Bishops having wives

[David Lindblom]

On another Christian forum a Church of Christ fella charged the Orthodox w/ changing scripture in favor of their traditions. He used the example of Bishops no longer being married w/in Orthodoxy. Not just that they aren't required to be married but that they are required not to be married. He used the verse in I Timothy 3:

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

He stressed that the word must was used leaving no room for change. We informed him that in the very literal versions the word behooves was used indicating that there was some choice in the matter but it was best for the bishop to be married. But, he does have a point. Most would agree that the rest of the requirements are not optional so why have we picked out the marriage part and not only made marriage optional but have, in practice, forbidden it for the bishop? According to the Orthodox Study Bible it was done away w/ because the laity just couldn't get comfortable w/ their bishops being married so it was done away w/. Is this then a similar situation as the divorce issue Jesus dealt w/ when He said that divorce was allowed by Moses because of the hardness of the people's hearts? Are Orthodox hearts hard on this issue?

I've heard the arguments in favor of this stating that the bishops have chosen to be celibate in order to serve God more fully and that w/ their heavy load of responsibility having a family would be very difficult. But, does not scripture trump this kind of thinking? It has the appearance of wisdom but is against clear scripture.

[Adrian Martin]

If the scriptures mandate that bishops must be married, why was St. Paul (who, being an apostle, was also a bishop) not married? And why does St. Paul not simply write "A bishop must be...married..." instead of writing "A bishop must be...the husband of one wife..."? I think that the Apostle was not talking about whether or not the bishop was to be married, but what kind of husband he ought to be, if he were married.

[Cyprian (Humphrey)]

It's doubtful I can give a thorough response, but I do have a couple of thoughts.

First, I think it should be pointed out that 1Tim 3:2 does not mandate that a bishop be married, but rather that he not be polygamous. That's a key issue, IMHO.

Secondly, I was under the impression that it wasn't so much that celibacy is imposed on bishops, but rather, that the Church, as a whole, started to pick it's bishops uniquely from the monastic ranks. Even now, when an unmarried non-monastic priest is selected to be a bishop, they are quickly made at least Rhiasaphormonk in order to be consecrated a bishop - in a sense fulfilling the letter of the law, if not quite the spirit.

So, as it stands, it isn't that bishops are required to be celibate, but that monks are. And since we currently tend to choose our bishops from the monks, they are celibate for that reason alone.

I welcome correction, as I am sure there are people out there who are more knowledgable than I.

[Kusanagi]

It seems Mr Herman has answered such a question before earlier this year. I found this answer on google:

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Eastern-Orthodox-1456/2009/4/Married-Bishops.htm

[Mary]

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

Most would agree that the rest of the requirements are not optional so why have we picked out the marriage part and not only made marriage optional but have, in practice, forbidden it for the bishop?

I don't really have an answer to your question about bishops in particular. But just wanted to point out that marriage is optional for everyone, not just bishops. But things such as being vigilant, sober, of good behavior, etc, are not optional for anyone.

in Christ,
Mary.

[David Lindblom]

I don't really have an answer to your question about bishops in particular. But just wanted to point out that marriage is optional for everyone, not just bishops. But things such as being vigilant, sober, of good behavior, etc, are not optional for anyone.

in Christ,
Mary.

But, to play Devil's advocate, the scripture starts w/ must be and that is followed by what a bishop must be. Being a husband is one of these things. Why is it that only one of the things that the scripture states a bishop must be is made optional while the others are not? It does not matter how everyone else can be this is a listing of specific requirements for a specific thing...to hold the office of a bishop.

[Mary]

But, to play Devil's advocate, the scripture starts w/ must be and that is followed by what a bishop must be. Being a husband is one of these things. Why is it that only one of the things that the scripture states a bishop must be is made optional while the others are not? It does not matter how everyone else can be this is a listing of specific requirements for a specific thing...to hold the office of a bishop.

Ok. Let's play.

If, what applies to everyone else, doesn't apply to the bishop, namely, marriage is optional for everyone except for the bishop, does that mean, there's something different about the bishop? Is he more Christian? More Holy? More unholy? If, we believe, that in Christ, all are equal, male and female, slave and free, Jew and Greek, then shouldn't the bishop and the layman also be equal? If they are equal, then the same requirements apply to all. However, if they're not the same, well...anything goes. But who makes the rules for bishops? Would it be God, or man? And who makes the rules for laymen? God or man?

I think, by default, in order for the church to be real, we have no choice but to be equal.

in Christ,
Mary.

(ps: I'd be most indebted to anyone who would tell me who's fault default is.)

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

This is a good example of how written texts cannot be understood apart from their interpretative traditions. The verse in question could be read either way, but if it does mean that bishops must be married, then we would expect to find that interpretation reflected in the commentary and discipline of the early Church. Instead, we find very early evidence of unmarried apostles and bishops leading to a consensual rule that bishops should be unmarried. Anyone who wishes to be contentious must bear the burden of proof that the rule was once otherwise.

I would also point out that if the Apostle had meant to require bishops to be married, he would simply have written that a bishop must be "married" (gegamenos , or sometimes simply gamos). Instead, he says "man of one woman," which in the tradition of the Scriptures means married no more than once.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

[Herman Blaydoe]

On another Christian forum a Church of Christ fella charged the Orthodox w/ changing scripture in favor of their traditions. He used the example of Bishops no longer being married w/in Orthodoxy. Not just that they aren't required to be married but that they are required not to be married. He used the verse in I Timothy 3:

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

He stressed that the word must was used leaving no room for change. We informed him that in the very literal versions the word behooves was used indicating that there was some choice in the matter but it was best for the bishop to be married. But, he does have a point. Most would agree that the rest of the requirements are not optional so why have we picked out the marriage part and not only made marriage optional but have, in practice, forbidden it for the bishop? According to the Orthodox Study Bible it was done away w/ because the laity just couldn't get comfortable w/ their bishops being married so it was done away w/. Is this then a similar situation as the divorce issue Jesus dealt w/ when He said that divorce was allowed by Moses because of the hardness of the people's hearts? Are Orthodox hearts hard on this issue?

I've heard the arguments in favor of this stating that the bishops have chosen to be celibate in order to serve God more fully and that w/ their heavy load of responsibility having a family would be very difficult. But, does not scripture trump this kind of thinking? It has the appearance of wisdom but is against clear scripture.

Yes, I get this question quite frequently. Here is how I generally reply: First off, it should be noted that Holy Scripture does not REQUIRE that a bishop be married. It simply says that if he is married, he is only to have had no more than one wife. Several apostles never married and there were married and unmarried men as the first bishops of the Church.

In the Orthodox Church there is actually no prohibition against married bishops. We simply choose to select our bishops from monastics and unmarried clergy as a rule, but not exclusively. From time to time, because of circumstances, widowers have been selected to be bishops. There are several reasons why the Church does this.

First off, the office of the bishop is a very heavy responsibility. His first duty is to God and to the people he serves, leaving not much time or devotion to give to a wife. Secondly, it was found early on that a married episcopacy had several problems, not the least of which was the problem of nepotism and inheritance. The Church did not want the office of the bishop or Church property to become inherited, the property of one family. This was not such a big deal in the early Church because lives were often short and people generally poor, especially for bishops due to persecutions. But once the Church became "legal" and the persecutions stopped, the accumulation of wealth became an issue. Once monasticism became prevalent in the fourth century, it became the practice of the Church to select bishops from unmarried priests and monastics, men who had totally devoted their lives to God and prayer.

Could the Church decide to ordain married men to the episcopacy in the future? Yes, it could. However, Orthodox Church is conciliar in nature, and would need to decide to do this as a whole, not simply one church in one place. Our bishops must be in agreement or the Church is divided.

One extra thought. Who is saying this? Is it Christ? No? It is St. Paul, speaking for the Church. Which means (at least to me) that those appointed by the Church have the authority to make such guidelines, since it is obviously not something mandated by Christ. If the Church can make the guidelines, they are fully within their authority to decide from whence to choose their candidates, and that is thoroughly within Holy Scripture, not a change to it, not an addition to it. How hard is that to understand?

Herman the Pooh

[Father David Moser]

The bishop stands in the place of Christ - and the one bride of Christ is ... the Church. Hence a bishop cannot be divided between an earthly wife and the Church. That is the fact that was soon realized and which leads to the monastic episcopacy. The wife of the bishop is the Church. We don't change scripture but we "rightly divide the word of truth" (that is "properly interpret scripture")

Fr David Moser

[Michael Stickles]

A few thoughts:

First, the 48th canon of the council of Trullo (accepted by the 7th ecumenical council) states:


The wife of him who is advanced to the Episcopal dignity, shall be separated from her husband by their mutual consent, and after his ordination and consecration to the episcopate she shall enter a monastery situated at a distance from the abode of the bishop, and there let her enjoy the bishop’s provision. And if she is deemed worthy she may be advanced to the dignity of a deaconess.

In other words, if the wife does not wish to separate from her husband, or the husband does not wish to separate from his wife, then the husband may not be advanced to the Episcopal dignity. So, married men technically aren't barred from the episcopate, but it makes more sense to elevate one who is not married (whether never married, or widowed) than to ask a currently married man to separate from his wife. Herman covered other aspects of this in detail, which I won't repeat.

Second, as Adrian pointed out, Paul, who was unmarried (as he testified in 1 Cor. 9), was also a bishop (that the apostles were bishops can be pointed out using Acts 1:20 - "his bishopric let another take"; the word used is the same as in 1 Timothy), and it is unlikely (to say the least) that Paul would have promulgated requirements which he could not meet himself.

Even in the sola scriptura mindset characteristic of the Church of Christ, scripture must be interpreted in a way that allows it to remain consistent with itself. Interpreting 1 Timothy 3 the way this fellow does is inconsistent with the obvious existence of at least one unmarried bishop - and that bishop is the person writing the scripture in question, no less! The only consistent way to interpret the verse is to say that a bishop, if married, can have (or, have had) no more than one wife. Seems clear to me.

Third, I find it highly amusing that folks using this fellow's form of highly literal scriptural interpretation, almost never use it consistently throughout scripture. Rarely will you find one willing to treat, say, 1 Corinthians 11:5-6 in the same way:


But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.

In Christ,
Michael

[Kosta]

Fr Cyprian makes an important point. The scripture is saying that a bishop must be a "one wife husband". During the first centuries many within the nobility were polygamist in the roman culture, some of these also became converts to christianity. Secondly it means the bishop must not be a serial monogamist, but have only had one wife.. When candidates for the episcopal rank were allowed to marry, the canons prohibited a candidate from being married to an actress or former harlot or other questionable lifestyle.

Michael also points to canon 48. Anotherwords bishops can still be married. But they must both consentually agree to seperate, with the wife living a monastic life. They also cannot have dependant children.

[David Lindblom]

OK, thanks everybody. This was one of those things for which I did not have an answer that satisfied me. This bothered me a bit and still does but to a lesser degree. As an aside, Brad Nassif makes the point that he's of the opinion that bishops oughta be married. So I'm not completely alone in thinking this.

I had forgotten the aspect of this verse dealing w/ only having one wife. I now remember my brother and I talking about this possible interpretation many years ago.

If anyone else would like to chime in please do.

[Alice]

The bishop stands in the place of Christ - and the one bride of Christ is ... the Church. Hence a bishop cannot be divided between an earthly wife and the Church. That is the fact that was soon realized and which leads to the monastic episcopacy. The wife of the bishop is the Church. We don't change scripture but we "rightly divide the word of truth" (that is "properly interpret scripture")

Fr David Moser

After reading Father's excellent summary, I don't know how anyone can question the Church's stand on unmarried bishops any further.

Ofcourse, I know that in one particular jurisdicition there is subtle and sometimes not so subtle talk wanting to change this--and I think that we need to careful when we hear this talk, because the evil one rears his head to confuse and deceive through sin, and one of those sins might be that of ambition.

[Michael Astley]

I believe that the marriage of bishops was one of the proposals of the highly problematic Meletian congress of 1923 (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/photii_2.aspx). Some of the other proposals were the marriage of clergy after ordination, (which some churches have unilaterally implemented with subdeacons in contravention of the canons), the transferral of Holy Days to Sundays to free up the week for secular pursuits, reducing the fasts, revising the rules about marriage, and revising the Church calendar. Only the last one seems to have really taken off. The rest were rejected.

[Herman Blaydoe]

OK, thanks everybody. This was one of those things for which I did not have an answer that satisfied me. This bothered me a bit and still does but to a lesser degree. As an aside, Brad Nassif makes the point that he's of the opinion that bishops oughta be married. So I'm not completely alone in thinking this.

I had forgotten the aspect of this verse dealing w/ only having one wife. I now remember my brother and I talking about this possible interpretation many years ago.

If anyone else would like to chime in please do.

If you can get all the Orthodox bishops together in council and get this on the agenda, I'm sure a reasonable solution can be worked out....

However, if any single church decided to do this unilaterally, such bishops would probably not be recognized as such by the other churches and that could be a problem...

Herman the never-gonna-be-a-bishop Pooh

[Luke]

After reading Father's excellent summary, I don't know how anyone can question the Church's stand on unmarried bishops any further.

Ofcourse, I know that in one particular jurisdicition there is subtle and sometimes not so subtle talk wanting to change this--and I think that we need to careful when we hear this talk, because the evil one rears his head to confuse and deceive through sin, and one of those sins might be that of ambition.

As a corollary, doesn't the Priest stand in the place of Christ as well? Indeed, he serves (only/properly) under the blessing of the bishop but nevertheless he does but we have made allowances (and rightly so) for this man to be married.

As an aside, allowing marriage only before ordination seems to be a correct teaching on every level.

[Herman Blaydoe]

As a corollary, doesn't the Priest stand in the place of Christ as well? Indeed, he serves (only/properly) under the blessing of the bishop but nevertheless he does but we have made allowances (and rightly so) for this man to be married.

As an aside, allowing marriage only before ordination seems to be a correct teaching on every level.

The priest is merely a substitute for the bishop since the bishop cannot be everywhere. Since even bishops in the early church were married, allowing priests to continue to be so is not a stretch. But the situation changed, once the persecutions stopped, bishops started living longer since they were no longer being killed on a regular basis and the issues of inheritance and nepotism had to be dealt with, not to mention the fact that "easy" legal Christianity was not as fertile a soil for "growing" spiritually mature bishops as the monasteries were.

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

As a corollary, doesn't the Priest stand in the place of Christ as well? Indeed, he serves (only/properly) under the blessing of the bishop but nevertheless he does but we have made allowances (and rightly so) for this man to be married.

Father David can correct me if I'm wrong, but I took his comment to mean that bishops are unmarried as a practical matter, so that they can serve only Christ, not that their Christic role requires celibacy. I think it would be very difficult to argue celibacy for bishops on the basis of their place in persona Christi. That didn't stop Christ from picking married Apostles, neither did it stop the Apostles from ordaining married bishops and priests.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

[Father David Moser]

Father David can correct me if I'm wrong, but I took his comment to mean that bishops are unmarried as a practical matter, so that they can serve only Christ, not that their Christic role requires celibacy.

Yeah, that's what I meant. There is no ontological or essential requirement for celibacy in bishops - its just that its the way the Church works. As a married parish priest, I constantly stuggle with the family/pastoral conflict - I couldn't imagine having to balance all that on the scale of the episcopacy.

Fr David Moser

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear friends,

If I could offer a thought, in reflection on the fine points others have already made.

The original post in this thread referred to the charges, by some, that the insistence upon an unmarried episcopate reflects a 'changing of Scripture'. Here I think we should heartily confirm and affirm that it is; or rather, that the traditions surrounding the details of how the episcopate is lived out are not bound solely by the few references in the pages of the New Testament (which in any case was not a complete library by the time episcopal office was rather well established in the Church).

There are many reasons why the Church in due course settled on its bishops being drawn from the ranks of the monastics - many of which have already been mentioned and reflected upon in previous comments. Some were practical, some historical, some spiritual. But the key point here is that the Church has not 'defined' what and how a bishop exists, solely by the few comments in St Paul's epistles: rather, these epistles themselves represent a certain reflection on key attributes of an apostolic episcopate already in birth in St Paul's time.

Yes, the pattern of bishops being monks was not original to the Church: i.e., in its early days, many of its bishops were married. Not all, but many. But the transformation into an episcopate that is drawn from the monastic ranks does not represent a departure from right Church structuring: it is part of the living Church's practice, guided by the Spirit.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Titus Fulcher]

As a further note/question: In the very early Church - say at the time St Paul was writing St Timothy - isn't it true that the full distinction between Episkopos and Presveteros had not yet emerged?

[Grace Singh]

Fr Cyprian makes an important point. The scripture is saying that a bishop must be a "one wife husband". During the first centuries many within the nobility were polygamist in the roman culture, some of these also became converts to christianity. Secondly it means the bishop must not be a serial monogamist, but have only had one wife.. When candidates for the episcopal rank were allowed to marry, the canons prohibited a candidate from being married to an actress or former harlot or other questionable lifestyle.

Michael also points to canon 48. Anotherwords bishops can still be married. But they must both consentually agree to seperate, with the wife living a monastic life. They also cannot have dependant children.

Kosta ~

as far as having children, i can understand the reasoning. yet Scripturally, there is no such prohibition in having dependent children either, as 1 Timothy 3:2-5 states that bishops must be the husband of one wife (if married) and having control over his own children within his home.

with the change of the church from local churches of mainly poor and persecuted believers, to more organized institutions with some wealth in store, i can see how it became preferable for the bishops to be unmarried, and without dependent children. yet any prohibition on marriage and on children would come ultimately from tradition, not Scripture. not saying it's a bad idea, but the Scriptural permission to have both wife and children in there, provided one has only one wife, and is a strong and discerning father of obedient children.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

grace singh wrote:


yet any prohibition on marriage and on children would come ultimately from tradition, not Scripture.

Keep in mind though that for us Scripture reflects tradition. Also tradition is not an unchanging aspect of the life of the Church- rather tradition is the life of the Church as it is moved by the Holy Spirit. That is why 'that which came before' could be so respected among us. On the other hand as with the episcopacy as it reflected a particular kind of spiritual authority responsible for the faithful it gradually was transformed into a more ascetic & single minded charism.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Herman Blaydoe]

A new thread has been created called Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?6859-Holy-Scripture-and-Holy-Tradition) has been created to discuss the branch topic of the importance of the Bible and Tradition in Orthodoxy.

Herman

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

tradition mandates one thing, and sets a certain respected and honored standard, yet Scripture, in these verses, says something else. the tradition may not be a command, or unbendable in certain circumstances, but it is still respected and upheld, and the Biblical text cited still says what it has always said.

Scripture, in these verses, does not say something else. What Scripture has always said is that a bishop may not have been married more than once. We know this because in the life of the Church we find many examples of apostles and bishops who were never married and no examples of men excluded from being apostles or bishops because they were not married.

The idea that Scripture requires bishops to be married is simply a misreading of Scripture. That misreading is made possible by the failure to understand that all scripture is itself traditional and can only be rightly understood within its originating tradition.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

[Grace Singh]

Scripture, in these verses, does not say something else. What Scripture has always said is that a bishop may not have been married more than once. We know this because in the life of the Church we find many examples of apostles and bishops who were never married and no examples of men excluded from being apostles or bishops because they were not married.

The idea that Scripture requires bishops to be married is simply a misreading of Scripture. That misreading is made possible by the failure to understand that all scripture is itself traditional and can only be rightly understood within its originating tradition.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick


Sir ~

please excuse me, i certainly didn't mean to imply that the Scripture passage said a man *had* to be married to be a bishop, only that it is permissable, whereas tradition tended to mandate that bishops be celibate. not as a rule, but as a matter of what has been done for generations, for reasons not anticipated in Scripture (changes in church hierarchy, issues of inheritance, etc.)

Mary ~

thank you for your post, Ma'am. so what you're saying, essentially, is that in the Orthodox tradition, tradition itself makes that relationship with Christ possible, not through Biblical learnedness, but through participation in the traditions and sacrements?

[Herman Blaydoe]

Sir ~

please excuse me, i certainly didn't mean to imply that the Scripture passage said a man *had* to be married to be a bishop, only that it is permissable, whereas tradition tended to mandate that bishops be celibate. not as a rule, but as a matter of what has been done for generations, for reasons not anticipated in Scripture (changes in church hierarchy, issues of inheritance, etc.)

Actually "tradition" does not mandate any such thing. Unlike the Catholic Church, we do have married clergy, it is just that the Orthodox Church decided that married bishops were no longer "helpful" (1 Corinthians 10:23). The Church simply decided that the best source of candidates was from monasticism, but this is not even always the case. Widower priests have been elected as bishops and technically, a married man could be a bishop if his wife agrees and they both decide to become monastics from that point on.

[Grace Singh]

Actually "tradition" does not mandate any such thing. Unlike the Catholic Church, we do have married clergy, it is just that the Orthodox Church decided that married bishops were no longer "helpful" (1 Corinthians 10:23). The Church simply decided that the best source of candidates was from monasticism, but this is not even always the case. Widower priests have been elected as bishops and technically, a married man could be a bishop if his wife agrees and they both decide to become monastics from that point on.

that is why i said "tended to mandate", and refered elsewhere to general trends being bendable in certain circumstances (such as cited above, both husband and wife agreeing to live as monastics).

Paul also writes :

But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. (1 Corinthians 7:32-34)

in light of these verses, one could also argue that being unmarried, a celibate bishop would have more time and evergy to devote to his work, less to be shared between his work, and his family.