From: James H. Vellenga (jhv0@viewlogic.com)
Date: Thu Feb 20 1997 - 08:54:52 EST
>
> Honestly, I suspect that all those adjectives that follow upon ANEPILHMPTON
> are meant to be clarifications of what the author means by ANEPILHMPTOS.
> But it has occurred to me that, with all due respect, I have known
> wonderful persons in high ordained positions, but I don't know that I have
> ever known one that I was absolutely sure was "above reproach." Does that
> mean "sinless?" I raise this question simply because there is an overture
> now being voted on by the presbyteries in the PC(USA) that would seem to be
> based on this verse and that is effectively asserting that nobody can be
> ordained who is not sinless. I don't want to discuss that overture or the
> politics underlying it, but I am wondering whether, on the basis of what
> this text in 1 Tim 3 states, the word ANEPILHMPTOS has an absolute or only
> a relative applicability, i.e., that "above reproach" DOES or does NOT mean
> "sinless," or perhaps may be understood as meaning "respectable" in terms
> of currently prevailing standards of respectability? Of course it is
> usually said that the standard applied to a candidate for ordination must
> be higher than the standard applied to a candidate for membership in the
> community of faith, but it seems to me that this gets close to the heart of
> the problem that evoked a doctrine of the "priesthood of all believers"
> (some of my Calvinist background won't readily rub off!): what does it mean
> to be "above reproach" in absolute terms? And if we don't apply absolute
> terms, what criteria have we for ordination that are not relative?
Carl,
Someday I would really like to have the chance to get to know
you better.
I am myself a Presbyterian elder -- not actively serving, and not
currently a member of a Presbyterian church -- but given PC(USA)
polity, that means I'm still an elder unless I ask and receive
-- what is it -- a demission of office?
I appreciate your gift for cutting through to real issues underlying
the grammatical and semantic without too much theological biasing
-- although perhaps a lot of your biases are too close to mine to
tell the difference. As an elder I have seemed to many to be
as close to "above reproach" as anyone they know -- but I and
my wife (especially) know differently. We are now in a phase
of life where we are letting more of the warts show than most
people do, and I am amazed at the number of people with problems
and especially problem marriages that are coming out of the
woodwork and taking courage in working on their situations,
apparently as a result.
So, to the extent that we take the Bible as authoritative (and
I do, even if I'm not quite an "inerrantist"), perhaps the question
has to turn on the meaning of DEI. I tend to translate DEI
with an object of X as "X needs to" -- hence, here, "the overseer
needs to" -- but with a New England rather than a psychological
definition of "needs to" -- as when my wife says to one of
the kids, "You need to come here right now!" In other words,
these are things that an overseer/elder constantly "needs to"
be aiming for in his life -- and to the extent that they are
a criterion for office, it should be his or her heart attitude
to be moving in these directions.
Thanks for your continuing input.
Regards,
Jim V.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:06 EDT