Both a Husband and a Father

Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? (1 Tim. 3:2–5)

Conservative Christians typically argue that these requirements assume the overseer will be a man, and so only men are qualified. I’ve used that argument before, and it seems valid enough to me; but at the same time, there are other assumptions embedded in Paul’s qualifications. And what are they?

Well, for one, Paul assumes that the elder will be a husband (“the husband of one wife”), which would rule out single men. If an overseer must be a one-woman man, then where does that put the no-woman man? Furthermore, Paul assumes that the overseer will be a father, as we’re told that “he must manage his own household well . . . keeping his children submissive.”

So if it’s reasonable to argue, on the basis of Paul’s assumptions, that an overseer must be a man, then it’s also reasonable to argue, by the same token, that an overseer must be both a husband and a father. Conversely, if it is not reasonable to argue, based on this passage, that an overseer must be a husband and a father, then neither is it reasonable to argue, based on this passage, that an overseer must be a man.

Choose ye this day.