With Laces Untied

So let’s begin our work on this tough topic by getting two obvious things on the table.
The first obvious thing is that the apostle Paul teaches us that how a man behaves in his home is a predictor or indicator of how he will behave in the church. If you want a godly and competent leader in the church, then you need to look for a godly and competent leader in his home. The apostle couldn’t make his point plainer.

“For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?” (1 Tim. 3:5)

The word rendered rule here is proistemi, which means preside, rule, maintain. And the word used with regard to pastoral work is epimeleomai, which means to take care of, or provide for.

This is a simple if, then statement. If a man does not know how to do x, then he will not be able to do y. We will examine what that connection is later, but it should suffice for the present to show that there is such a connection. We should refuse to call a pastor based on certain realities in his home, and we should do this as a matter of obedience to God. If a pastoral candidate were not very good at racketball, or was not a competent hunter, or had never been hang-gliding, we would not be within our rights to say that obedience required us to reject him. There would not be a connection between these activities and the possibility of him being a good pastor, and there is a connection between him being a good father and being . . . a good father.

But the second obvious thing about this is that the world is a messy place, and that application of this qualification requires that we make judgment calls. Some of the judgment calls will be more difficult to make than others. This requirement is not like the requirement that our Constitution sets for the president being 35-years-old (Art. II). All you have to do to determine if the qualification is met is be able to count. Or to take an example from the Old Testament, the requirements for the priesthood were more objective and physical (Lev. 21:16-21), and therefore easier to check..

But what we must not do here is set these two obvious things at odds with each other. We must not assume that because there is a requirement that a man manage his household well, that there will never be difficulties in deciding what to do. Simplistic thinking is the badge of the legalist. But neither may we acknowledge that there will be hard cases, and conclude from this that the familial qualification is functionally meaningless. The requirement must be held as a real requirement — meaning that certain men are kept out of office because of it, and they are men who otherwise would be ordained to office.

So how do we balance these two things? There is a legal adage that says that hard or difficult cases make bad law. You should let the simple requirement drive the majority of your cases, and deal with your exceptional cases as they arise.

There is another adage that says that the exception proves the rule, but this adage is almost universally misunderstood. The phrase is frequently taken as the exception somehow establishing the rule, with the word proves taken in the sense of what you do to get to a conclusion in an argument. But the proverb was developed when the word prove had the meaning of test. The exception tests the rule.

Let me give you a made up example that will show how an exception can be made which tests, or honors, the rule, and then make up another example where it does nothing of the kind.

Say the congregation is considering a pastoral candidate, and it comes out in the interview that when he was 19, shortly before he became a Christian, he was shacked up with a girl for six months. She got pregnant and left him because she was a strident atheist and didn’t like the spiritual direction he was taking. He has had no legal recourse, and his son from that union was brought up as an atheist, and is one screwed up kid. After your candidate was converted, he finished college, went to seminary, and met his current wife while studying for the ministry. They married, and have five lovely children, all of whom love God, love Jesus, love their parents, and love church.

Now suppose you have another candidate, one who has five children, two of whom are sullen and disobedient. The other three might be okay, you think. But the two are bad attitudes with sneakers, laces untied. The pastoral candidate is the photo negative of the centurion in the gospels (Matt. 8:9). When the father saith come, the child goeth. When he saith go, the child cometh. When he says do this, the teen-ager doeth it not.

In the first example, the exception tests the rule — it makes you think hard about the rule, and it makes you see how the rule actually still applies. We are checking to see how this man manages the children he has, not how he was a father to a child he never had the opportunity to father. It is easy to see how the pastoral search committee could determine that his atheist son (whom he had met three times in his life) was not the kind of situation that the apostle Paul had in mind. With the children he has, the congregation can see how he rules in his household, and they can expect that he would take care of them on that basis.

But in the second situation, you can immediately see that the two exceptions were not instances that tested the rule — they were instances where the rule excluded the candidate. The bad things you saw in the household meant that if you called such a man, you should expect to see bad things in the church, bad things that were somehow related to his weakness in his home.

So the requirement in 1 Tim. 3:5 is clear, but requires wisdom to apply. And the application of wisdom should never be treated as though it were relativism.

Theology That Bites Back



Opt-in here and you'll receive a weekly digest of the thoughts and musings from yours truly that wend their way into blog posts. In addition, from time to time, you should also receive notices of new book releases, upcoming events, and continent-sized cyclones on Jupiter.

Congratulations. You did it.

  • Robert

    Here is a trickier, but realistic, one. Man is raised Mormon. Marries at 21. Has a couple of kids. Converted at 25. Wife leaves him, but he does get split custody. All his family is Mormon. Guy remarries and has the five wonderful Christian kids, but his oldest two stay Mormon, even though they were in his house part of the time. Twenty years later, someone at his church wants to consider him for the Deacons. How would you vote?

  • Andre’

    From my vantage point the second man is clearly disqualified and his disqualification has nothing to do with the fact that the other candidate is more qualified. I could see how some churches would prefer the second candidate over the first since it appears that his situation is less messy, and call him on that basis, but that is making a decision on the perceived “messiness” of candidate one’s situation and not through the lens of Scripture. In reality he doesn’t meet the standard of I Timothy and is disqualified, period.

  • Willis

    I think there is a danger of unreasonable churches here too. I have seen it up close and personal in my own experiences.

    I have noticed that people without kids or whose kids (usually just 1 or 2 at the most) happen to be passive and mild are often harsh critics of the way the man with four (or more) kids ‘runs his home’. There is a certain chaos that comes with a bunch of little ones running around. That chaos can be good, godly, and joyous.

    A few days ago Mark Driscoll wrote on his facebook wall “People always ask, “how do you do it with 5 kids.” The honest answer is to lower your expectations. Sometimes that means they are wearing a swimsuit and rain boots at the store.”

    But if a couple that had one child, a perfect daughter, walks in to a house like that and sees toys on the floor, kids wearing rain boots, and food on mommy’s shirt, that are likely to say “that man does not know how to manage his house.” And will pass on a pastor who could lead the church to be happy, godly and (messy) fun.

    Often people’s idea of a well run home is simply a home like their own ideal. Is the judge a ‘clean freak’? Then the candidate better have a clean house. Did the judge have a turbo charged two year old boy who pulled cats tails and could not sit still in church? If not, the pastor that does have said son will be thought unfit.

    It is a hard rule to apply that is for sure.

  • Andre’

    I agree with you and your comments. There has to be a determination between that which is sinful and that which is personality based. Sometimes they do go together and other times not so much. In the example Pastor Wilson uses, there is disobedient and non-honoring tone to the youngster, a truth which lends itself to the man being unqualified.

    In response to what you said, I wouldn’t always say that it is a lowering of one’s expectation but more of a wisdom issue or a removing of the sometimes idealistic and unbiblical expectations that accompany child rearing.

    On several occasions in my own home I have had two boys playfully wrestling, a daughter walking around the house singing, two other children playing hide and seek, all of which raises the decibel level in the home because there a total of 8 of them playing, singing, and wrestling. Does this make me unfit, maybe but at the same rate, maybe not. Just as you mentioned if the judge is from a quiet home where the children play more quietly, does that mean that the head of that home is more qualified, maybe or maybe not if he rules as an autocrat.

    Good stuff to consider…

  • Luke Nieuwsma

    Willis, you’re right that churches can be unreasonable with people, but there’s also a difference that we have to recognize between having a somewhat disorderly house and having disobedient children. A disorderly house can simply be crazy because there are a lot of children and things happening all, and those children may still be obedient to their parents. But if they are not obedient, the father is not qualified to lead the church.
    God is very specific in His instructions here: an elder must be someone who “rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence” (I Timothy 3:4).
    Also, I don’t think what’s at issue here is those moments of rebellion followed by prompt discipline which happen in any young family; it’s more if the children do not respect and obey the father on a regular basis. A general family culture of rebellion and disrespect shows that this man can’t stop the congregation from having a culture of rebellion and disrespect as well.

  • RFB

    The premise that a child cannot not be sufficiently disciplined to sit quietly is foreign to me. There is a time for playful behavior, and there is a time for quiet respect. Being quiet and attentive in church is both respectful to Who and what you are about, and it is demonstrative and instructive that one understands a component of being a good neighbor to the other members of the body.

  • http://oldfatslowland.blogspot.com/ oldfatslow

    With enough exceptions, any rule can die
    the death of a thousand cuts. Not all
    nuance is good nuance. It takes wisdom
    to know when someone is trying to erode
    the foundations of the law (or mix a lot
    of metaphors).


  • Willis

    RFB, some of the best young men I know were so full of energy they could not sit well in church. Some of the most rebellious I know were passive kids.

    I think that people who happen to have mild kids think that they are doing something right and that anyone who doesn’t have mild kids must not be properly disciplining.

    I have met a few people who had that attitude for their first couple kids and then on kid number three they get a boy who cannot sit still and are forced to admit that they got lucky with the first couple and that it wasn’t their superior discipline at all.