think. You all know the flock there and your particular circumstances better than anyone else. 

I pray for wisdom for everyone involved in your decision, love and grace for every member in the body while considering the uncomfortable aspects of this question and individuals involved, and trust and humility towards the Lord and His Word. May God Bless You All.

– John