[Editorial Note: This post appeared on my other blog on 11/4/11. I'm just moving it over here to put all posts that are a good fit for this blog in one place.]
In You asked - does an unbelieving child disqualify an elder? Justin Taylor concludes, hm, not really I guess. It was difficult for me to follow his argument. Read it and see what you think. Some of the readers' comments are brilliant.
His comparison of the two passages on the subject seemed like the usual "we can't quite make sense out of this so we'll slice and dice the concepts here until they fit our mode of thinking." We have confused "allowing scripture to interpret scripture" with "allowing certain passages to be weighted against each other to come up with some sort of artificial 'balance' while ignoring the remainder of scripture."* (I've seen enough of that ridiculous method I can smell it a mile away.) I think he misses the point when he says "believers can also be translated faithful" - I would like to suggest here that faithfulness isn't some vague concept left for us to define as we wish, but something that requires an object. Faithfulness to something... which (I don't think it is a stretch to conclude, given the context) would be the Christian faith.
A particularly confusing aspect of this discussion (and of many others) is, how do we know when someone is genuinely "faithful" or "believing?" This is one of many passages where a distinction between two categories of people, Christians and elect is helpful. The biblical basis for this is scattered throughout the Bible, and would require a lengthy, separate post to describe in full. For now, however, I would urge you to note that these terms (and other parallel terms) are not used interchangeably, and there is no reason why they shouldn't mean something different. Christian is a term originally applied by unbelievers to a group of people based on who they are following. The elect, on the other hand, are those whom God has chosen, who are written in the book of life, and who are ultimately known only to God. And this is always how these terms are used in scripture, as far as I have found to date. This has been a statement of controversy, but I'm certainly ready to retract this position if it can be demonstrated to be unbiblical. As you might guess, I find it very helpful.
Therefore, the answer to the question posed in my previous paragraph is, we don't know in an ultimate sense who is genuinely faithful, but that doesn't render these verses meaningless. God does not expect us to be able to divinely discern who truly belongs to the elect. I propose, therefore, that if my kid is a Christian on all outward appearances, according to the best possible human judgment, that is sufficient to qualify as faithful. Conversely, if he is un-Christian according to the best possible human judgement, he's not faithful, and his father is disqualified from eldership. How do you judge a tree? By its fruit. It seems pretty straightforward to me; why muddy the waters?
I would also like to take the opportunity to provide clear answers to all of his "uncomfortable questions" (oh no, we can't have uncomfortable questions!) using the term "believing" in the outward, "Christian" sense described above:
1. What do we make of an elder who has a number of believing children, walking faithfully with the Lord---but one who is not?
He's automatically disqualified according to scripture, plain as day.
2. If most of his children are believers, is he not a good manager of his household?
Is anyone good at anything apart from Christ? That's not really the point, scripture still disqualifies you. (Another application of "how do you judge a tree?"...)
3. Or does the one unbelieving child call into question his overall managerial ability?
I should hope so, since that seems to be the logical conclusion of these passages.
4. If it does, then why did any of his children turn out to be believers?
Why does anyone at all turn out to be a believer? Parents can and should do everything within their ability to raise children in the faith, while recognizing it is ultimately a work of God.
He also uses the term a couple times "control of your kids." Well I don't quite get what that is supposed to mean, but I would rather my kid(s) be under God's control than mine. I still believe parents are under a very real obligation to train their children up in the way they should go, but that's not the same thing as a pretense of real, ultimate "control." The word in the bible is translated as "manage" which doesn't quite mean the same thing. As one commenter said (paraphrasing here), children need to find their own faith and not just believe in/because of/according to their parents.
And I'm still lost with this statement: "Paul does not spell out what this looks like in every case, nor does he spell out all of the specifics of what will disqualify an elder." Um, what? Isn't that what both of these passages are about? It's a list of qualifications for elders. Am I missing something???
In short, I appreciate that this is being discussed, but I'm unable to agree with the conclusion. Yes, if you have unbelieving children, you're disqualified. That's what it says.
*To his credit, the rest of scripture is certainly considered in the statement "Requiring that his children have genuine saving faith is to require personal responsibility for the salvation of another" - I agree with that as far as it goes, but not with the conclusion he draws from it.
No comments:
Post a Comment