Timothy 1:6 if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination.
Note the blameless part. No one is blameless, all have sinned in the eyes of the lord. I am sure you do not need a reference for that.
How do you allow for blameless to be “symbolized” and loosened in content while in the same verse require an etched in stone interpretation of the other part of the same scripture?
I am not being flippant, I am genuinely interested in the interpretation and understanding involved. This has me a bit baffled spiritually to be honest. I am one who does tend to go as literal as I can in scripture but this would pose a impossibility.
In church, men who are qualified are to be considered or such positions. How do people know they are qualified? Their lives are transparent and the people are a known quantity and quality.
Blameless would mean right with both God, and fellow Man. This would be someone who has no valid known issues with business associates and customers, other families, their own families, and within the Church. It does not mean unfounded accusations couldn't still linger, but they would appear equivocal, at worst. His wife would speak honestly well of him and their friends and acquaintances would be expected to honestly, before God, speak to his Christian walk.
In sum, no man can be sin-free, but can be effectively blameless in his walk. He must repent and seek God through his transgressions, though, and others need to see that, too.