"The Husband Of One Wife"
I have read with interest everything that has been written on this question appearing in the Guardian recently, as well as all other material I have found. I profess to have an open mind and am always desirous of learning the truth on any question. I try to maintain a "conscience void of offense" along this line. Should one show me by logic and scripture that any position I hold is wrong, it would be rank dishonesty not to change. Moreover, I strive to be moved by logic and scripture, and not by prejudice or personality. How well I may succeed at this probably God alone knows.
The recent discussions on this subject have demonstrated how illogical is our reasoning and how often we hold some position and oppose some idea simply because of prejudice. I think I have never read more assertions, assumptions, and at times downright ridiculous statements advanced on any other subject. Well over seventy-five percent of the material submitted has touched neither top, side or bottom of the real issue. Opinions have been offered as positive proof — and these opinions have been varied and even conflicting. Brethren have always been divided over this matter and, I suppose, always will be. One can stir up a "hornet's nest" in a minute and bring down the anathema of some upon him on this question. Many cannot reason calmly and candidly about it. They get "wrought up" and start accusing one of being a rank heretic if he doesn't agree with their position. Those who have opposed the position set forth by Brother Douthitt (not that it is his alone, or that he is the first to hold such, but I use this expression in an accommodative sense) also oppose each other. Hardly any two of them agree. Surely one cannot read all that has been written without realizing the different positions and contrary ideas. Some of those who are so strong in their opposition to Brother Douthitt's position can sit calmly by and allow nearly every other conceivable "error" to pass unnoticed. To them for one to dare suggest that the scripture does not lay down as a positive requirement that elders must be married is the heresy of all heresies!! Let the Premillennialists rage, and the rabid supporters of institutionalism say what they will, but down with the one who talks as Brother Douthitt does on the eldership! One good friend of mine over in Alabama writes me that he is "convinced that Douthitt's stand on elders is even more dangerous than Boll's on the millennium!" That's some charge.
Now I am not coming in on the discussion to help Brother Douthitt — he doesn't need it. He can ably take care of himself. I merely want to set forth some of the ideas advanced and show how far off the issue they are.
In the October 23 issue of this paper, a good brother in Oklahoma ventures forth with an article. With an air of finality and authority, he reprimands Brother Douthitt and seeks to set the whole thing straight. Hardly anything in his article touches the issue. He assumes the very thing to be proved. Let me give you an example or two. Listen to him:
"I believe we will have a lot less division about what Paul said, than about Cecil's theory."
This reference to "Cecil's theory" is an appeal to prejudice. He seems to think Brother Douthitt is the only one ever to hold the idea that Paul's statement does not require an elder to be married. Many able brethren, and a host of sectarian scholars, have held this position and taught it long before Brother Douthitt. Many able brethren hold this idea today and they didn't get it from "Cecil."
Note this from our Oklahoma brother: "Why not let Paul's statement stand, as we should every passage. He either meant what he said or he did not. I believe he meant just exactly what he said."
Our brother labors under the delusion that someone denies that Paul meant what he said. We all believe that. Brother Douthitt believes it as strongly as anyone else. The issue is: What did Paul mean — What did he say? Is there anyone so dense as to be unable to see that this is the question? I would be slow to charge my brethren with denying that Paul meant what he said. Our difference is over what he said — what the language means! When our Oklahoma brother proves that Paul's language is a positive requirement that elders must be married, then one would be an infidel who didn't believe it. Brother Douthitt says that the language is to be taken as a prohibition against polygamy and not a requirement that bishops must be married. He gave a clear, sane, analytical study of what the language means. In trying to answer, brethren have gone far off into the field of opinion, speculation and prejudice. Calling it "Cecil's theory" won't answer his arguments.
Our Oklahoma brother advances this proof (?): "I am frank to say that I have never known a bachelor who could possibly qualify for an elder, if Brother Douthitt's contention could possibly be correct." Well, what does that prove regarding the issue? Nothing. Most of the time in using the word "bachelor" and in talking about "picking out all the old bachelors and making elders of them," it is done to prejudice the issue.
Our brother also offers this: "Would you go to a man who never had a wife to discuss a problem of marriage? Or would you go to a bachelor to get advice on how to rear and take care of children? Men who have had the experience of taking care of a family are capable of giving advice to others." This same idea has been advanced by others as proof (?) that elders must be married and have children. Our brother's logic here when carried to its fulness, certainly proves to be ridiculous. This is some more "opinion" and there is an abundance of it available. Does our brother mean that the work of elders is to advise how to rear a family and about marriage? Is it a requirement of them in order to be qualified to oversee a congregation, that they be experienced in and experts in the field of family relations? Does he mean to say that personal experience in every field is essential to be able to advise regarding it? Is it essential that one be married in order to discuss a marriage problem with some couple? I know some preachers who are not married and some of them well up in years. According to our Oklahoma brother, one of them couldn't discuss a marriage problem with some couple if the couple came to him for advice. Since he has never had this experience, he would be forced to turn them away without helping them; not even telling them what the Bible says. It is a shame that the Christ (some would probably refer to him as an "old bachelor") didn't realize this. He never married, yet He freely offered advice and gave laws. (Matt. 5:31-32; 19:1-12) The fact that He was divine doesn't change the argument. It's a wonder to me that someone doesn't come forth with the idea that since Christ never married, He, therefore, is not qualified to speak. The apostle Paul, who was a bachelor, or at least unmarried at the time, had a lot to say about marriage in 1 Cor. 7. Has our Oklahoma brother torn this out of his Bible?
Must one be experienced in divorce to advise regarding a divorce problem? Must one be experienced with the habit of strong drink to advise regarding it? We could ask this regarding everything in the catalog. Don't Sir, teach about the dance unless you have danced; against adultery unless you have experienced it!
No one denies the value of experience. It is a great teacher and sometimes a costly one. But to argue that personal experience in every problem is essential to helping another with it is plain foolishness.
It is also true that one demonstrates his ability to oversee the flock of God by the good management of his household. This is a demonstration of his ability and not a qualification in the ordinary sense. Furthermore, this is not the only way that one may demonstrate his ability to rule the church, nor is it an infallible demonstration. All have seen men with orderly homes and with faithful children, who didn't have an ounce of leadership. In many instances, the wife is solely responsible for the well-being of the children and the good order of the home. It would be most unwise to select one as an elder who has not, in some way, demonstrated his ability for the work. If one's home is not orderly and his children are unruly, it is a demonstration of his unfitness for the office. A man who never married, and, of course, is without any children, may have ever so much ability, be ever so faithful, influential, and loved, but would be robbed of serving the church as an elder simply because he had not demonstrated his ability with a wife and children! It matters not in how many other ways such ability may have been manifest, some would rise up in holy horror at selecting him as an elder. Their objection to such a man is not based on reason or scripture! Herein lies much of our confusion. We want to take a demonstration of one's ability and make it a positive requirement.
Another example of such fallacious reasoning and opinion is set forth in the following opinion: "Fully normal men marry." Our brother seems to think that if a man never marries, he is abnormal. Is this true? Does he really think that all those who never marry are abnormal? That some who never marry are abnormal is readily granted. So are some who are married! What about Christ? I have always figured He was rather normal in all respects and subject to like passions as are we. I now learn that I have been wrong — He was merely abnormal! Paul was an abnormal freak! Those of whom Christ spoke when He said that they were "eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake," were nothing but abnormal persons, and certainly couldn't be elders, regardless of how righteous and holy their life, nor how great their ability. Hence, they would deserve no special praise for being "eunuchs for the kingdom's sake."
I suppose if all normal men marry, it would also follow that all normal women marry. If not, why not? Therefore, all the women who have never married are just abnormal — not normal women. I know of seven fine Christian women ranging in age from 30 to 65 right here in this town who have never married. Am I to believe that they just aren't normal? This is not the way they see it!
Most of them would have married if they could have found a suitable mate, and they probably would yet. Then I have known both men and women to live single until well up in years, then get married. Were they just abnormal until they married? Now who can really believe such a thing? Such is the kind of reasoning used on this subject and all of it is mere opinion and beside the point.
Remember the real issue has to do with the meaning of Paul's language. Does it require that an elder be married? Is it a prohibition against polygamy? All the learned opinions about why we think an elder should be married touch not the matter. Some learned opinions might be given as to some advantages in not marrying. If one can show that Paul meant that it is absolutely essential that an elder be a married man, no one will accept such any quicker than I will. I shall read all that will be written on the matter and weigh as honestly as I know how the evidence presented. Let us be sure that we do not try to bind on others our opinion about this or any other matter. And, above all, may God help us to have the proper spirit toward His Word, and our brethren who may differ from us, as we study this question. There are many other things that I would like to point out, but I will let this suffice for now.