We are now at chapter five, the last chapter. The first section directly addresses the elders among the readers. The word for elder here is Presbyterous, which denotes a mature or older man. The author says he is also an elder and a witness of Christ's sufferings. Is that a literal witness or a metaphorical one?
The elders are told to be shepherds and overseers of god's flock under their care, not because they must, but because they are willing, as god wants them to be. In other words, they must. They are not to be greedy for money or lord it over those entrusted to them, but be examples to the flock. Boy, some older men in the church today have missed this verse. Those who do this will receive a crown of glory that will never fade away, after they are dead. Again, what the heck is glory? And who wants an eternal crown as a prize? What Is it good for?
Next, the author addresses young men. They are to be submissive to the older men. All of them are to "clothe themselves with humility toward one another." They do this because of Proverbs 3:34 which, according to the author, says "God opposes the proud and gives grace to the humble." However, my old testament says, "He mocks proud mockers but gives grace to the humble." The new Testament version leaves out the connection between pride and mockery, probably because he would prefer to relate it to disobedience. Of course he also relates it all back to submission to god. They are also to cast all their anxiety on god "because he cares for them." And what good does that do?
The readers are also told to "be self controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour." And what proof is there of this? None. It is meant to provoke fear in the hearts of the readers. They are told to resist the devil by standing firm in the faith, of course. Why? Because their brothers throughout the world are also suffering. This is like telling a child to eat all his food because children are starving in Africa. But it's okay, because after they suffer for a little while (their whole life) Christ will restore himself to them and make them firm and steadfast. Big whoop.
The letter ends with the author saying he had Silas's help writing this letter. How do we know if Silas wrote what he was supposed to? The author trusted him, but why should we? Silas is associated with Paul in much of the book of Acts. The author may have included the name as a nod to that, as an attempt at proof of authenticity.
There is also a reference to "she who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, which in general Christianese is thought to mean the church in Rome, where Peter was possibly writing from. They and "My son Mark" greet the readers with a kiss of love. Christian tradition associates Mark, the supposed author of the book of Mark with Peter, and it is believed this is the same Mark. All this is without any evidence.
Showing posts with label elders. Show all posts
Showing posts with label elders. Show all posts
Saturday, June 15, 2019
Tuesday, August 28, 2018
Titus part two
After telling Titus to appoint elders in every town in Crete, he proceeds to explain the qualifications of an elder. These qualifications are still referred to today, when appointing elders, especially in fundamentalist churches. However, the methods for appointing the elders often differ greatly. In churches of christ, elders are often chosen and voted for by the members of the congregation, under the oversight of the current elders. Depending on the strictness of the congregation, the voters may consist of only males, deacons, or current elders. The congregations I have attended generally open the process to every baptized member of the congregation.
Chapter 1, verse 6, tells us "an elder must be blameless, the husband of only one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Let's talk about the wife first. Even though this passage does not say the wife must be a believer, churches of christ require it. I don't know much about what other protestant churches require of their elders, but I imagine there are a lot of similarities. The elder is often chosen with great consideration put on the reputation of his wife. Also, the elder's wife often finds herself in a position of unspoken authority by virtue of her husband's standing in the community. She has her husband's ear, so she is often told things that might not reach him otherwise. She is looked up to by the other women of the congregation. She is also expected to be "blameless", a good example of wifehood and motherhood, and a kind of leader among the women of the congregation. She often finds herself required, or expected, to teach and organise other women. She is called upon to lead public prayers when women meet together. These are things not found in the scriptures, but they occur nevertheless.
The "husband of one wife" requirement means that congregations reject the appointment of a single man. Also, Churches of christ, and other protestant churches, do not usually accept divorcees or widowers as elders, even when remarried. There are a few exceptions. Some say one is one and no more. Others say one at a time is acceptable, depending on the individual circumstances.
As a reminder, I speak from over forty years experience in fundamentalist protestant christianity, specifically mainstream church of Christ. My husband was nominated to be an elder, two years ago. I told him to turn it down. His response was, "Are you telling me or asking me?" I said I was telling him. I refused to be an elder's wife. Without my cooperation, he could not be an elder. Plus, he was not qualified by their standards anyway, because I am an atheist.
The believing children requirement has been a tricky one, even harder for christians to distinctly define. How much belief? Just unqualified assent, or public confession of belief and baptism? Is this just for minor children residing in the home, or does it include adult children? Does it mean all the children of the candidate? Is one believing child enough, or must there be more than one because of the word children?
Then there is the requirement that an elder's children cannot be open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Again, is this about minor children, or all children? How wild? How disobedient? Disobedient to whom? This seems to be a regulation that naturally finds itself broken regularly. When children find themselves in the spotlight of scrutinization, they rarely measure up to anything close to perfection. It's too much to expect, and rebellion often occurs. In my experience, most church of christ elders' children are a mixed bag. An elder may have three children, one devout, one halfhearted, and one living a lifestyle totally unacceptable by church of christ standards. This doesn't seem to matter in today's church. When I was a teenager, churches of christ were generally more strict. I think conditions have relaxed somewhat out of necessity. Else, who would be qualified to lead?
Chapter 1, verse 6, tells us "an elder must be blameless, the husband of only one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Let's talk about the wife first. Even though this passage does not say the wife must be a believer, churches of christ require it. I don't know much about what other protestant churches require of their elders, but I imagine there are a lot of similarities. The elder is often chosen with great consideration put on the reputation of his wife. Also, the elder's wife often finds herself in a position of unspoken authority by virtue of her husband's standing in the community. She has her husband's ear, so she is often told things that might not reach him otherwise. She is looked up to by the other women of the congregation. She is also expected to be "blameless", a good example of wifehood and motherhood, and a kind of leader among the women of the congregation. She often finds herself required, or expected, to teach and organise other women. She is called upon to lead public prayers when women meet together. These are things not found in the scriptures, but they occur nevertheless.
The "husband of one wife" requirement means that congregations reject the appointment of a single man. Also, Churches of christ, and other protestant churches, do not usually accept divorcees or widowers as elders, even when remarried. There are a few exceptions. Some say one is one and no more. Others say one at a time is acceptable, depending on the individual circumstances.
As a reminder, I speak from over forty years experience in fundamentalist protestant christianity, specifically mainstream church of Christ. My husband was nominated to be an elder, two years ago. I told him to turn it down. His response was, "Are you telling me or asking me?" I said I was telling him. I refused to be an elder's wife. Without my cooperation, he could not be an elder. Plus, he was not qualified by their standards anyway, because I am an atheist.
The believing children requirement has been a tricky one, even harder for christians to distinctly define. How much belief? Just unqualified assent, or public confession of belief and baptism? Is this just for minor children residing in the home, or does it include adult children? Does it mean all the children of the candidate? Is one believing child enough, or must there be more than one because of the word children?
Then there is the requirement that an elder's children cannot be open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Again, is this about minor children, or all children? How wild? How disobedient? Disobedient to whom? This seems to be a regulation that naturally finds itself broken regularly. When children find themselves in the spotlight of scrutinization, they rarely measure up to anything close to perfection. It's too much to expect, and rebellion often occurs. In my experience, most church of christ elders' children are a mixed bag. An elder may have three children, one devout, one halfhearted, and one living a lifestyle totally unacceptable by church of christ standards. This doesn't seem to matter in today's church. When I was a teenager, churches of christ were generally more strict. I think conditions have relaxed somewhat out of necessity. Else, who would be qualified to lead?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)