|
Leaving the theme of worship (1 Timothy 2), we turn next to that of pastoral leadership (chapter 3). Timothy was to refute false teaching, to establish orderly worship, and to ensure that those aspiring to pastoral leadership had the right qualifications (3:1-13).
It is worth noting as we turn to this new subject that there is a proper order of leaders within the church. This is a point that has been disputed at times in the history of the church. Commenting on this, John Stott writes, "Even though church history has oscillated between the equally unbiblical extremes of 'clericalism' (the clergy domineering over the laity) and 'anticlericalism' (the laity rebelling against the clergy), the basic conviction has persisted that some kind of pastoral oversight is God's will for his people" (p. 89).
Two terms (or titles) are used for those who are to lead the church - elders and overseers. They are essentially equivalent, deriving from Jewish and Greek roots respectively. "The word presbyteros ('elder')," writes Stott, "was Jewish in origin (every synagogue had its elders) and indicated the seniority of the pastor, whereas episkopos ('bishop') was Greek in origin (it was used of municipal officials, supervisors of subject cities etc.) and indicated the superintending nature of the pastor's ministry" (p. 90).
Our interest (and Paul's in writing this section of his letter to Timothy) is not so much in the precise nature of the role of elders or overseers in the church, but in their necessary qualifications. This is a vital topic, for, as Stott insists, "the health of the church depends very largely on the quality, faithfulness and teaching of its ordained ministers" (p. 89).
Paul begins by saying that the leaders of a church must be "above reproach" (3:2). He makes a similar demand in writing to Titus on the same subject. At the head of a list of requirements, the apostle writes, "An elder must be blameless…" (Titus 1:6).
What does Paul have in mind here when he speaks of elders needing to be "above reproach" and "blameless"? Does he mean to say that church leaders must be sinless - without any spiritual or moral blemish at all? If that were the case, Stott comments, "no child of Adam would ever qualify for a share in the oversight" (p. 92). He goes on to say that the term really means to be of "blameless [public] reputation" and has to do with "irreproachable observable conduct" (p. 92). Commenting on the Titus passage he says elders "should be 'marred by no disgrace'; they should offer 'no loophole for criticism'" (p. 92).
Put in very practical terms, no one should be able to say about a church leader (or a candidate for leadership), "so-and-so is habitually violent, or a drunkard, or fails to pay his bills" etc. There should be no grounds for accusation regarding "observable" conduct. Church leaders are very visible people - both to the church and the wider community - and it is important that they don't bring the gospel of grace into disrepute by uncontrolled lives. More than that, they are people entrusted with the responsibility of caring for God's household - people he loves and purchased with the blood of his Son. And it just wouldn't do to have a violent or dishonest or untrustworthy person over God's household.
No one this side of the Lord's return will be sinless. No one will ever be above needing to rest wholly on God's grace and the perfect obedience of Christ for salvation. But that granted, leaders of the church must be free from dishonouring and damaging personal characteristics. Faults of that kind disqualify them from leading God's flock.