Elders Who Commit Adultery Are Disqualified From Being Elders
An elder of the church who commits adultery should be permanently disqualified him from ever again serving as an elder of the church.
This statement may seem to contradict the Christian spirit of repentance, forgiveness, reconciliation, grace, and restoration, yet it remains the biblical truth.
1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1
In 1 Timothy 3:1-7, Paul lays out the requirements for an overseer/bishop of the church, repeated by him in Titus 1:5-9 for elders of the church. In both passages (1 Tim 3:2, Titus 1:6), Paul says that the officer of the church must be a μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα, literally a “man of one woman”. This is commonly translated as “husband of one wife” (e.g. the CSB, ESV, KJV, NASB), but some translations have rendered it as “faithful to his wife” (e.g. NIV, NLT). Both of these translations get to an aspect of its meaning, but by themselves are inadequate in capturing the full sense of the phrase.
The idea in Paul’s requirement is not that an elder of the church is merely monogamous, but is faithful in his commitment to his wife. To be an elder you must be a man of one woman, and someone already an elder must remain a man of one woman.
On Exceptions and Preliminary Principles of Presbyterian Polity
Guy Waters’ essay at Reformation 21 earlier this month prompted my recent batch of posts on ministers taking exceptions (i.e. expressing disagreements) with their church’s doctrinal standards. In 1788, the American presbyterian church issued a statement of eight preliminary principles of church polity, generally attributed in authorship to John Witherspoon. These preliminary principles since then have either been explicitly part of the governing documents (as in the PCA) or been sprinkled throughout and affirmed in the governing documents (as in the EPC) of American presbyterian churches.
The second of these principle states,
On Churches Not Allowing Exceptions
As I mentioned in my previous post on exceptions, Michael Lynch argued that in the Reformation the personal views of ministers were subordinated to the confessions of the church. To become a minister of the church was to affirm the church’s doctrine, and Lynch argues, the church therefore had the right to prohibit a minister from teaching his conscience if it conflicted with the doctrine of the church. I think Lynch gets it wrong, since the Reformation-era churches would not allow a man to become a minister if he had any disagreements.
This can be seen in the rules for ordination in Scotland at the end of the Reformation. The ordinand was to be examined in “his knowledge of the grounds of religion [the confessional standards of the church], and of his ability to defend the orthodox doctrine contained in them.” At the installation service, the presiding minister was to “demand of him who is now to be ordained, concerning how faith in Christ Jesus, and his persuasion of the truth of the reformed religion [the contents of the Westminster Standards], according to the scriptures.” These are the ordination vows, to which the candidate was to answer in the affirmative. These processes assume agreement with the Westminster Confession and Catechisms, and do not leave room for exceptions…
On Early Protestantism and the Adopting Act
Michael Lynch agrees with Guy Waters and believes a presbytery may forbid a minister from teaching any exception he may have to the church’s confession. Lynch argues that this is consistent with the approach of early Protestantism. He’s right on the merits but wrong on the details…
On Taking Exceptions and Ordination Vows
Over at Reformation 21, Guy Waters, Professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary-Jackson, argues forcefully that a presbytery has the right to tell its members that they are not allowed to teach any exceptions they may have to the Westminster Standards. Waters is addressing this in the context of the PCA, which is similar to my own denomination. I previously wrote on this subject within the EPC, but I believe that the overarching principals are the same.
While Waters was helpful in showing that the PCA has a record of formally stating that presbyteries have this right (a matter in which I was evidently incorrect), he does not adequately address the issue of conscience as it relates to ministerial vows. When ministers take their vows of ordination, they sincerely receive and adopt the Westminster Standards as containing the system of doctrine found in the scriptures. This ordination vow is the same between the PCA and EPC. That pledge can only be made in sincerity if there is an implied “except where I have informed my presbytery that I disagree.” Otherwise it is disingenuous…
