Qualifications

[Havensdad]

Ahem, if I may,

#1 Nothing in the text itself specifically says anything about pre conversion reputation. In fact, the context of the text is that elders should be chosen from among Christians who have good reputations: i.e. good post conversion reputations.

#2 How can someone who is a "New Creation" be held accountable for what went before? Are "all things" really made new, or just "some things"?

#3 As far as a criminal record, Paul, Peter, James, and just about every other Christian in the New Testament had a Criminal record.

#4 How bad is too bad? At least 4 out of 5 pastors that I have talked to, had wild lifestyles before they came to Christ. Since this requirement is of the Elders, and not just the over shepherd, this would include ALL of the leadership in the church: Youth Pastors, Worship, Evangelism, etc. This would leave probably 90 percent of the churches in the US, without any leadership. There is already a shortage of Pastors.

#5 MOST of the Godliest Pastors and elders I know, had horrible lives before they came to Christ. Paul Washer and CJ Mahaney come to mind.

#6 This goes against every fiber of the New Covenant. It makes God's election to the pastorate dependent upon merits that we earned on our own (since there was no empowering of the Holy Spirit) prior to Salvation. This seems to contradict everything in the New Testament: people seem to be chosen because they are UNDESERVING, rather than deserving.

 

[Deacon]

Not only Paul but Christ himself would not qualify under such a strict understanding of the passage. No one could meet the standard!

considering the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he was looking to the reward.
Hebrews 11:26 (NASB95)

For even Christ did not please Himself; but as it is written, “THE REPROACHES OF THOSE WHO REPROACHED YOU FELL ON ME.” [Ps 69 9]
Romans 15:3 (NASB95)

But remember the former days, when, after being enlightened, you endured a great conflict of sufferings, partly by being made a public spectacle through reproaches and tribulations, and partly by becoming sharers with those who were so treated.
Hebrews 10:32–33 (NASB95)

My opinion? The phrase, “above reproach” concerns an elder’s general lifestyle among the community where he lives.
Reputations can change over time (thank God!).

Rob

 

[Revmitchell]

Because there is a consequence for sins. Most do not allow those who are divorced and remarried to be a pastor.

This is no longer true. "Most" churches do not hold to this but in fact "most" look at the specific circumstances and make judgments based holding those specific circumstances to scripture. Those who hold the view you articulated are increasingly in the minority.

You seem to have trouble understanding the difference between consequences and judgment. A man previously divorced may suffer some consequences of broken family issues even after he has been gloriously saved. But being disqualified is a type of judgment not consequence. Tacking on the term "consequence" does not prop up your position in the least. Words can be tacked on to anything. But they are often inappropriately used.

 

[DHK]

Not only Paul but Christ himself would not qualify under such a strict understanding of the passage. No one could meet the standard! Rob

Certainly can't agree with you.
Are you suggesting that at one time Christ was not saved?
Or, that he after he was saved, he lived a sinful life?
When was his life sinful--that is "not blameless," or not "with good report" of them that are without? What sinful acts did he do to disqualify himself from the ministry?
The context are the qualifications of a pastor? Are you suggesting that Christ was so sinful that he would be disqualified??

 

[DHK]

This is no longer true. "Most" churches do not hold to this but in fact "most" look at the specific circumstances and make judgments based holding those specific circumstances to scripture. Those who hold the view you articulated are increasingly in the minority.

I don't walk in SBC circles. I know of Bible colleges that won't even admit a person that has been divorced and remarried because they don't believe he is fit for full time ministry. Why even train them?

 

[Tom Bryant]

These older commentaries would disqualify from the pastorate those that do not have a "good report" even before their salvation. Thus if a person was involved in a prolific life: a life of drugs and alcohol, a life of reckless immorality, or definitely anyone with a criminal record, they would be disqualified because they would not have a good report from them that are without--the unsaved; especially if he were to go back to the place where he grew up and those of those community knew he had been involved in a life that demeaned the name of Christ. What qualifies you to be a pastor now? How would the unsaved react to a former life lived in the depths of sin? I think this is the meaning of the verse. What do you think?

I would disagree that my friends from before salvation would find it hurtful to my testimony because of my past sin. I know it because I am still in contact with some of them. They see the difference Jesus had on my life and it gives me opportunity to tell them what He can do for them.

I think we let people into the ministry too soon after salvation because they have this wonderful story of salvation rather than allowing them time to learn and mature as believers. Paul spent alot of time being taught and discipled before he was sent out.

 

[Revmitchell]

I don't walk in SBC circles. I know of Bible colleges that won't even admit a person that has been divorced and remarried because they don't believe he is fit for full time ministry. Why even train them?

And they would be in the minority as well

 

[DHK]

You are the one that insisted your view was in the majority. I just responded to that. It is incorrect.

That is why I suggested that we walk in different circles. Most of the churches that I am acquainted with would never accept a pastor that has been divorced and remarried. In fact I don't know of any that would.

 

[Salty]

That is why I suggested that we walk in different circles. Most of the churches that I am acquainted with would never accept a pastor that has been divorced and remarried. In fact I don't know of any that would.

Many Baptist do not believe that divorce is an automatic disqualify to the ministry. And its not just SBC, I know personally of several non-SBC independent Baptists who hold to this belief. Per centage wise, I would take an educated guess that it may be 50-50, but I have no solid studies to back that up.

About a month ago, I started a poll about disqualifications for a pastor. About 50% did say that divorce would prohibit a man from being a pastor.

So times are changing - the question " is it because we wouldn't have enough preachers, or because, we are actually adhering to scripture?

 

[Revmitchell]

That is why I suggested that we walk in different circles. Most of the churches that I am acquainted with would never accept a pastor that has been divorced and remarried. In fact I don't know of any that would.

Then your circle is small

 

[Havensdad]

Many Baptist do not believe that divorce is an automatic disqualify to the ministry. And its not just SBC, I know personally of several non-SBC independent Baptists who hold to this belief. Per centage wise, I would take an educated guess that it may be 50-50, but I have no solid studies to back that up.

About a month ago, I started a poll about disqualifications for a pastor. About 50% did say that divorce would prohibit a man from being a pastor.

So times are changing - the question " is it because we wouldn't have enough preachers, or because, we are actually adhering to scripture?

Huh? It was closer to 1/3 (36 percent) and that was only for a post salvation divorce. By far the majority said that a pre-salvation divorce, would not disqualify a man for Pastor (only 15 percent).

 

[thegospelgeek]

That is why I suggested that we walk in different circles. Most of the churches that I am acquainted with would never accept a pastor that has been divorced and remarried. In fact I don't know of any that would.

The vast majority of FWB take this stance also. Very, very few will have a Divorced Pastor.

As far as the OP goes. Our Conference hold the reputation as a whole. One has to have been converted long enough to have the reputation changed before accepting one to meet the requirements set forth in scripture. If I was once a thief but have been saved and as such my reputation has changed I now have a good report and meet the qualification.

 

[Salty]

...One has to have been converted long enough to have the reputation changed before accepting one to meet the requirements set forth in scripture. ...

I totally agree with that - including divorce. Now the question is: what time frame should be involved.

Salty

 

[Jim1999]

Mr. Spurgeon started preaching in his teens! How long did he take to establish his beliefs?

Cheers,

Jim

 

[DHK]

Mr. Spurgeon started preaching in his teens! How long did he take to establish his beliefs?

Cheers,

Jim

Spurgeon grew up "in the midst of his father's extensive library. He had an exceptionally high IQ. Without graduating from high-school, he started a Bible College on his own. He could look over a crowd of more than two thousand and tell you who was not present.

There are very few in this world that can compare to Spurgeon. I don't think he is a standard for comparison.

 

[thegospelgeek]

I totally agree with that - including divorce. Now the question is: what time frame should be involved.

Salty

As long as it takes to overcome the bad reputation. Sounds like a cop out answer, but it's true. Personnally i would error towards waiting too long than not long enough.

 

[TomVols]

Spurgeon grew up "in the midst of his father's extensive library. He had an exceptionally high IQ. Without graduating from high-school, he started a Bible College on his own. He could look over a crowd of more than two thousand and tell you who was not present.

There are very few in this world that can compare to Spurgeon. I don't think he is a standard for comparison.

So was he qualified?

 

[TomVols]

Okay, I'll let the cat out of the bag. We often take these standards prima facie without thinking of, as AT Robertson put it, the other side of the coin or other side of the story.

Preacher # 1 has a very bad reputation with the general population. People in his city speak daily of how they detest this man and deem him unfit to be a man of God.
Preacher #2 is a man in a small town who is very poorly thought of and is ridiculed by the public. They, too, say he is unfit to be a man of God.

So I ask you: given this, are these men disqualified because of the opinion of those outside the family of the faith?

No one wants to weigh in?

 

[Havensdad]

No one wants to weigh in?

I don't know: if you would have asked the general population, what would Stephen's reputation look like? They hated him so much, they killed him!

I would say, if the heathens are well acquainted with the preacher and what he teaches, and do not HATE the preacher and make up all kinds of stories about him, he is not preaching the word: We are supposed to be "hated" and have "all manner of stories" told about us!

 

[DHK]

So was he qualified?

No doubt Spurgeon's beliefs were well established before he started preaching.